This is not 5E.

To all those out there already condemning this playtest as "boring" or "not new" or "not different enough to justify its existance", please step back and take a moment.

This is a playtest.  It is not the finished new edition. Massive amounts of game is missing and incomplete. This is intentional. WotC are letting us be a part of the process of creating a new edition. This is not yet that new edition. Give feedback and lots of it, but pronouncments about the system, or being so bold as to compre a 31 page playtest with the pathfinder 500 page core rules is missing the point.  Lets help wotc make this game feel newer, less boring, able to justify its existence. This game is like 20% finished and much of what people are dying to see has yet to make an official appearance but almost certainly will (things like powers, tactical combat rules, skills, more theme and backgrounds.)

Summary, lets not make WotC wish they hadn't invited us behind the curtain. This is a huge opportunity
(/rant-preach)
Agreed. The title made me think you'd just be complaining about what you mention others are, though.
You're right.  It's not 5E.  It's Basic D&D with a little more balance.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. 

I'm very eager to see how much gets added to the game over time.  Hopefully TONS more, including rules "modules," because I certainly wouldn't want to pay again for what I started on back in 1981, only less.  Mind you, I'm not really even referring to the number of game elements or the absolute "volume" of the game, I'm really more referring to just how darn SIMILAR it is to that old red box.

If WoTC's idea is to start out with an alpha version of D&D that resembles Basic D&D greatly, then add to it over time then who knows ... maybe by the time the product is finished it will look just like 4e! 

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

The thing is, the whole point of feedback is the positive AND negative.  And really for me I'm sick of people brushing aside negative comments under the blanket of "well it's just the playtest, this isn't finished yet, there'll be more information down the road."  The thing is if we see something like say, the lack of OA and how that creates a gap in the combat system where enemies can just ignore the melee fighters and go step on the whimpering wizard in the background, then it needs to be brought to the developers attention that people find the lack of OA a negative(or maybe a positive, though have yet to see that one) to the game.  But then sure enough someone comes along and just says, "Remember people this is a playtest, there'll be more info later, no need to worry, yada yada yada."

Yes it is a playtest, and unfinished.  They also have more rules that they haven't released it that may include some of the things people are talking about.  But maybe they don't.  So just saying "Don't worry it's just a playtest" is annoying and...kinda crap.  People are reading the rules we have, playing the game, and are expressing their feedback.  And if they're comparing it to an existing system that's fine they're expressing their opinion on maybe something they feel works(or doesn't) in this other system compared to the playtest.  And if the developers see that they might look at that other system and maybe see how that could be a good idea to work into the playtest, or remove whichever. 
The thing is, the whole point of feedback is the positive AND negative.  And really for me I'm sick of people brushing aside negative comments under the blanket of "well it's just the playtest, this isn't finished yet, there'll be more information down the road."  The thing is if we see something like say, the lack of OA and how that creates a gap in the combat system where enemies can just ignore the melee fighters and go step on the whimpering wizard in the background, then it needs to be brought to the developers attention that people find the lack of OA a negative(or maybe a positive, though have yet to see that one) to the game.  But then sure enough someone comes along and just says, "Remember people this is a playtest, there'll be more info later, no need to worry, yada yada yada."

Yes it is a playtest, and unfinished.  They also have more rules that they haven't released it that may include some of the things people are talking about.  But maybe they don't.  So just saying "Don't worry it's just a playtest" is annoying and...kinda crap.  People are reading the rules we have, playing the game, and are expressing their feedback.  And if they're comparing it to an existing system that's fine they're expressing their opinion on maybe something they feel works(or doesn't) in this other system compared to the playtest.  And if the developers see that they might look at that other system and maybe see how that could be a good idea to work into the playtest, or remove whichever. 

Hi Alitain,
I think you're right. Negative feedback is required. Comments about OA is vital. Do we want them? Do we not? Will they exist in a tactical rules module? Etc. But that's not what I'm talking about and I hope people aren't shouting you down when you point out the lack of OAs. What I'm talking about is system wide pronouncements or system comparisons. We need to comment on what we've been given but making pronouncements about "5E" based on this playtest is probably premature.  Also, with regard to defending did you see the Defender mechanic present on the fighter?  It's no OA, but it's a pretty neat use of the core advantage system and I hop that it eventually exists in conjunction with more tactical rules. As a core mechanic, I think it works well and evokes the feel of protection without actually locking enemies down.
 Also, with regard to defending did you see the Defender mechanic present on the fighter?



I'm looking at the sheet right now and there isn't any - was this supposed to go on page 2?

The defender mechanic is on the cleric of moradin. 


the Fighter is much more damage oriented. 


The two clerics are oriented defender that prevents others from getting hurt and a healer that fixes hurts.


I really like the two clerics written and their differences.  It is interesting to me that both heavy armor wearers are dwarves however.        
The defender mechanic is on the cleric of moradin. 


the Fighter is much more damage oriented. 


The two clerics are oriented defender that prevents others from getting hurt and a healer that fixes hurts.


I really like the two clerics written and their differences.  It is interesting to me that both heavy armor wearers are dwarves however.        


Well it makes sense, dwarves don't take negatives to their speed for wearing heavy armor.
Alitain,  I agree that we have to give both positive and negative feedback during the playtest.  And people should not be shouting negative comments down by saying "it's just the playtest."  That's the point exactly, it is a playtest.  Positive and negative feedback will, hopefully, help them design a game that we all can come together over. 
 
Hi Alitain,
I think you're right. Negative feedback is required. Comments about OA is vital. Do we want them? Do we not? Will they exist in a tactical rules module? Etc. But that's not what I'm talking about and I hope people aren't shouting you down when you point out the lack of OAs. What I'm talking about is system wide pronouncements or system comparisons. We need to comment on what we've been given but making pronouncements about "5E" based on this playtest is probably premature.  Also, with regard to defending did you see the Defender mechanic present on the fighter?  It's no OA, but it's a pretty neat use of the core advantage system and I hop that it eventually exists in conjunction with more tactical rules. As a core mechanic, I think it works well and evokes the feel of protection without actually locking enemies down.



Honestly, while kinda helpful that Defender ability from the theme isn't all that great though.  If there's no one adjacent then it's useless.  And it's not where near a true defender role ability to keep enemy focus on yourself and away from the fragile, squishy wizard.  That defender ability while maybe helpful to protect other melee combatants wont stop the monster from walking right past and stepping on the wizard.  I agree it's a neat ability, but no where near helpful for what the game needs.  And no, haven't actually had people yell at me, but I've seen too many people respond to posts about such and such not being there, like the OAs as an example, and their answer is just, "Well it's a playtest so don't worry this isn't the finished game" like that solves everything which yeah it definitely doesn't. 
To all those out there already condemning this playtest as "boring" or "not new" or "not different enough to justify its existance", please step back and take a moment.

This is a playtest.  It is not the finished new edition. Massive amounts of game is missing and incomplete. This is intentional. WotC are letting us be a part of the process of creating a new edition. This is not yet that new edition. Give feedback and lots of it, but pronouncments about the system, or being so bold as to compre a 31 page playtest with the pathfinder 500 page core rules is missing the point.  Lets help wotc make this game feel newer, less boring, able to justify its existence. This game is like 20% finished and much of what people are dying to see has yet to make an official appearance but almost certainly will (things like powers, tactical combat rules, skills, more theme and backgrounds.)

Summary, lets not make WotC wish they hadn't invited us behind the curtain. This is a huge opportunity
(/rant-preach)

I agree with mbeacom, this opportunity is an honor.  treat it as such
in becoming a monster, one knows what it means to be human
Thing is people get behind a computer and think it is a license to act like an idiot.All the designers are asking for at the moment is feedback on the base combat system with a few extras.They are also asking that people do not devolve into name calling and editon wars.I was guilty of warring earlier on but I learned the error of my ways.

There are plenty of people doing the very things above.To the point of earlier posts though we do have alot of people posting negative feedback on things that do matter in the sllightest at this moment.

Useful: Comments either negative or positive about the healing,hitting,damage,cooperative play,how combat is in general like lack of preventive measures (holding the line,opportunity attacks) and various other things closely related to this.

Not useful: Negative feedback or needless feedback on races or classes lacking bonuses,missing classes or races from the playtest and in general anything that absolutely has nothing to do with this playtest that should be slated in future playtests.I have seen so much wasted forum space on such things that it makes it difficult to sift through all the garbage to get to the good stuff.     
Agreed.  The system isn't even cemented yet.  To all those who are furious with what we've been given, I can only say "This is not the edition war you're looking for."

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

My opinion, if you think something isn't working then post about it so it can hopefully be addressed in a later version. On the other hand even if you don't like some aspect of this playtest version there's no reason to panic or scream about the game being a miserable failure or whatever since we're not only missing probably 85% of the rules but even the rules we have aren't set in stone yet. 

So critical but constructive comments is probably useful, but sky-is-falling screaming isn't.

P.S. Personally I'm generally ok with this playtest packet. Most of it I'm either ok with or I think is kind of cool and there's very little I've seen so far that I didn't like. Haven't had a chance to run it yet, though, hopefully I'll get to do it within the week. Should be fun.
The thing is, the whole point of feedback is the positive AND negative.  And really for me I'm sick of people brushing aside negative comments under the blanket of "well it's just the playtest, this isn't finished yet, there'll be more information down the road."  The thing is if we see something like say, the lack of OA and how that creates a gap in the combat system where enemies can just ignore the melee fighters and go step on the whimpering wizard in the background, then it needs to be brought to the developers attention that people find the lack of OA a negative(or maybe a positive, though have yet to see that one) to the game.  But then sure enough someone comes along and just says, "Remember people this is a playtest, there'll be more info later, no need to worry, yada yada yada."

Yes it is a playtest, and unfinished.  They also have more rules that they haven't released it that may include some of the things people are talking about.  But maybe they don't.  So just saying "Don't worry it's just a playtest" is annoying and...kinda crap.  People are reading the rules we have, playing the game, and are expressing their feedback.  And if they're comparing it to an existing system that's fine they're expressing their opinion on maybe something they feel works(or doesn't) in this other system compared to the playtest.  And if the developers see that they might look at that other system and maybe see how that could be a good idea to work into the playtest, or remove whichever. 




Negative feedback is not only wanted but neccissary. Whats not needed is the way people are choosing to provide this feedback. Constructive critisism is needed, not "change this or I quite, this sucks, ect.. (Not accusing you of this just the trend the last few days).
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
Agreed.  The system isn't even cemented yet.  To all those who are furious with what we've been given, I can only say "This is not the edition war you're looking for."



So when it comes out you wont answer our complaints with "you should have given more feedback in the playtest?"
It annoys off when people defend every single little mechanic in the playtest by waving their arms and screaming "It's just a playtest don't criticize this!" Isn't that the point of the playtest, to criticize the game?

Also, why do you care if we criticize it? How does that affect you? It does nothing to you, and only serves to tell WotC what each person wants/doesn't want from the edition.
Agreed.  The system isn't even cemented yet.  To all those who are furious with what we've been given, I can only say "This is not the edition war you're looking for."



So when it comes out you wont answer our complaints with "you should have given more feedback in the playtest?"


You're making the assertion that I'm saying you shouldn't give feedback.  That's erroneous.  If you don't like something, or have an idea on how to improve something, then say something.  But please, don't say you don't like it because it's not 4e (or whatever other edition), and don't just say that you don't like it.  Give reasons.  Be specific about rules and experiences.  What problems are created that need to be addressed?  Is there something that is making your playstyle unecessarily difficult to accomodate?  What problems could your proposed changes circumvent?  Will your proposed changes make it unecessarily harder for other playstyles?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I don't see any real value in the "don't knock this, it isn't finished and you haven't seen the whole picture attitude". Complaining so crap rules get fixed is the point.  
...whatever
If this isn't 5e...what is it? When I'm handed a playtest, and it's not supposed to be the system in question, why am I playtesting it for the purposes of 5e? Are we supposed to play it, smile and say we had fun, then not try to make the game better?

This is the starting point of 5e. If we don't challenge every decision a developer has made (outside the classes, since they don't want that info now) we can't make 5e better.

And delivering feedback in a constructive manner that speaks to finding a solution is what is already lacking because so many people had their expectations set way to high. Far too many people have THIER vision set firmly in mind. I say go a head and complain. Digging for information on the forums for feedback is the worst way to find it. Which is exactly why they should not have done it this way. Just emails from you to their servers. Place “X” in the topic line for easy filtering. The forums should have been more of a place to discuss the playing of the game not the building.


MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
Also, there no feedback to give on future things they haven't showed us. The only thing we can comment on are things they have actually freaking shown us. Assuming that broken things will be fixed later is naive and won't help the process.
...whatever
This isn't 5e? This isn't even a playtest. This is a bare-bones outline of a few random mechanics of a game. I'm not sure what I am supposed to be playtesting.

Can you use 6 stats to accomodate actions? Yes. You can use one, it's called a coin flip. You can also use more. I don't really see how that needs playtested.

You playtest mechanics, you don't playtest if your DM can make up a rule for any particular call.

Upon explaining what we were doing when we gamed, one of my players outright told me "we're not really playtesting anything but you (the DM) and we've already playtested that".

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

And really for me I'm sick of people brushing aside negative comments under the blanket of "well it's just the playtest, this isn't finished yet, there'll be more information down the road."

I'm going to use this post as an example of why you're seeing so much of "it's just a playtest, unfinished and there'll be more information down the road." This isn't intended as an attack on Cypher2009 but simply to provide feedback and why I would be inclined to comment in such a manner.

In this post we see a declaration that X missing is an attack on fans of the edition Y. There is also the assertion that we were promised item Z and that WotC has not delivered.

Now I would be inclined to respond to that post by saying "the reason Z is missing is because this is just a playtest of a basic foundation that will be built upon to allow fans of X to incorporate it into the final product."

I feel the post I'm using as an example isn't constructive feedback because:


  • While it is certainly impassioned, I feel it engages in hyperbole.

  • It posits that WotC is attacking part of it's fanbase which doesn't seem conducive to conversing about the rules as presented in the playtest packet and instead encourages a sidetrack into the motives and actions of WotC.


Now to Cypher2009's credit he does engage in more meaningful feedback in that he engages in a conversation about mechanics and what he would like to see, and what areas he's willing to be flexible on.


What you're seeing is an outcry for more posts in the vein of Cypher2009's second post in that thread rather than the first.


Anger and vitirol can easily dominate the conversation and make it difficult to have a rational discourse on the playtest. We saw quite a bit of it in 2008 on these boards when WotC changed from one edition to the next one. This time WotC has asked us to provide meaningful feedback, which can become difficult when it's drowned out by bile.

And delivering feedback in a constructive manner that speaks to finding a solution is what is already lacking because so many people had their expectations set way to high. Far too many people have THIER vision set firmly in mind. I say go a head and complain. Digging for information on the forums for feedback is the worst way to find it. Which is exactly why they should not have done it this way. Just emails from you to their servers. Place “X” in the topic line for easy filtering. The forums should have been more of a place to discuss the playing of the game not the building.







Forums are good for feedback (provided they are gathering the data in an organized way rather just going by general impressions) but they shouldn't lean so heavily on the WOTC forums for the simple reason that the members are going to be predominantly pele who play 4e. I really think they should be checking out enworld, therpgsite, rpgnet, and old school forums like dragonsfoot. If their aim is to regain the lapsed D&D players, they are going to find them in those places, not here.
The letter from Mr. Mearls says they left out certain aspects of the game to see if they were important, so if as you're playing you end up saying "Where's the rule for X" then that's something to mention. If you play and don't notice that the rule doesn't exist anymore and everything goes well, then it wasn't important anyway.  It would be counterproductive, however, to only read the rules and then say that you didn't see something and it must be in there in order for the game to be good.  That doesn't include any playing or testing in the playtest.  The key to a playtest is playing and testing.

Some of the information about the classes is relevant too.  For example, he said that the two clerics are there to illustrate how domains are supposed to work.  Given that info we can assume that some of the class mechanics are intended to be critiqued.  If the domain system was broken or not fun or whatever, comments would be warranted.  


However, given that this is supposed to help the building of Next, maybe we should err on the side of caution and complain about or praise everything that warrants it, regardless of what the playtest is supposed to test.  Maybe they just threw something together that they didn't mean to keep but it turned out to be great.  Maybe they are dead set on using a particular mechanic and think nothing will change their mind, but everyone hates it.
I think what the original post was referring to was the people freaking about how something is missing in this and everyone's freaking out about it (such as huge lists of feats/skills, lack of classes/races, etc.) Let's stay calm. I think it's important to make note of things we really want to see, but there's not need to go into panic mode.
Thank you so much mbeacom. That can't be said enough right now at this stage in the game.

Negative comments shouldn't be negative. They should be constructive. And frankly they should be seen as such. Comments that this or that is missing, or needs "fixed" or added in later should be taken as seriously, if not moreso, as those that really like the way things are playing now.

And I was actually surprised at the nature of this playtest. The PF Beta was essentially a nearly finished product when they released it. Wizards is really letting us in on the ground level here. The documents we now have are very early and very rough in many senses. They also are engineered to check certain mechanics and aspects of play. The best thing you can do is play the heck out of what we have now and give feedback on how it goes. The advantage disadvantage mechanic is an example of a new idea that needs lots of play so we can see how it goes. That, as I see it, is the purpose of what we are doing right now.

Again, well said mbeacon. And everyone recall that the finished 5e is supposed to have the core rules and modules included in the PHB/DMG/MM. It will be aa much more "complete" game when it's done.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
With the bits and peices I had recieved I was very discouraged by Next. Having gotten the pdf and reading through it I look forward to the next set of pdfs. Is everything exactly how I would like it? Of course not. Some I just accept on faith that it will be explained later, while others I have mentioned. Also, others have mentioned when I have over looked rules.

My goal is to make 5e the one my group wants to use.
I started playing D&D in the 80's. I've played D&D, 1e, 2e, and 3.xe (and many other RPGs). I also played Magic since it came out (except for a few years around the change of the millennium. I say this so you know a bit of my experience, not because I care about editions.
Thank you so much mbeacom. That can't be said enough right now at this stage in the game.

Negative comments shouldn't be negative. They should be constructive. And frankly they should be seen as such. Comments that this or that is missing, or needs "fixed" or added in later should be taken as seriously, if not moreso, as those that really like the way things are playing now.

And I was actually surprised at the nature of this playtest. The PF Beta was essentially a nearly finished product when they released it. Wizards is really letting us in on the ground level here. The documents we now have are very early and very rough in many senses. They also are engineered to check certain mechanics and aspects of play. The best thing you can do is play the heck out of what we have now and give feedback on how it goes. The advantage disadvantage mechanic is an example of a new idea that needs lots of play so we can see how it goes. That, as I see it, is the purpose of what we are doing right now.

Again, well said mbeacon. And everyone recall that the finished 5e is supposed to have the core rules and modules included in the PHB/DMG/MM. It will be aa much more "complete" game when it's done.

Thanks Sizzaxe,

I was a little disheartened to have some people jump down my throat over this thread, somehow saying I'm trying to stifle negative criticism, which is pretty much the opposite of what I want to do. I want to encourage constructive criticism, both positive and negative. That's what we're supposed to be doing. But we shouldn't be making pronouncements about the system as a whole and how it compares to something like pathfinder which is complete and already very mature. We are very lucky to get to be part of a new system like this, at this very early stage of development. It's utterly unprecedented at this level. I would hate for WotC to see all the rampant anger and useless negativity (and positivity where it exists) and regret their decision to include as at this stage of the game. If this stage of the playtest doesn't yield good results, they won't be giving us as many updates, you can count on it so I think it's in OUR best interest and the best interest of the final product to keep our criticism on point and useful.  Fortunately, I've see some really great feedback. I've even had my mind changed on a few things based on it.