So, I dislike almost all of it.

I'm sure I will get yelled at for making a new thread when there are already plenty of existing ones, but I want to get my initial thoughts out after reading the whole packet.

First, I'll mention a few things I DO like.  I think the rolling two d20's and taking the higher for Advantage is a good thing, better than a straight +2 like in other editions, because it evens out the "swing factor" of basing everything on a large single die instead of a pool of dice like most other RPG's.  The swinginess of the d20 in skill rolls is something that's always bothered my in D&D, and allowing the players to somewhat often change that into a roll 2d20 take the higher is a good way to balance that out a bit.  I like that you guys kept the "easy healing" of 4e and didn't make a cleric required, even though I'm sure there was a lot of push to make it like it was in 2e where it was impossible to play without one.  Healing kits are moderately interesting and using hit dice instead of healing surges seems ok.  Having rituals be a tagalong to existing spells is kind of a cool idea, but it also is a "solution" to a "problem" that you're only creating yourselves (more on that below).

So, things that I don't like:

First, I really dislike the overall tone of pandering to grognards and talking about how 1e and 2e were better than 3e and how 4e just sucked.  I get it.  Mearls hates 4e and loves 1e.  That's fine, but having that opinion infuse every part of the rules makes the whole packet sound snide and spiteful, enflaming the very edition wars that you guys are claiming to not want to incite.  Stop "talking down" to people who like minis and balanced combat by explaining why the "theater of the mind" is superior and why "too many options" are bad for the fighter and so on.  If a return to 1e is truly better, then it should be able to stand on its own; it shouldn't need constant justification within the rules for why you think it's better.  Rules should be rules, not cheerleading for your new edition and putting down your other editions.

I also dislike the constant reminders of "the rules don't really matter, the DM will just handle everything!"  I understand that a big part of the appeal of 1e is that you're not "chained down" by rules and the DM is allowed to just make things up and not worry about balance or mechanics.  But I don't really find that a selling point.  I already have an awesome book that lets me make up my own rules and do whatever I can imagine: it's called a blank notebook, and I can buy it at Walmart for 50 cents.  If I'm going to spend money on an actual game book, it needs to contain rules that actually make a good game, not a whole bunch of encouraging prose telling me to make things up on my own.  When I see things like "These DC's are all just estimates, feel free to change them to what works for your game!" I don't think "Wow, how freeing, I'm so glad this book is letting me change the rules as written", I think "Crap, the designers have realized the math behind these numbers is total crap, and I'm going to have to fix it for them to make this game playable."  Likewise, all the allegedly "positive" things about how skills and class balance are totally off and are "allowed" to be adjucated or how the DM is strongly "encouraged" to fudge die rolls or make up random crap to ensure the game mechanics don't ruin gameplay aren't positives to me; they are signs that the mechanics as written don't work and that the authors are trying to shift the problem and the blame onto the DM.  "Oh, your party gets TPK'd constantly and all of your skill challenges fail terribly?  You're just a bad DM."  I don't want to pay money to have to figure out how to redo the math to make the game work, and I don't want to pay money to get a game where the math doesn't work on its own and requires me to fudge it constantly in order to have a decent experience.  A game like that isn't worth anything to me; I might as well just freeform roleplay at that point.

Along the same lines, having your playtest adventure be the Caves of Chaos, and saying that you're trying to test monster balance, but then having a lengthy prose section talking about the "positives" of it being completely unbalanced and unusable as written, and that it will result in a TPK if used as written, and requiring (sorry, "encouraging) the DM to redo all the encounters and figure out how to make it work without killing the party is dumb.  How can I test to see if your combat math works if you're telling me you have no idea what the challenge rating of any of these encounters is and that you're pretty sure they don't work at all unless I change them?  Having the players be unsure if they can survive a combat and unsure if the encounters are actually balanced to their level might be sort of interesting (to me it's not, but I can see the appeal), but having the DM have no idea if the encounters are balanced or whether the party is likely to survive is absolutely not exciting; it's stupid and just makes it harder to DM.

Next up on the complain train:  Vancian casting.  I hate it, I've always hated it, and I always will hate it.  You've introduced a few new systems to ease the pain of Vancian casting, like Ritual addons, but as I mentioned above, if you find yourself coming up with a bunch of subsystems and subrules to ease the pain of your first rule, you should ask yourself why you think the painful rule is so important.  "Because it was in 1e" is not enough for me.  Vancian sucks, and plenty of people who played all the editions agreed it sucked but lived with it because they had no real choice.  I've already read a few responses from Mearls saying that the wizard was going to be the way he wants it and he doesn't care how many people complain, and that's not exactly encouraging for what's supposed to be a "gathering feedback" event.  I understand Mearls has put his foot down and the wizard is going to be Vancian come hell or high water, but that doesn't stop me from saying I hate it and I hope to got that someone on the team other than Mearls gets to design the sorcerer or warlock to make an arcane caster that doesn't have to deal with Vancian bullshit.

Making the fighter as boring as possible - Again, Mearls has talked a lot about how wizards are for smart players and fighters are for people too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time.  I strongly disagree with this, but Mearls has been championing this idea since Essentials and has again said a few times he's going to refuse to budge on it no matter how many complaints there are, so again, I'm not sure what the point is but I'm going to say I hate this as well.  The fighter is boring as is, and I really hope that someone else on the team gets to design something similar like a "Weaponmaster" or "Warblade" that brings back some of the interesting parts of the fighter from 4e.

Finally - modularity.  I understand that "modular" is the buzzword for 5e and you guys are pretty fixated on it, but I think you'll find that it's not really the holy grail you think it is.  There are a lot of rules missing from combat currently that make it pretty unusable, and plenty of defenders on the forums saying that it will all be solved by "modules".  But if you require modules in order to make the game balanced and playable, then it's not actually modular.  One example is how using a grid and placement is "optional" and that things like OA's are unnecessary but could be "modules" for people who think they need it to balance combat.  There is a very good chance that perhaps the people who say OA's are needed to balance combat are actually right, and not just 3e/4e holdouts who can't appreciate 1e.  If the only way to run combat without the "module" is for the DM to figure out on his own that he's not supposed to ever attack the wizard, and for the DM to figure out on his own that he's supposed to ignore all the ranges and areas and shapes in the spell section that you spent time on and just "pretend" that the wizard's always in the perfect position to hit everything he wants without hitting his friends, then you have a problem, and your game is being dishonest.  If you know ahead of time that these rules for shapes and areas and such are completely unusable without some kind of grid, it's dishonest to say "You don't need a grid, just use the theatre of the mind!" without mentioning that actually, the DM needs to basically ignore all the rules you're then setting out as "core" in order to actually make the game work.  Unless you have a real example of how a detailed description of a cone and line of effect is supposed to be used where there is no grid, I don't think you can pretend it's supposed to be used somehow.  Similarly, if you know that the only thing that will keep the wizard alive in the absence of defender mechanics and OA's is the DM faking it and making sure his monsters only attack the fighter and not the wizard, you need to say that, and not just leave it unsaid and then blame the "bad DM" for TPK's.  I think a lot of the things that make 1e work (the DM fudging everything and not using the actual rules as written) are being left unsaid because it probably makes the product look bad, but if you're insistent on presenting these minimal rules as a valid way to play, you need to include the "dirty secrets" for the DM - ie, never attack the wizard, fudge all the die rolls, change monster hp's randomly to make them die whenever you want, fudge all the ranges and spell areas, fudge the durations of everything so that "one minute" just means "one encounter".  These are things that someone who's familiar with 1e and 2e will figure out, but if you're purposely rolling back the new terminology of "lasts for an encounter" to "lasts for a minute" to mimic 1e, you should also include a note to DM's that they need to ignore most of the times and durations and just wing it.

OK, that's my wall of text for now.  Hope you guys like it!
Skill Challenge Alternative: The Chase

I agree with much of what you said, both in content and in spirit.

However, in theory, this is just the very, very start of the playtest, and, supposedly, there could be a lot more to come and a lot more changes in store.

Of course, I tend to believe that all the major elements are already fixed, and there will be no major modifications to the skeleton that we've seen here.

There may be more 'modules' down the road, but I'd assume many of the core elements are here, and presented as more-or-less how they will appear in the final edition.  Things like AC, Vancian Magic, Saves, DCs, Weapon Types, all of those sacred cows are back, and in force, to appeal to the "lapsed" gamers (Grognards) who refused to move into 3e/4e and only want "their game" played "their way".

As I've stated in other threads, I may be in the minority, but I was hoping that 4e would be the basis for 5e, and that we'd see evolutionary changes from there.  I can only see this agglomeration of past editions for what it is--a "greatest hits" version of D&D that looks primarily to the past instead of looking to create something new.

...but...so it goes...4e will be dead within a year, 5e will be the game, and there may or may not be a disenfranchised player base of "NeoGrogs(?)" who refuse to move off of 4e and into 5e.

But, I think giving up all hope at the very first hours of 5e is premature--we may be right, the path may well be as we think it will be, but I'm at least willing to see where it goes before casting my final judgment and either spending or saving my money on the finished product.
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Of course you dislike almost all of it.  Because the things you like, are wanting to expect, and are going to receive, haven't been implemented yet.

Seriously.  You acknowledge that there are a lot of rules missing, yet bash what's there because those rules are gone?  Guess what:  they are not proposing that this is the end product, do not evaluate it as one.  This is not the end design of the fighter.  There will be more classes.  There will be more races.  Bashing it as a whole is not useful.  They know the things that you're complaining about aren't in there, they specifically chose not to include them for this round of playtest.  The sky is not falling, the world is not ending, they're not polishing off the final touches before sending it to the printers.

Go read my post, particularly the part about respecting the developers' choices on what to test when.  Insulting them and claiming that they just hate your favorite edition isn't constructive in the slightest.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
+1 to OP
(to OP) Couldn't have said it better myself. I was once excited for the beta playtest. Now, after having read the actual documents, I want to burn a 2nd edition book out of spite.
+1 to makeshiftwings, definitely.

Advantage and disadvantage are ingenious mechanics. The whole "you adjudicate it" aspect of the game is not.

Honestly, the playtest is way too basic. They should have given all of the rules to make characters up to level 5. If those rules are not complete, as some people tell me, then they should not present the rules like this.

I WANT to like this game. I really do. There's a lot of opportunity for excellent choices. It just does not function.

I hope this Mike Mearls individual listens to the community, and that Fighters get cool options.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I was once excited for the beta playtest. Now, after having read the actual documents, I want to burn a 2nd edition book out of spite.


....

Way to be constructive.

Seriously people, how is this a surprise in any way whatsoever?  If you've been even paying slight attention to the process up until now, you'd realize that they've acknowledged most of your concerns and are planning on including them.  That they haven't yet is not an indication that they won't.  They said just the opposite in the very recent announcement of what this playtest will include.

Step back, breathe, and look at the big picture.  If later on down the line, when they roll out the more complex, 4e-style, modern features, and you're still not happy, then provide feedback on those directly.  But whining that they haven't yet put out your things isn't useful.  It's coming.  Patience. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Guess what:  they are not proposing that this is the end product, do not evaluate it as one.  This is not the end design of the fighter.  There will be more classes.  There will be more races.  Bashing it as a whole is not useful.  They know the things that you're complaining about aren't in there, they specifically chose not to include them for this round of playtest.  The sky is not falling, the world is not ending, they're not polishing off the final touches before sending it to the printers.

Go read my post, particularly the part about respecting the developers' choices on what to test when.  Insulting them and claiming that they just hate your favorite edition isn't constructive in the slightest.



I suggest you copy that text into a text file and paste it whenever needed; it'll save you a lot of time.


+1

Honestly, the playtest is way too basic. They should have given all of the rules to make characters up to level 5. If those rules are not complete, as some people tell me, then they should not present the rules like this.



Why should they?  Because it would satisfy your demands?  Sorry, that's not a good enough reason.  They put out the playtest to test exactly what they want to test, not what you want to test.  You have to accept that, and you can't complain that they're not running things the way you would run them. 

They shouldn't present the rules like this, eh?  Well, the alternative is not doing a playtest.  Now tell me, what would you, and makeshiftwings, and the rest of the raging 4e fans prefer?  That this incredibly basic, ridiculously early, mostly incomplete build were still just internal?  If the state of the game is the same as it is now, but you just didn't have the information about it, would you be any happier?  Would you be even more concerned?

They cannot do what you want, right now.  The things you're wanting can't be designed properly until they get the basics done.  And by basics, I don't mean "make the fighter suck because Mearls said so."  I mean how attacks and defenses work, how hitpoints work, how monsters work.  They can't do what you want yet.  But that's not something to rage and complain about:  they'll get to it.

I say this as a huge 4e fan, and someone who will very likely not get 5e if it doesn't have the elements of 4e that I am expecting it to have:  tactically deep combat, wide variety of options for all character concepts, and balance among all character types.  Yet, somehow, I can understand what they're doing, and respect their path for doing it, instead of jumping down their throats for not giving me my pony first, before anyone else.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Of course you dislike almost all of it.  Because the things you like, are wanting to expect, and are going to receive, haven't been implemented yet.



No offense, but the argument that that "If only you would wait, you'd see the great stuff just behind the curtain" is rediculous. We cannot playtest good intentions or wishful thinking. If the developers want our feedback, which, I would point out, is another way of asking us for free labor, they can give us the material they feel confident being evaluated.

Seriously.  You acknowledge that there are a lot of rules missing, yet bash what's there because those rules are gone?  Guess what:  they are not proposing that this is the end product, do not evaluate it as one.  This is not the end design of the fighter.  There will be more classes.  There will be more races.  Bashing it as a whole is not useful.  They know the things that you're complaining about aren't in there, they specifically chose not to include them for this round of playtest.  The sky is not falling, the world is not ending, they're not polishing off the final touches before sending it to the printers.

Go read my post, particularly the part about respecting the developers' choices on what to test when.  Insulting them and claiming that they just hate your favorite edition isn't constructive in the slightest.



It is certainly constructive in the sense that it helps to create a context. Context is what determines the value of intellectual property. If the developers want their property to retain or gain value, they need to understand that a certain portion of the player base considers their current iteration unacceptable.

Ultimately, their job is to sell me something. My job is not to smother them with kisses or smoke out their lower GI tract. If the developers want the player base excited, then they need to understand that the promise of good meat tomorrow makes rancid meat today taste no better.
@Mand12
You are fighting the good fight sir.  I fear it's hopeless to change fears and dismay.  I do though think when the extra stuff comes out it will restore them or at least some of them.

 
they need to understand that a certain portion of the player base considers their current iteration unacceptable.


Except they know it's unacceptable.  They know exactly why it's unacceptable.  And they've told you, speifically, the sorts of things they're going to do to address that.  They also told you that it's not in this version, and that it's coming later.  Respect their choice.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ultimately, their job is to sell me something.


I'd argue that their job right now is not to sell the game, but to create it. They're not asking us to buy it; they're asking us to help build the game.

they need to understand that a certain portion of the player base considers their current iteration unacceptable.


Except they know it's unacceptable.  They know exactly why it's unacceptable.  And they've told you, speifically, the sorts of things they're going to do to address that.  They also told you that it's not in this version, and that it's coming later.  Respect their choice.



First: No.

Second: so, they know that vancian magic is unacceptable? The fighter, the wizard, the silly distance and shape measures, the... well, the everything?

So, what was the point of the playtest? An exercise in Mosochism? An attempt to measure the temperature at which their inadequate server architecture finally melts down?

Ultimately, their job is to sell me something.


I'd argue that their job right now is not to sell the game, but to create it. They're not asking us to buy it; they're asking us to help build the game.



They are crowdsourcing things that they otherwise would have to pay for. To imagine your position in this exchange otherwise is to adopt a supine attitude.

Are you (or I, or anyone here) going to get the game for free for having donated hours to playtesting it? No? Then they are ultimately trying to sell me something. This is simply a cheaper way of doing a survey.

First: No.


If you can't respect the developers, then why are you here?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ultimately, their job is to sell me something.


I'd argue that their job right now is not to sell the game, but to create it. They're not asking us to buy it; they're asking us to help build the game.



Not quite: they're asking us to provide (free) data on what type of game we (collectively) want to play in order for them to understand what they need to do to create a game that is most likely to successfully sell the most amount of product to the majority of us.





"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Honestly, the playtest is way too basic. They should have given all of the rules to make characters up to level 5. If those rules are not complete, as some people tell me, then they should not present the rules like this.



Why should they?  Because it would satisfy your demands?  Sorry, that's not a good enough reason.  They put out the playtest to test exactly what they want to test, not what you want to test.  You have to accept that, and you can't complain that they're not running things the way you would run them. 

They shouldn't present the rules like this, eh?  Well, the alternative is not doing a playtest.  Now tell me, what would you, and makeshiftwings, and the rest of the raging 4e fans prefer?  That this incredibly basic, ridiculously early, mostly incomplete build were still just internal?  If the state of the game is the same as it is now, but you just didn't have the information about it, would you be any happier?  Would you be even more concerned?

They cannot do what you want, right now.  The things you're wanting can't be designed properly until they get the basics done.  And by basics, I don't mean "make the fighter suck because Mearls said so."  I mean how attacks and defenses work, how hitpoints work, how monsters work.  They can't do what you want yet.  But that's not something to rage and complain about:  they'll get to it.

I say this as a huge 4e fan, and someone who will very likely not get 5e if it doesn't have the elements of 4e that I am expecting it to have:  tactically deep combat, wide variety of options for all character concepts, and balance among all character types.  Yet, somehow, I can understand what they're doing, and respect their path for doing it, instead of jumping down their throats for not giving me my pony first, before anyone else.



I'm working on a tabletop game system right now. After a few weeks of work, I posted it online to be playtested and critiqued. I wanted to test the classes, so I put the full class rules (up to level 10) online. I gave all the materials to create characters at those levels, becuase i wanted feedback on all the abilites, not just one or two.

If it were me, I wouldn't release something so incomplete and basic as this. I'd rather they either tweak it and release a more complete version, or release a lot more of what they had planned.

By the way, I don't like 4th Edition very much. The best thing that came out of it was Gamma World, in my humble opinion.

 I don't want my "pony", as you so insultingly put it. I want a number of options so that I can build my own character, i.e. fill the role that a player is expected to fill. I want to experiment, combine abilities, see what works and what doesn't. I can't do that with what they have given me. It's like being told that I can have as much lego as I want later, but right now I have to play with six pieces until they feel like giving me more.

Then, when I complain that it's not enough to play with, everyone tells me to sit down, shut up, and like it.

Well, the pieces I've been given are pretty lackluster, and until I'm given more I'm going to make my own pieces. 
I'm working on a tabletop game system right now. After a few weeks of work, I posted it online to be playtested and critiqued. I wanted to test the classes, so I put the full class rules (up to level 10) online. I gave all the materials to create characters at those levels, becuase i wanted feedback on all the abilites, not just one or two.

Guess what?  They're not wanting to test the classes with this round.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Are you (or I, or anyone here) going to get the game for free for having donated hours to playtesting it? No? Then they are ultimately trying to sell me something. This is simply a cheaper way of doing a survey.


I won't be getting it for free, but having a glimpse at the creation process and getting a chance of influencing the direction is good enough for me. Why wouldn't it be?

+1 to OP
First: No.


If you can't respect the developers, then why are you here?



What an odd question... I am here because I am afraid they are going to screw up development, and I'm doing my best to curtail their worst excesses.

If I really and trully respected them, I wouldn't need to give them so much instruction beforehand.

I respect my surgeon, this leads, by strange logic, to me not feeling that I need to give him advice...

Are you (or I, or anyone here) going to get the game for free for having donated hours to playtesting it? No? Then they are ultimately trying to sell me something. This is simply a cheaper way of doing a survey.


I won't be getting it for free, but having a glimpse at the creation process and getting a chance of influencing the direction is good enough for me. Why wouldn't it be?



Do you reply to every phone survey about politics? What's your favorite Ice cream? Can you help me move, bro, it's just a few boxes....

Seriously, to ask "why wouldn't it be?" invites the counter: why would it be?


I would also guess that the reason this playtest so resembles Old School D&D is because that's the Target Market that WotC is desperate to get back into the fold, and they want their opening shot to push all the right Grognard Buttons in order to get them on board from the start.

It's a move calculated to show that whatever they didn't like in 4e isn't in 5e, and that 5e "really is" the game they remember/love (but stopped buying).

So, get them in, get them hooked, get them "over" 4e, and then show how those who want to can get rid of some/most/all of the Old School elements and play 4e under 5e rules.

(which does beg the question of "Why not just play 4e", but time for that later).

As a 4e fan, I really want to see 5e as much more like 4e than AD&D/2e, but I'm already in the WotC buying stream since I am buying 4e products.  So, I'm not the one they need to get interested in the playtest--they need the "lapsed player base" to come bring their millions of unspent dollars back into the buying cycle...

Of course, if 5e doesn't improve upon 4e, or doesn't make sense as a reason to play 5e over 4e, or doesn't impress me or give me a "Gotta Have It" feeling, then I'll become part of the (new) lapsed player base, but I think they're willing to lose the 4e crowd to get the 1e/2e/3e players back...

BUT...all this is pure speculation until we see how this all turns out...and my real point is that I'd guess that this hyper-nostalgic playtest is specifically intended to target a specific audience--it's even why a classic module was brought back and included...

So, maybe the game will end up with more 4e-like-ness down the road, maybe it won't, but don't think this initial offering is anything but a calculated move designed to trigger a certain response by a select audience...
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

By the by Mand, you seem to have gotten so hung up on the "No", I have to ask, what is the answer to the more pertinent question I asked...
they need to understand that a certain portion of the player base considers their current iteration unacceptable.


Except they know it's unacceptable.  They know exactly why it's unacceptable.  And they've told you, speifically, the sorts of things they're going to do to address that.  They also told you that it's not in this version, and that it's coming later.  Respect their choice.



First: No.

Second: so, they know that vancian magic is unacceptable? The fighter, the wizard, the silly distance and shape measures, the... well, the everything?

So, what was the point of the playtest? An exercise in Mosochism? An attempt to measure the temperature at which their inadequate server architecture finally melts down?


Seriously, if the answer to every criticism is "it's coming, don't worry", what's the point in asking for feedback until the forethcoming material is... you know, actually available?
The answer is that you should go read their post on Vancian systems, where they responded to the poll results that indicated that both Vancian and non-Vancian systems were desired.  But, unfortunately, if you don't respect the developers then it's kindof hard for you to take their statements seriously, no?  I figured it'd be a waste of time if you've already written them off.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The answer is that you should go read their post on Vancian systems, where they responded to the poll results that indicated that both Vancian and non-Vancian systems were desired.  But, unfortunately, if you don't respect the developers then it's kindof hard for you to take their statements seriously, no?  I figured it'd be a waste of time if you've already written them off.



And, in part, we've seen a combination of Vancian and Non-Vancian in the current playtest.

There may or may not be any significant future changes to what has already been presented since what there is now already fulfills the minimum descriptor of ("V & ~V")
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

What an odd question... I am here because I am afraid they are going to screw up development, and I'm doing my best to curtail their worst excesses.

If I really and trully respected them, I wouldn't need to give them so much instruction beforehand.

I respect my surgeon, this leads, by strange logic, to me not feeling that I need to give him advice...



IMO, what you're talking about there is trust, not respect. They're not quite the same thing.


Do you reply to every phone survey about politics? What's your favorite Ice cream? Can you help me move, bro, it's just a few boxes....

Seriously, to ask "why wouldn't it be?" invites the counter: why would it be?


I'm on the DNC list. Maple. No, I don't know you.


Why would it be? Because for as long as I've been gaming, it's first time I've seen a major developper/publisher ask me for my direct input.


So, again, why wouldn't it be?

Mand12, I demand you stop being reasonable. Its making it hard for me to sustain my burning rage.
Of course you dislike almost all of it.  Because the things you like, are wanting to expect, and are going to receive, haven't been implemented yet.


Actually, no, I've read plenty of diatribes from Mearls where he specifically says I will not receive any of the things I want because those things are "bad".  And what do you think the point of the playtest and feedback boards are if no one is allowed to critique anything?  Don't be ridiculous.  Of course we're supposed to talk about the rules they've given us; that's the entire point.  It's not helpful to just say "In my head, I imagine that eventually everything will be totally different and awesome, so no one is allowed to talk about these playtest materials!"  First, I don't share your rather naive belief that somehow everything will just magically turn awesome, because much of this design team is from 1e and 2e and I'm familiar with their work.  Second, even if I did hold a belief that somehow everything will magically turn awesome, I'd still be giving feedback on the playtest rules as they are and not telling people to just shut up and hope for the best.  That's the point of a playtest.  It's a test, not a "cheer on the team and wish them luck" event.

They know the things that you're complaining about aren't in there, they specifically chose not to include them for this round of playtest


That's not remotely true.  I get the feeling you haven't really been reading any of the design articles up to this point.  These rules are exactly like what they've been talking about all along; they've specifically talked about how they want to get rid of OA's, subactions in a round, complicated fighters, etc.


Go read my post, particularly the part about respecting the developers' choices on what to test when.  Insulting them and claiming that they just hate your favorite edition isn't constructive in the slightest.


Mearls has straight up said that he hates 4e and wants the game to return to 1e.  I'm not making that up.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />What an odd question... I am here because I am afraid they are going to screw up development, and I'm doing my best to curtail their worst excesses.

If I really and trully respected them, I wouldn't need to give them so much instruction beforehand.

I respect my surgeon, this leads, by strange logic, to me not feeling that I need to give him advice...



Yeah. Looking at the rules I can see the designers need some help with this product, and I'd like to see 5E D&D come out well so as to get a playable game.

I shudder to imagine that in today's world, that is indeed what passes for reason.



How so? I agree with Mand12 that right now we're overreacting. I am very worried about Fighters and balance and combat and all sorts of things and its driving me crazy that I can't be certain they won't screw it up.

So yeah, its reasonable to wait a bit. I know very well that this is the beginning and can't expect what I want to be ready yet. But I'm nervous and the older edition people irritate me constantly.

I should note that despite acknowledging that Mand12 is right, I still won't stop complaining about the Fighter. Its too important to me and I have nothing else to do.
Mand12...

I know you are keen to defend 5e, but please listen to what people are actually saying.

They arn't saying "our favorite features are not in here yet" they are saying "the basic skeleton onto which the features I want to be added is an undesirable skeleton"

People are critiquing the game as is, the basic core skeleton of the game. All the modern bells and whistles will not matter a jot if the underlying basic rules are a mess. Most of the OPs points address the game as-is, not what is missing but what is currently there.

Now I can't comment on how this plays yet, because I havn't playtested it yet - however the playtest reports that I have so far read have been negative, unless the playtester was into the OSR movement. 3e and 4e players seem to be saying that what they have seen so far is not the basis of a game that they'd enjoy. From the playtest stuff my group has been giving this a thumbs down - not from lack of modern options, but from basic stuff like how hit-points and healing work.

It may be that the gorgnards and the modernites just can't be reconciled by building on the framework as presented, and hopefully feedback from both camps will help reshape the basic underlying game to something that both camps can get behind.


I would also guess that the reason this playtest so resembles Old School D&D is because that's the Target Market that WotC is desperate to get back into the fold, and they want their opening shot to push all the right Grognard Buttons in order to get them on board from the start.

It's a move calculated to show that whatever they didn't like in 4e isn't in 5e, and that 5e "really is" the game they remember/love (but stopped buying).

So, get them in, get them hooked, get them "over" 4e, and then show how those who want to can get rid of some/most/all of the Old School elements and play 4e under 5e rules.

(which does beg the question of "Why not just play 4e", but time for that later).

As a 4e fan, I really want to see 5e as much more like 4e than AD&D/2e, but I'm already in the WotC buying stream since I am buying 4e products.  So, I'm not the one they need to get interested in the playtest--they need the "lapsed player base" to come bring their millions of unspent dollars back into the buying cycle...

Of course, if 5e doesn't improve upon 4e, or doesn't make sense as a reason to play 5e over 4e, or doesn't impress me or give me a "Gotta Have It" feeling, then I'll become part of the (new) lapsed player base, but I think they're willing to lose the 4e crowd to get the 1e/2e/3e players back...

BUT...all this is pure speculation until we see how this all turns out...and my real point is that I'd guess that this hyper-nostalgic playtest is specifically intended to target a specific audience--it's even why a classic module was brought back and included...

So, maybe the game will end up with more 4e-like-ness down the road, maybe it won't, but don't think this initial offering is anything but a calculated move designed to trigger a certain response by a select audience...



I agree that this seems to be their plan, so I just want to make sure they understand that a lot of people who didn't "lapse" are strongly against bringing back bad rules just to win back grognards.  WotC seems to think that people who played 3e or 4e are just going to buy 5e anyway so they're safe in ignoring them all and just focusing on hooking the really cranky old bearded dudes, but I think it's a mistake.  There's no guarantee that those cranky bearded dudes will want to start spending money on a new D&D after all this time, especially since they have jobs and families and massive mortgage debts now, and I don't think there's enough of them that trading in your current audience for them is going to make more money.
Except they're not critiquing the core skeleton.  "Mearls wants the fighter to suck, so they only get basic attacks" is not the core skeleton of the Fighter class.  It's an example of the core skeleton of the Attack Roll vs AC mechanic.

I can comment on how this plays yet, because I've been playing it for months.  And while yes, what has been presented so far is largely reminiscent of 1e, I see design principles of 4e that even in the very early version were part of the design.  Not all of which, by the way, is present in this packet.  I have more information than you do, to put it bluntly.

Which is why I'm doing my best to get people to step back from what we're given, recognize its incompleteness, and think about this entire year-long process that we're now less than 48 hours into.  We have plenty of time to be patient.  But, and I want to emphasize this, if as we progress to the more detailed phases and the things from 4e that I really, really like aren't being included and there's indications that they aren't likely to be included, then you can bet I'm going to be just as keen to criticize them for it as I am to defending them now.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I shudder to imagine that in today's world, that is indeed what passes for reason.



How so? I agree with Mand12 that right now we're overreacting. I am very worried about Fighters and balance and combat and all sorts of things and its driving me crazy that I can't be certain they won't screw it up.

So yeah, its reasonable to wait a bit. I know very well that this is the beginning and can't expect what I want to be ready yet. But I'm nervous and the older edition people irritate me constantly.

I should note that despite acknowledging that Mand12 is right, I still won't stop complaining about the Fighter. Its too important to me and I have nothing else to do.



See, I think the problem with what you are saying, and very clearly with what Mand is saying, is that he seems incapable of understanding the true complaint: the basics, the very core of the system is wrong, is going in the wrong direction.

Rather then this being a time to sit back and be patient, now is the time to be loud. I'm not being hyperbolic: right now we are working the basic elements, the things that everything is built on. If those are wrong, off, then everything built on that foundation will be affected.

The foundation is the time to be most skeptical, most demanding, because an error now will translate through everything that is built later.

Edit: Heh, amusing serendipity. I point out that Mand doesn't recognize that the complaints are actually directed at the core, and he posts at the same time;
Except they're not critiquing the core skeleton.  "Mearls wants the fighter to suck, so they only get basic attacks" is not the core skeleton of the Fighter class.  It's an example of the core skeleton of the Attack Roll vs AC mechanic.



Sorry bub, but yeah, we're critiquing the core skeleton. Dem bones be rotten through.

By the by, any joy on that link I asked for?

a "greatest hits" version of D&D
---

I have to agree. 4e I adored. I had given the proper time to learn and respect and came out enjoying it above any other edition (even SECOND!!) but with this D&D Next 5e I am seeing nothing but the same of the old without anything new or evolutionary. I will be saddened once 4e products cease for that will be the day the best edition I enjoyed died, and then we move on to 2e, I mean 5e.... same thing, whatever -_-
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />How so? I agree with Mand12 that right now we're overreacting. I am very worried about Fighters and balance and combat and all sorts of things and its driving me crazy that I can't be certain they won't screw it up.

So yeah, its reasonable to wait a bit.



I actually disagree... It's pretty unreasonable to join a playtest and then refuse to say anything negative about it because you're worried about hurting the designer's feelings.  The whole point of involving yourself in a playtest is to help show the designer what works and what doesn't.  Pretending everything is perfect when you secretly hate it is not doing yourself OR the designers any favors.  They're asking you to playtest because they EXPECT there to be problems and they want to see what people complain about the most.  If everyone tries to be polite and just nods and says "Good work" then the playtest is a failure.

The designers are big boys now.  They can handle our ranting.  They want our ranting; it's the reason they're holding a playtest.

The designers are big boys now.  They can handle our ranting.  They want our ranting; it's the reason they're holding a playtest.


There's a big difference between ranting and constructive feedback.  Constructive feedback gives them a path forward to address your concerns.  Ranting gives them an easy reason to dismiss your comments completely.

Saying Mearls hates Fighters is ranting.  It will not make Fighters better.

And I'm not saying don't provide negative feedback.  What I am saying is don't rant, and don't complain about things that you've already told are being addressed later.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Except they're not critiquing the core skeleton.  "Mearls wants the fighter to suck, so they only get basic attacks" is not the core skeleton of the Fighter class.  It's an example of the core skeleton of the Attack Roll vs AC mechanic.

I can comment on how this plays yet, because I've been playing it for months.  And while yes, what has been presented so far is largely reminiscent of 1e, I see design principles of 4e that even in the very early version were part of the design.  Not all of which, by the way, is present in this packet.  I have more information than you do, to put it bluntly.

Which is why I'm doing my best to get people to step back from what we're given, recognize its incompleteness, and think about this entire year-long process that we're now less than 48 hours into.  We have plenty of time to be patient.  But, and I want to emphasize this, if as we progress to the more detailed phases and the things from 4e that I really, really like aren't being included and there's indications that they aren't likely to be included, then you can bet I'm going to be just as keen to criticize them for it as I am to defending them now.



If you have a secret version of 5e that no one else has where you have actual proof that things are different than what the rest of us have, that's a whole different story.  But ridiculing everyone else who doesn't have access to it by claiming they should "just know" that actually everything is different is pointless.  And still, even if you claim to have secret future 5e products, I don't really believe you, and I'm still going to base all my feedback on what I'm actually given, not on what some random forum goer claims is in the secret future products that he can only vaguely describe as "solving everything that everyone is complaining about in every thread".
Honestly, the op is making a point even if others arn't seeing it. He may sound childish, but what is the playtest for if we can't exress disatisfaction.

Is the game playable? well sorta, but it is unbalanced, and lacking any tactical options for non-spell-casters. I don't think I care for backgrounds and temes personally, I'd rather have a more  open system for skill and feat choice. So far the game is far too simplistic for may tastes.  Combats too fast and not rewarding enough. Too much DM empowerment, I don't want to be a slave to the DM. Most of all I want all the classes to feel different/unique from one another, but there all too lacking in abilities even with only 3 levels I would expect, or at least like three times as many abilities. My character feels too blank.

What am I looking for exactly, how am I suppose to answer?
The designers are big boys now.  They can handle our ranting.  They want our ranting; it's the reason they're holding a playtest.


There's a big difference between ranting and constructive feedback.  Constructive feedback gives them a path forward to address your concerns.  Ranting gives them an easy reason to dismiss your comments completely.

Saying Mearls hates Fighters is ranting.  It will not make Fighters better.

And I'm not saying don't provide negative feedback.  What I am saying is don't rant, and don't complain about things that you've already told are being addressed later.



I didn't say Mearls "hates" fighters.  I said he thinks Wizards are for smart players and Fighters are for stupid players.  And those are pretty much his exact words.  That's not ranting; that's repeating what he said.  You could perhaps say that the ranting is saying I disagree with him, but like I said, I feel it's important to state that some people disagree with him even if he doesn't care, because hopefully someone else can improve upon it in a different class.
The designers are big boys now.  They can handle our ranting.  They want our ranting; it's the reason they're holding a playtest.


There's a big difference between ranting and constructive feedback.  Constructive feedback gives them a path forward to address your concerns.  Ranting gives them an easy reason to dismiss your comments completely.

Saying Mearls hates Fighters is ranting.  It will not make Fighters better.

And I'm not saying don't provide negative feedback.  What I am saying is don't rant, and don't complain about things that you've already told are being addressed later.



Seriously now (beyond proving my earlier point); how exactly should a complaint towards the end of "the core skeleton is rotten" be phrased, I'd like to know the formal paraghraph style, since clearly my simply saying "the core skeleton is rotten" isn't making an impact.

Is there a secret sign, a glyph or animal noise that must accompany it?