Playtesters are my biggest fear for 5e

I have seen almost nothing but negativity since the playtest started and frankly I am disgusted and quit worried by it.


THIS IS A PLAYTEST. THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH THE COMPLETE PRODUCT. THIS IS NOT EVERY OPTION. THIS IS NOT EVERY CLASS. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MODULES THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINISHED PROJECT, THAT WiLL MORE THEN LIKELY ADDRESS YOUR LITTLE WANTS.


I say this because, as i look for constructive threads about actual playtesting and ideas, for further greatness and this is the garbage i see...


ZOMG THIS SUCKS!!


VANCIAN WTFZORZ??


CHANGE THIS OR I QUIT!!

I WANTS THE 4TH BACK!!

Please dear god please Wotc, bypass these childish threads and look for actual constructive feedback to make any changes to your product.

Thank you,

A concerned player

ps: My players thought it was great, keep up the good work, I posted some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback in another forum.

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
I can only imagine that the entire WoTC staff is crumbling with fear because ten guys on the internet hated something.
Tim Callahan Staff Writer at Tor.com and Comic Book Resources Blog: Geniusboy Firemelon
I can only imagine that the entire WoTC staff is crumbling with fear because ten guys on the internet hated something.



lol i actually pictured that lol
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
Lol!

Well said!
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Yes, there's no way WotC could have possibly expected this sort of reaction.  D&D fans are always so calm and accepting.
WoTC is the same company that created a forum specifically for 3e complaints and then shut it down when it was the most trafficked section of their forums.

Memory is a wonderful thing.

I hardly think they are really any more serious now about listening to the player now as they were then.

Plus Mearls has more or less stated he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, he's put his foot down and it's gonna be all nostalgia, all the time. Save or die! Room-temperature-IQ fighters (and fighter players)! Linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards! Math is for min/maxers, rules are for munchkins, ignore the rules completely and just ask your DM if you can scratch your nose!
I can only imagine that the entire WoTC staff is crumbling with fear because ten guys on the internet hated something.

lulz
Plus Mearls has more or less stated he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, he's put his foot down and it's gonna be all nostalgia, all the time. Save or die! Room-temperature-IQ fighters (and fighter players)! Linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards! Math is for min/maxers, rules are for munchkins, ignore the rules completely and just ask your DM if you can scratch your nose!



Considering he says the opposite of that in the video from the seminar at PAX East, if you could please cite your sources, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Plus Mearls has more or less stated he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, he's put his foot down and it's gonna be all nostalgia, all the time. Save or die! Room-temperature-IQ fighters (and fighter players)! Linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards! Math is for min/maxers, rules are for munchkins, ignore the rules completely and just ask your DM if you can scratch your nose!



Say WHAT?
11 guys.
Tim Callahan Staff Writer at Tor.com and Comic Book Resources Blog: Geniusboy Firemelon

I have seen almost nothing but negativity since the playtest started and frankly I am disgusted and quit worried by it.


THIS IS A PLAYTEST. THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH THE COMPLETE PRODUCT. THIS IS NOT EVERY OPTION. THIS IS NOT EVERY CLASS. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MODULES THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINISHED PROJECT, THAT WiLL MORE THEN LIKELY ADDRESS YOUR LITTLE WANTS.


I say this because, as i look for constructive threads about actual playtesting and ideas, for further greatness and this is the garbage i see...


ZOMG THIS SUCKS!!


VANCIAN WTFZORZ??


CHANGE THIS OR I QUIT!!

I WANTS THE 4TH BACK!!

Please dear god please Wotc, bypass these childish threads and look for actual constructive feedback to make any changes to your product.

Thank you,

A concerned player

ps: My players thought it was great, keep up the good work, I posted some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback in another forum.




If I were you I'd be a little more understanding of people's complaints and a little less judgemental. A lot of people have been giving solid opinions based on observations about the system as well as playtesting, and there are serious flaws in the game. Sure, some people complain that it's not what they wanted, but form a numberical and storytelling standpoint... "There is something rotten in the state of 5th Edition".

If you checked out more of these (frankly quite valid) complaints, I think you'd be surprised. 
Plus Mearls has more or less stated he doesn't care what anyone else thinks, he's put his foot down and it's gonna be all nostalgia, all the time. Save or die! Room-temperature-IQ fighters (and fighter players)! Linear-fighters-quadratic-wizards! Math is for min/maxers, rules are for munchkins, ignore the rules completely and just ask your DM if you can scratch your nose!


I'm suddenly reminded of the doomsayers who walk around on the streets with sandwich boards reading "THE END IS NEAR". What I find funny is that before Monte Cook left this is what was being said of him, and it switched to Mike as soon as they didn't have Monte to bash on anymore. Before that very little was said against Mike.
*Edit/addition*
Did anyone else notice this?
I was being facetious. Should've had my /sarcasm tag on.

In all seriousness, though, I'd seen interviews with Mearls (trying to find source now, I saw it yesterday) where he stated his insistence on using overwhelmingly classic models of D&D, regardless of newer preferences. He's a fan of save or die, dumbed down fighters, vancian spellcasting, hit dice and so on, and his influence is very noticeable. It makes me worry that if too much of 5E is dumbing down the game for the very lowest common denominator, no number of modules or add-ons will make the game playable for anyone but the grognardiest grognards.
As a person who likes what I see and would happily buy it up if things were fleshed as is, yep changing things based on playtesters is pretty much my biggest fear too.

I have seen almost nothing but negativity since the playtest started and frankly I am disgusted and quit worried by it.


THIS IS A PLAYTEST. THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH THE COMPLETE PRODUCT. THIS IS NOT EVERY OPTION. THIS IS NOT EVERY CLASS. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MODULES THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINISHED PROJECT, THAT WiLL MORE THEN LIKELY ADDRESS YOUR LITTLE WANTS.


I say this because, as i look for constructive threads about actual playtesting and ideas, for further greatness and this is the garbage i see...


ZOMG THIS SUCKS!!


VANCIAN WTFZORZ??


CHANGE THIS OR I QUIT!!

I WANTS THE 4TH BACK!!

Please dear god please Wotc, bypass these childish threads and look for actual constructive feedback to make any changes to your product.

Thank you,

A concerned player

ps: My players thought it was great, keep up the good work, I posted some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback in another forum.




If I were you I'd be a little more understanding of people's complaints and a little less judgemental. A lot of people have been giving solid opinions based on observations about the system as well as playtesting, and there are serious flaws in the game. Sure, some people complain that it's not what they wanted, but form a numberical and storytelling standpoint... "There is something rotten in the state of 5th Edition".

If you checked out more of these (frankly quite valid) complaints, I think you'd be surprised. 




Ill be honest there is no such thing as a valid complaint in a playtest. You have constructive critizism of how something could be or you dont. The majority (and there are some good posts) of the posts are opinions that have little to nothing to do with what we were asked to playtest.; which was addressed in the included adventure and the manual.

"We would like to see this changed or not because"

"We felt that this mechanic didnt realy work for us because"

"We felt that this should be added because"

"we liked this because"

"we didnt care for this because"



More of that please, less of the ....

ZOMG SKY IS FALLING LARG!!
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

I have seen almost nothing but negativity since the playtest started and frankly I am disgusted and quit worried by it.


THIS IS A PLAYTEST. THIS IS NOT BY ANY STRETCH THE COMPLETE PRODUCT. THIS IS NOT EVERY OPTION. THIS IS NOT EVERY CLASS. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY MODULES THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FINISHED PROJECT, THAT WiLL MORE THEN LIKELY ADDRESS YOUR LITTLE WANTS.


I say this because, as i look for constructive threads about actual playtesting and ideas, for further greatness and this is the garbage i see...


ZOMG THIS SUCKS!!


VANCIAN WTFZORZ??


CHANGE THIS OR I QUIT!!

I WANTS THE 4TH BACK!!

Please dear god please Wotc, bypass these childish threads and look for actual constructive feedback to make any changes to your product.

Thank you,

A concerned player

ps: My players thought it was great, keep up the good work, I posted some CONSTRUCTIVE feedback in another forum.




If I were you I'd be a little more understanding of people's complaints and a little less judgemental. A lot of people have been giving solid opinions based on observations about the system as well as playtesting, and there are serious flaws in the game. Sure, some people complain that it's not what they wanted, but form a numberical and storytelling standpoint... "There is something rotten in the state of 5th Edition".

If you checked out more of these (frankly quite valid) complaints, I think you'd be surprised. 




Ill be honest there is no such thing as a valid complaint in a playtest. You have constructive critizism of how something could be or you dont. The majority (and there are some good posts) of the posts are opinions that have little to nothing to do with what we were asked to playtest.; which was addressed in the included adventure and the manual.

"We would like to see this changed or not because"

"We felt that this mechanic didnt realy work for us because"

"We felt that this should be added because"

"we liked this because"

"we didnt care for this because"



More of that please, less of the ....

ZOMG SKY IS FALLING LARG!!



If the game told me to bang my head into the table every time I wanted to roll a d20, yes that would be a valid complaint. Something less ridiculous: if the game told me that if I wanted to be a warrior, and the only thing I could do in combat was a basic attack, then I'd consider that a valid complaint as well.

The devs promise more options, but until they post some options (even flawed ones. We don't care. We'll test them and balance them for you anyway), I have to assume that the fighter's designed to be bug, dumb, and with only one method of attack.

The "make up skill checks as you go along" system relies WAY too much on DM competency, having baseline examples for each skill would help considerably. 
As far as fighters go, theyve said time and time again there will be the basic fighter and there will be an advanced fighter. From what ive seen of the themes you can already see the huge difference if a fighter that takes the slayer/guardian/Magic User/Healer ect.. But realy, what do people expect a fighter to realy do other then swing his sword/grapple/trip/disarm, ect? Theyve spoken about "powers" granted through feats and im sure some will come through themes to make the 4e guys more happy (I play 4e btw).

I see this "mother may I" thing with the skills, i think its the other way around. It sates pretty clearly under each ability modifier what you can or cannot do with your skill checks. Its more i do this because it makes sense and the book says I can roll d20. The DC was/is/always will be set by the DM so im not sure how that changes anything??

As always personal opinion
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
Don't call this 5e. It isn't 5e. It's 1.5e.

I'm not freaking out here and just posting crap. I have valid concerns and valid problems (and lots of them) with the basic systems that we have available. If that means you think I might as well just shout OMGWTFBBQ!?!?!.. I cant help you there.


I see this "mother may I" thing with the skills, i think its the other way around. It sates pretty clearly under each ability modifier what you can or cannot do with your skill checks. Its more i do this because it makes sense and the book says I can roll d20. The DC was/is/always will be set by the DM so im not sure how that changes anything??


Skills are the least of the problems regarding "Mother may I" gameplay.
Some complaints are perfectly valid because we've played with those mechanics before.

I can tell you for instance that rolling for hit points is a terrible mechanic. I've played with it in 2E and 3E. It seriously does not matter how it's implemented in 5E, it's just a bad mechanic. You shouldn't be able to have one roll that screws your character over permanently. And to make matters worse it adds absolutely nothing to the game itself. You don't benefit from having 1 PC fighter with low hp and one with high HP. That doesn't make the game anymore fun.

explain, no sarcasm here, i just dont understand. From what i read on theforums my groups over the years have always played very different that what I read on here.
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
Don't call this 5e. It isn't 5e. It's 1.5e.

I'm not freaking out here and just posting crap. I have valid concerns and valid problems (and lots of them) with the basic systems that we have available. If that means you think I might as well just shout OMGWTFBBQ!?!?!.. I cant help you there.

Hmm I ahave played 1st and this is nothing like it. There were no at will spells for anyone. Wiz and Cleric had 1 spell at first lvl. the stats of 1st and 2nd had /00 in the strength. female cahrs couldnt have a max str in 1st ed. there were no advantages/Disadvantages. And it had Thaco.


This is more of a basic/3/3.5/4th game. 
I'm all a return to nostalgia, but not at the cost of a quality game. My fondest D&D memories are from my 2nd Edition DMing days, but that's not to say I didn't have a lot of fun campaigns run under 3 and 3.5 rules.

I did find facets of 4th Edition that I liked or respected, but felt that its move to such a rigid ruleset took the focus away from story-telling and basically made the DM a guy who was there to facilitate player enjoyment. Obviously that is part of his role, but the game should be fun for all players - not all but the one who generally does most of the work.

I'm looking forward to seeing whether D&D Next can find a firm compromise between the storytelling focus of earlier editions and the faster paced, flexibility of 4th Edition. 
Don't call this 5e. It isn't 5e. It's 1.5e.

I'm not freaking out here and just posting crap. I have valid concerns and valid problems (and lots of them) with the basic systems that we have available. If that means you think I might as well just shout OMGWTFBBQ!?!?!.. I cant help you there.

Hmm I ahave played 1st and this is nothing like it. There were no at will spells for anyone. Wiz and Cleric had 1 spell at first lvl. the stats of 1st and 2nd had /00 in the strength. female cahrs couldnt have a max str in 1st ed. there were no advantages/Disadvantages. And it had Thaco.
 



I prefer the way Hackmaster Basic (And soon Hackmaster Advanced) handles mages. At first level a mage has access to spells from the apprentice, journyman, AND 1st level spell schools. He spends spell points on spells (With memorized ones being cheaper) and can modify their effects by spending additional points (greater damage, range, duration etc...).

Just flows so much better... The mage gets more points each level. Those can be spent how he sees fit.

Right now we have a basic framework of rules. What we see today is their starting point for DND next. There is no guarantee that this will become the final DND next...
Has anyone else listened to the D&D Podcast from Mearls & Friends released this week? In it, they specifically mention that they will get their feedback through the surveys, so it's based on the largest possible numbers of responses.

They don't say, "we'll be trawling message boards and blogs to see what needs to be fixed."

Just an FYI for anyone who thinks a handful of angry posts will matter -- they will only matter if you can get the majority of playtesters around the world to agreed and write about it on their surveys. 
Tim Callahan Staff Writer at Tor.com and Comic Book Resources Blog: Geniusboy Firemelon
But that leads to issue two: What if they don't put a poll up about an issue you're at ends with?

That's why people post
They will have "open response" sections on the survey.
Tim Callahan Staff Writer at Tor.com and Comic Book Resources Blog: Geniusboy Firemelon
Some complaints are perfectly valid because we've played with those mechanics before.

I can tell you for instance that rolling for hit points is a terrible mechanic. I've played with it in 2E and 3E. It seriously does not matter how it's implemented in 5E, it's just a bad mechanic. You shouldn't be able to have one roll that screws your character over permanently. And to make matters worse it adds absolutely nothing to the game itself. You don't benefit from having 1 PC fighter with low hp and one with high HP. That doesn't make the game anymore fun.




Some are, but some aren't helpful. Take the above quoted. Right there, that post is very helpful. It identifies the problem and explains why it's a problem. It's not non-helpful like "I don't like it. So there."
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
Yes, feedback worries me (especially from some of the posters on these boards), I am very pleased with the direction 5th Ed is going.

Beware of the My Little Pony (though another word is appropriate for pony).
I agree with the first poster.

So much stupidity and people complaining about aspects that are not in the play test. Let me share your thoughts and scream that THIS IS NOT THE FINAL PRODUCT.

So many people making a lot of noise because of things that are supposed to be in the core right now. The game is supposed to be modular, so there are going to be lots of options and customization for different types of groups with different tastes and different gaming styles.

So much stupidity and people complaining about aspects that are not in the play test. Let me share your thoughts and scream that THIS IS NOT THE FINAL PRODUCT.



I would like to discuss this a little. Though this may seem a logical and valid point, it a simplification of the situation.
This is play test of what will probably be the core rules of the next iteration. Complaints about what is not there are very important : it will be a modular game. Thye have to know what should be the "core", and what should be the modular option.
Many testers find the fighter, as presented, too simple to be interesting to play. You can't dismay this critic by saying "ina few years, you may see a more advanced and interesting fighter" - the point is that it seems the "core" simple fighter should have a little more options/abilities/special things than what he has in the testing rules. THIS is a valid complaint - if you want to sell the core game to fighter lovers, you have to satisfy the majority of them - or you will lose the potential customers.
The question is "should we keep the ultra simple fighter as our basic, core for the class, or make it an option in a module, and design the core class differently, with a different complexity level" ?
Same thing with Vancian magic - some like it, some don't, the question is to know if the Vancian rules should be in the core or in a module.
The current test is also a way to determine if the rules in their current state will or not divide the community, if they will attract new customers (or recapture lost ones) and if they will or not detract potential customers from buying the "final product".

I can agree on the fact that constructive criticism is preferable to drama - but it is important to see what players and DM feel is lacking, or is a bad choice for the core mechanism of the game.

Remember Tunnel Seventeen !

So much stupidity and people complaining about aspects that are not in the play test. Let me share your thoughts and scream that THIS IS NOT THE FINAL PRODUCT.



I would like to discuss this a little. Though this may seem a logical and valid point, it a simplification of the situation.
This is play test of what will probably be the core rules of the next iteration. Complaints about what is not there are very important : it will be a modular game. Thye have to know what should be the "core", and what should be the modular option.
Many testers find the fighter, as presented, too simple to be interesting to play. You can't dismay this critic by saying "ina few years, you may see a more advanced and interesting fighter" - the point is that it seems the "core" simple fighter should have a little more options/abilities/special things than what he has in the testing rules. THIS is a valid complaint - if you want to sell the core game to fighter lovers, you have to satisfy the majority of them - or you will lose the potential customers.
The question is "should we keep the ultra simple fighter as our basic, core for the class, or make it an option in a module, and design the core class differently, with a different complexity level" ?
Same thing with Vancian magic - some like it, some don't, the question is to know if the Vancian rules should be in the core or in a module.
The current test is also a way to determine if the rules in their current state will or not divide the community, if they will attract new customers (or recapture lost ones) and if they will or not detract potential customers from buying the "final product".

I can agree on the fact that constructive criticism is preferable to drama - but it is important to see what players and DM feel is lacking, or is a bad choice for the core mechanism of the game.





Yes, this is OK, constructive criticism. Anyway the play test don´t even have the complete core rules, it´s just part of it yet. Everyone here would write it´s won version of the core, and all would be different. I just wish people not to be so desperate about what was not yet addressed in the packet.

Of course, fighter may be a bit raw, I´m sure they will provide more stuff for this class later. But absolutely, if you get the chance to add stuff on top of it, those are going to be options, and not the other way around, complex core fighter, and then you can get rid of waht you don´t need. I think the idea is having a system extremely simple first and then add optional rules to add complexity as it pleases one group or another. This is a great concept, especially for new players IMO. I played several years with a dwarf fighter in 1st ed. basic D&D with fewer options than the fighter presented in the packet, it was a great introduction to the game.

Right now everybody is crazy because they aren´t seeing the same options they used to have in 4E, but it´s the same thing that happened about 3E when 4E came out. And it´s just a few pages, not the complete system. So yes, let´s send constructive criticism and valid suggestions. Let´s not make a mess out of it.

Of course, fighter may be a bit raw, I´m sure they will provide more stuff for this class later. But absolutely, if you get the chance to add stuff on top of it, those are going to be options, and not the other way around, complex core fighter, and then you can get rid of waht you don´t need. I think the idea is having a system extremely simple first and then add optional rules to add complexity as it pleases one group or another. This is a great concept, especially for new players IMO. I played several years with a dwarf fighter in 1st ed. basic D&D with fewer options than the fighter presented in the packet, it was a great introduction to the game.


But maybe the "test fighter" is too simple for modern tastes. There are degrees in simplicity, and many ways to implement it. I think (I wrote something about it somewhere on these forums) that you can add a little to the current simplicity and please more players without making things too difficult.
I also feel that the current implementation of the "basics" for the wizards is too complex, and ask for too much book-keeping. I don't like the design concept that magic using classes should be more complex than martial ones in the "basic game" because I don't think that "likes magic" and "likes complexity" go hand in hand. I've introduced many players to RPGs with 4E, and the most tactically minded of them often chose martial classes, while the dreamy girl who can't remember her powers was only interested in magic. None would be happy with choices made by the current iteration (and would they have the patience to wait for a potential module, while they can find what they need with other products?) - so I think it is a point that should be discussed, even if it may seem strange to old time players.
But I digress - the point is that this is a playtest AND an opinion test. I hope the designers will be able to adapt their concepts and ideas in a way that makes the game interesting for the greatest possible audience, from the first book....
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !








Mearls: 

Right now, we're keeping the fighter fairly basic but giving you those options in feats. However, the fighter does get a couple unique mechanics to make him different. This is definitely an area where we're looking at feedback, but so far people seemed more concerned with getting at-will magic that in making manuevers something all fighters automatically get.

This is what Mike said in the DnD chat on 5/14 about the fighter in the playtest so the fighter should be getting some love in a later test.

I can't remember exactly where I saw another comment from Mike about the pregens but he said that they had concentrated on getting the at-will spells and the Dominions covered as that seemed to be what most people wanted and the fighter and rogue were moved from the spotlight while they dealt with the spell casting.

Hopefully the next play test will produce a more complete fighter with maneuvers and a rogue with some schemes 


I see this "mother may I" thing with the skills, i think its the other way around. It sates pretty clearly under each ability modifier what you can or cannot do with your skill checks. Its more i do this because it makes sense and the book says I can roll d20. The DC was/is/always will be set by the DM so im not sure how that changes anything??


Skills are the least of the problems regarding "Mother may I" gameplay.



At least you can't rules lawyer your way out of DM fiat. Oh and it saves time because you aren't having to hunt all over the D&D rulebooks or search online for the correct answer/errata.

If you have an unreasonable DM that doesn't have some give and take on fiat-rulings then I am sorry for you.

Pick your battles.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I agree witht he OP.  It's too bad WotC couldn't throroughly screen playtesters for maturity.  And it's a shame there is no way to ensure playtesters are at least 30 years of age and have acutally played all the editions and given them all a fair chance.  But what can you do?  D&D is riddled with players of today's generation of spoiled brats that want everything given to them and given to them now!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9obgyYB1IU

I'm really happy with what I've seen so far.  Sure there's some minor issues I have, but most can be houseruled easily.  I'm saving the details til after I actually get to play the adventure this weekend with my home group, and later in the week with one or both of my online groups.

What a lot of the whiners are overlooking is the fact that this is the simple core of the game.  The game is supposed to unite all editions.  Not be a reprint of 4th edition.  To do this the core has to be simple, and able to be played without battlegrids and power cards, and be free of larger, rule laden mechanics, so that it can be built upon in different directions depending on DM, player, and group preference.  If they added power systems, battle grid mechanics, and/or more complex skill and feat systems to the core mechanic, then they'd basically be dismissing players who favored the more simple, flowing rules of 1st and 2nd eitions, and instead, simply be reprinting 4th edition, or at best, uniting 3rd and 4th editions.  This playtest is to test the core mechanic.  The playtest for character creation, and various modular mechanics will come later.

If 4th edition players are pissed off because 5th edition is on the horizen, they should try to imagine the way 1st/2nd edition players have felt for 12 years now.  At least 4th edition material is still being published.  And 3rd edition players had the good fortune of Paizo taking the reigns with Pathfinder.  Many 2nd edition players have been looking forward to 5th edition, and have high hopes for what it promises.  And as a player who recently returned to 2nd edition after 10 years playing 3rd edition, covering 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder editions, as well as a year of 4th edition, I'm very happy with what I'm seeing so far from the playtest.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg)

I can understand that some are upset about some aspects of this, but its been said multiple times that we are playtesting the most basic of the game rules. These rules are designed, explicitly to cater towards the older generation of players.

Some may not like the "mother may I playstyle", some may not like the simple fighter. I play two in 4e and I can't imagine even playing an essentials version of the fighter let alone one who is purely "basic melee/ranged attack."

But remember; it's much easier to make things more complex than it is to dumb them down. I would rather add rules to the mother may I system than I would strip rules from a 4e-centric design where rules for everything are explicitly built in. The absolute core rules -- without modules -- are simply not going to be 4e and they do not intend for this to be the case. This is not a bash on 4e, I love many aspects of it, but as 4e players we should keep in mind that they are not trying to remake 4e, if they were this would be 4.5e. Playtest feed back should be left with the 5e design principles in mind. If you are here leaving feedback you know where they are.

This fighter may be boring, but does he play like this fighter was intended to? Look at the design goals for this fighter and see if he plays the way those design rules aimed for him to. If he lives up the those expectations and you still find a problem then see if the design goals are wrong. Express why they are wrong, and maybe how to remedy the problem.
Mods: Please change the name of this thread to "I'm worried that the opinions of others won't match mine own."

Seriously, it's a public beta.  Kiddies and grognards alike are going to speak in absolutes and say things without backing them up. Even the most constructive arguments will have edition bias or be colored by past experiences.  I'd say that your best bet is to give honest, constructive feedback, disagree in a rational manner with feedback that you read and patently oppose, and get on with the gaming.  You don't "win" a playtest, you just provide what input you can.
Some complaints are perfectly valid because we've played with those mechanics before.

I can tell you for instance that rolling for hit points is a terrible mechanic. I've played with it in 2E and 3E. It seriously does not matter how it's implemented in 5E, it's just a bad mechanic. You shouldn't be able to have one roll that screws your character over permanently. And to make matters worse it adds absolutely nothing to the game itself. You don't benefit from having 1 PC fighter with low hp and one with high HP. That doesn't make the game anymore fun.




I've always used random hit points.  Well except in my 4e games. I see the point you are making, but it only is a terrible mechanic if you don't like randomness.

I like the random rolls, and no I am not a chart fanatic.  There are two I guess we can say gamist philosophies at odds here.  One is that games should have a level of randomness, and the other is that every bit of the game needs to fit an assumed practicality.  What I mean is that the NON random hitpoints, or ability scores, or whatever we may be talking about presents a known quantity so that encounters can be built around those known qualities.

Random presents quantity as a range, which though it is what I have always used, for some I can see how this would be problematic if one was used to building encounters with known quantities.  So the Random hitpoints are not an awful mechanic outright, it really depends on how one wants to build up the game world.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
This whole thing play test thing is just to help solve the problem of, "why wasn't I consulted?"

Hasbro probably did a REAL market research study a long time ago and they probably already know what they are going to do. If I had played 4e more I could probably guess at the entire outline of their work, which has probably been done for a while. The play test is marketing.

They want to show that they actually made something and that it looks like it is suppose to. I'm sold on it. It looks great. I could really care less about a bunch of feined anger on the internet about it.