Deal breakers. What would cause you not to buy D&D:Next when it comes out?

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
List your deal breakers here. So we can give the developers a good idea of what we don't want to see in 5E.

My personal deal breaker is vancian magic as the baseline 'core' of how casters work. If they put it in as an optional module, I'm completely fine with it, but as 'core' its a deal breaker to me.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
basic attack only fighters

no attempt to balance things
Classes that are locked into their own specific archetypes and stereotypes.

I will point out here however that threads like this are a bit misleading, this is a list of what we as individuals dont want... not what the community wants to avoid. Thats why specific threads about certain points of the game where people can discuss them make more sense to help out the devs. Why not think about going around the specific threads and taking the general consensus of the arguments that arise and placing it in a thread like this.

We need to start thinking about catering for everyone not just ourselves. 
For my group as a whole, this is hard to quanitfy, but a lack of crazy interesting things.  In my 4e game we were running with dopplegangers (er, changelings) and warforged and orcs from day one.  If my players can't do that, no one is going to want to switch.  What can I say?  My group is easily bored.

For me personally?  A pitiful digital launch support.  Basically, if this launch goes like 3e and 4e, I'll be waiting a long time before switching over to 5e.
Default/Hard to Excise Grid Requirement.  Let me make one thing clear: I like using the battle grid.  Sometimes.  But I also like the ability to play a pick-up game with character sheets, a dice bag, and some sort of box lid to roll on, and have had some pretty amazing sessions that only worked because I was able to run TotM combats.
Threat: Negligable.  Devs seem focused on supporting TotM

Default/Hard to Excise Encounter Paragdim.  I like the freedom to be fluid with encounters, something that I didn't feel 4e did a good job of delivering.  The push to distinct, bite-sized encounters with the ability to rest between each one a standard expectation put a crimp in the style of active dungeons.
Threat: Low.  "Short Rests" are in but right now only for HD-based healing.  Devs seem to be focusing on adventure-as-unit

"Dude, Where's my GDSM and Amulet of Reflection?" ~or~ Magic Items as part of Character Build.  The game should be playable without magic items.  Characters should not plan ahead for *specific* magic items even in campaigns where magic loot of some description can be safely anticipated.  If Magic Items are part of Character Build and I somehow run the system anyway, I will have Santa Claus show up to deliver the Player Progression Loot like a scene out of Narnia (but played for spiteful humor)
Threat: Low.  There's been a lot of talk about flat math and magic items being magical, not math fixes.  However, I think that's kind of been a "love it or hate it" proposition, with some demanding exactly what I don't want to see.  Time will tell if the devs change their tune.

Critical Mass of Stuff That Makes My Brain Hurt.  Proning oozes.  Bleeding Skeletons.  Burning Fire Elementals to death.  The sort of things that shouldn't even work with magic involved (I'm not going to dip so much as a toe into the martial versus magic logic argument here).  A little of this isn't a dealbreaker; It's practically inevitable as the rules make a lot of round holes and specific situations throw out a lot of square pegs.  A lot of it is.
Threat: Moderate.  Current design talks the talk ("For conditions, we want to think first about what's going on in-universe") but doesn't quite Walk the Walk (Ray of Frost versus Flyers, for instance).

Everybody Resource Manages the Same.  A more accurate way of stating the complaint that "All classes are the same" under early-4th ADEU.  Different classes, or at least different castes of classes (Power Sources, if you will) should have different mechanical skeletons on which they're built.  Especially with Themes and Backgrounds providing a lot of your surface differences, the classes need to be unique to their cores.
Threat: Moderate.  Right now we have Vancian (Wizard), Weirdo psudeo-Vancian (Divine), and ??? (Martial), but I'm prety sure there's a ton of support to sliding towards ADEU, and I'd really like to see Arcane and Divine drift farther apart...

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."
On Worldbuilding - On Crafting Aliens - Pillars of Art and Flavor - Simulationism, Narritivism, and Gamism - Shub-Niggurath in D&D
THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Mandatory DDI.
Classes that are locked into their own specific archetypes and stereotypes.

I will point out here however that threads like this are a bit misleading, this is a list of what we as individuals dont want... not what the community wants to avoid. Thats why specific threads about certain points of the game where people can discuss them make more sense to help out the devs. Why not think about going around the specific threads and taking the general consensus of the arguments that arise and placing it in a thread like this.

We need to start thinking about catering for everyone not just ourselves. 



I wouldn't say misleading. I would say confrontational. This isn't a thread for solutions. It is a thread for people to state their problems, so the developers can take a look and get an idea of the sticking points of each edition and what they will need to modularize to get everyone to play...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Mandatory DDI.



I'd like to add Mandatory well programmed cross platform DDI (including smart phones and tablets)...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Tedious NPC creation method

Mandatory battlemap

Poor balance between classes
Mind-control fighters, who can somehow non-magically compel an enemy to attack the guy wearing plate armor instead of the sorceress with no armor to speak of.  I know, it seems minor, but it exemplifies the sort of thing that just hurts my brain more than I can tolerate.

Of things that put me on the fence, where I might be a core book and then stop, mandatory magical items are pretty high up there.  Any class that relies on a single stat to determine their awesomeness is a huge red flag.

 
The metagame is not the game.
In no particular order.

Linear class restrictions:  Im a Paladin, here are the choices only the paladin can take.

Daily Powers:  Dumbest design in history, in particular martial powers.  Made about as much sense as the Movie Howard the Duck.

Restriction of Skills Based on classes:  Any class, can take any skill is a must.

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Daily Powers:  Dumbest design in history, in particular martial powers.  Made about as much sense as the Movie Howard the Duck.



I agree, we need to completely get rid of vancian casting and sorcerer style casting, or at least throw them in a module and have an alternative...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Imbalance in the Core.

Especially if it's combined with varying levels of complexity between classes.  It doesn't matter if balance and equal class complexity come later in modules.  That won't really help, because of the way most players percieve balance in the game.  

Favoritism in the Core.

Not favoring one class over another, but favoring one playstyle or edition over another.  If the Core is going to accomodate us all, it has to be as neutral as possible.  If I see the Core, and it favors one playstyle or edition over another, dealbreaker(even if it's my preferred playstyle, really.  I just had 4 years of people hating on my favorite game because they felt it betrayed them and slept with their wives, I don't care to do it again).



Past these, I don't think I have any hard and fast dealbreakers.  Everything I can think of would fall under one of these two.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Daily Powers:  Dumbest design in history, in particular martial powers.  Made about as much sense as the Movie Howard the Duck.



I agree, we need to completely get rid of vancian casting and sorcerer style casting, or at least throw them in a module and have an alternative...



Exactly.  I mean its hard to give a realistic basis on how magic "should" work since magic doesn't exist in the real world but to me you have to base it on something so you should base it on something tangiable in the real world.  When we consider "fighting with a sword" we imagine a player has energy, endurance, strength, agility all playing a role in his ability to wield a sword well.  Magic should function the same but since its magic should have its own "energy source" on which it draws... So Im more into some kind of mana system, or recharging system of spells.  I mean mages should be able to cast the spells they know.. like fighters who have a limited amount of energy.. mages should also have a limited amout of magical energy.

A fighter doesn't forget how to cleave someones head off, so why would he only be able to do it once per day?  Same goes for a fireball spell, I mean.. if you know how to do it, you should be able to do it.  I can understand cleaving someones head off my require considerably more energy, so it should tap the reserves of the character as should casting a powerful spell.  But that reserve... should recharge, or have some kind of way it can be recharged.  In some ways the concept of Daily Powers was more believable as a magic system, but I still didnt care for it for mages either.  When we played 2nd and 3rd edition we always used the alternative magic systems for this reason which made use of mana.

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Daily Powers:  Dumbest design in history, in particular martial powers.  Made about as much sense as the Movie Howard the Duck.



I agree, we need to completely get rid of vancian casting and sorcerer style casting, or at least throw them in a module and have an alternative...



Exactly.  I mean its hard to give a realistic basis on how magic "should" work since magic doesn't exist in the real world but to me you have to base it on something so you should base it on something tangiable in the real world.  When we consider "fighting with a sword" we imagine a player has energy, endurance, strength, agility all playing a role in his ability to wield a sword well.  Magic should function the same but since its magic should have its own "energy source" on which it draws... So Im more into some kind of mana system, or recharging system of spells.  I mean mages should be able to cast the spells they know.. like fighters who have a limited amount of energy.. mages should also have a limited amout of magical energy.

A fighter doesn't forget how to cleave someones head off, so why would he only be able to do it once per day?  Same goes for a fireball spell, I mean.. if you know how to do it, you should be able to do it.  I can understand cleaving someones head off my require considerably more energy, so it should tap the reserves of the character as should casting a powerful spell.  But that reserve... should recharge, or have some kind of way it can be recharged.  In some ways the concept of Daily Powers was more believable as a magic system, but I still didnt care for it for mages either.  When we played 2nd and 3rd edition we always used the alternative magic systems for this reason which made use of mana.



Have you checked out my alternative in my signature, I think it meets most of your requirements...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I couldn't care less what magic system is implemented, as long as it allows out of encounter magic to be monitored and controlled.  (Yes I'm aware encounters take the form of many things, like climbing ladders with missing rungs).  Rituals should cover this fairly well, so in that regard, more power to a magic system that appeases everyone!

My deal breakers would be cow-towing to any arguments on the forums and never changing bounded accuracy, 1 - 20.  Leave the core exactly as-is, with tons of optional content.  (Note, I do not consider the casting system core.  Core refers only to the universal mechanics revolving around the d20). 
Well in essence this is what WFRP 3.0 actually does but rather than the abstraction of action points it uses two seperate systems of governance to limit the potential "release" of power.  This comes in the form of aquiring Fatigue and Stress (one for the physical and one for the mental).

In essence players can choose to push themselves as hard as they want.  They can perform daring feats of strength, agility and endurance, or for mages they can push the mental powers.  Doing so too often and too hard will result in players gaining fatigue and/or stress and as such their ability to perform these feets successfully diminishes. 

What you want to avoid with any system is requriing the GM to say "You can't attempt that".  As a GM you want to always be able "sure you can try that"... but with consequences built in to those actions.

Additionally the WFRP system uses the channeling of magical and divine powers.  These two seperate methods require players to "build up power" to cast spells.  So for really powerful spells they need more power, for less powerful spells they need less.  This in essence gives the Magical and The Divine "casters" an extra resource to manage.

All Actions also have a recharge rate.  So for example if you use the dodge card you may need to wait a couple of rounds before you can use it again.  This represents readiness to take certain types of actions, however this can all be manipulated through clever use of talents, using certain weapons and taking certain other types of actions.  For example their is an action you can take that allows you to reclaim stress and fatigue, recharge cards and such. 

The manipulation of these difference resources which all represent characteristics of characters makes character building  very meaningful but also dynamic since classes don't restrict your build.  You can be a fighter who is a master with the sword, or he could simply be a really great commander on the battlefield, or perhaps he is a knowledgable strategist having very little combat training himself. 

Its a great system and I understand what your going for with the action points but really you want the "action points" to be more representative of tangible factors rather than an abstraction.  So things like fatigue, stress, mana... these are more tangible things players can control through how they design their characters, sacraficing one thing to get more of the other, but being impossible to be a master of it all.  This creates the dynamics of a good role-playing system, rather than the linear "Here is a power you can use it once per day/encounter etc..

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

Caster Supremacy
DDN needs to recognize the improvisation is something any chracter can do, and must include in the core that martial characters can roughly match the attack/damage/control(multiple attacks and codified combat maneuvers), durability(read:healing), exploration (climbing/jumping vs the spells Climb/Jump, Pick Locks/Open Doors vs Knock), and interaction (Bluff vs. Charm Person) of spellcasters.

Only Oldschool Races & Classes in the Core
Aside from needing to include Barbarians and Monks, I see no reason to switch to DDN if it doesn't have half of the following as pc races-- Warforged/Golems, Shifters/Weres, Lizardmen, and Minotaurs.

Assumption of Random Character Generation in the Core
Just no. No Rolling for abilities or hit points as the default.

Lack of Scaling
If a couple dozen town guardsmen can defeat a mighty dragon, or a couple dozen orcs defeat a L20 pc made with the core rules... this is not a D&D I am interested in.
What got me interested in DnDNext was the promise of a 1-2 hour complete adventure, from charachter creation to end point.  If thats not going to be possible, I won't be buying in.

All other "deal breakers" basically revolve around that point.

The only deal breaker for me would be the pricing model being off.


This means the next edition of dungeons and dragons NEEDS:



  • No (hidden) subscription cost. 

  • Core books available as a set, at reasonable price (like current edition).


Bonusses for me, but not deal breakers:



  • New figurines, with basic adventurers pack

  • Grids (even though we have our own)

  • Printable Character Sheet (available for free)

First. Return to the "X per day/encounter" non-magic, non-supernatural, non-self limited powers. Enough of vancian combat.

Second. Clonic classes. Te fighter is an expert combatant, but the barbarian must be something more than "a fighter who is very upset", or de paladin more than "a fighter with divine stuff".

Third. Absurdly high bonus to d20 rolls, like +40 or so, that makes the roll trivial an almost unnecesary but the eventual critical or botch. If "bounded accuracy" is well done, a +3 bonus should be enough to represent a good skill level, +9 for an expert, and 12+ for a true master in any subject.

Fourth. Forced tactical combat. Tactical combat shold be an option (a very useful option) for combat representation, but it's not fair to plan the entire game for being played on a tabletop.

Fifth. Lack of classes. I don't wanna see how the "four partners" is back and avery class is a derivation of the fighter/thief/cleric/wizard.

Sixth. I wish they would make a viable system of AC meaning not "harder to hit" but "harder to wound", and eliminate vancian casting, in a modular or core system, but I would buy D&D next even if they won't do.

I only have three dealbreakers:

I must be able to create a character of any race and class in 15 minutes or less no matter what level.

There must be one single physical object (whether that be a single book, boxed set containing truncated rules expanded upon buy further box/book products, or a shrink wrapped slip-case with the "core rulebooks" inside) to pick up, carry to the counter, and pay $80 or less on.

There must be clear, consistent plan for monthly module support in a format that allows me to buy the one I want - actual adventure modules, not a 'zine.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
My number one deal-breaker is seeing the game designed and advertised in a way that excludes women and minority groups. I want the game to have a future, and narrow-minded presentation will limit it to an ageing and shrinking demographic.

Grid-dependent combat and strictly discrete encounters will certainly discourage me from playing. So will power sources or dependence on magical items - in fact, anything which makes it less easy, and less plausible, for me to run a non-magical campaign featuring only non-magic-using classes.

Z.
I only have one requirement for D&D Next. It has to be fun to play. The good must outbalance the bad. I can live with bad like a few unbelievable rules or something crap like AEDU for all classes if the rest is good.
Nothing will stop me from buying D&D Next. What will stop me from playing, however, is having to come back to the website every week to check for errata. Seriously, hire some proofreaders instead of just hitting the spell check. And, you know, just get it right the first time.
Low support for Nore-Classic Classes and Races: Any class or race included should have a near equal ammount of content. If their is a theme of background for one race, there should be one for all. If there a theme for one class there should one for each oter one.

Easy Official NPC creation: If I want t make a NPC that doesn't break rules, it shouldn't be a lot of work.

Guidelines and Suggestions for Improvision and House Rule for Combat, Exploration, and Interaction: DMs can't playtest everything. Players can't read the DMs mind. And this is a new edition with things like bounded accuracy and advantage where changes can have drastic effects on the game. The books HAVE to give the gamers a nice starting point.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

What got me interested in DnDNext was the promise of a 1-2 hour complete adventure, from charachter creation to end point.  If thats not going to be possible, I won't be buying in.



I don't know where you saw this promise... but... looks like you'll save your money if you think 1-2 hours is enough to make characters and complete an adventure.


First. Return to the "X per day/encounter" non-magic, non-supernatural, non-self limited powers. Enough of vancian combat.

Second. Clonic classes. Te fighter is an expert combatant, but the barbarian must be something more than "a fighter who is very upset", or de paladin more than "a fighter with divine stuff".

Fifth. Lack of classes. I don't wanna see how the "four partners" is back and avery class is a derivation of the fighter/thief/cleric/wizard.

Sixth. I wish they would make a viable system of AC meaning not "harder to hit" but "harder to wound", and eliminate vancian casting, in a modular or core system, but I would buy D&D next even if they won't do.



3 and 4 removed for being a valid point.  though I 100% prefer mapped combat so I'm not having to ask 20 questions about positioning before acting.
1. Exactly the oposite of the general reaction of players when 4E came out.
2. How?
5. same as #2. How?
6. multiple issues, one already covered.  being harder to hit and harder to wound are exactly the same thing mechanically.  the only variant really being the ability to absorb a blow(DR) before taking "HP damage" but again... that's all simulated by AC, and actually having a large number of HP(bloodied condition). 

Nothing will stop me from buying D&D Next. What will stop me from playing, however, is having to come back to the website every week to check for errata. Seriously, hire some proofreaders instead of just hitting the spell check. And, you know, just get it right the first time.



I don't think you understand what errata is for, it's not just spelling mistakes, it's rules clarification and alteration.  To bring far to powerful abilities down a notch and bring underpowered abilities up a notch. It's not taken lightly, and thanks to our friends over in "character optimzation" the overpowered things are usually pointed out fairly quickly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now that that's finished and slightly edited... my dealbreakers.

Monster races as PC's in base books, preferably never.

classless characters.

All races and classes having access to everything... making the entire point of races and classes mute.

Level one super heroes.

Every aspect of the game being clearly understood by all readers.

Sparkly vampires.

Zagyg not being a base god.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I only have one requirement for D&D Next. It has to be fun to play. The good must outbalance the bad. I can live with bad like a few unbelievable rules or something crap like AEDU for all classes if the rest is good.



Well said.

Preferences... Not where they should be. Asking someone if they're Trolling you is in violation of section 3 of the Code of Conduct.
Every aspect of the game being clearly understood by all readers.



I'll tell you what, after it comes out I'll mail you a copy in aramaic ok? Would that be non-understandable enough?
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
In a nutshell, the next edition of D&D has to inspire me.

I played 1e until 3e came along, bcause the 2e core rules did not seem to improve upon the prior edition. Mind you, 2e had some great supplements. When 3e came along, I switched my 1e PbP midstream to the newer edition, as I saw its potential. I still play 3.5e, as I did not see 4e as an improvement over the earlier edition.

When 4e came along, I purchased the DMG, PH, and MM with the hopes of using a campaign comcept I devised long ago to learn the new edition. 4e, at launch, lacked druids, greenhags, and the Awaken spell, so I abandoned the idea altogether. I have been running my 3.5e chat-based game since 2007, so I still had that to keep me going.
In a nutshell, the next edition of D&D has to inspire me.

I played 1e until 3e came along, bcause the 2e core rules did not seem to improve upon the prior edition. Mind you, 2e had some great supplements. When 3e came along, I switched my 1e PbP midstream to the newer edition, as I saw its potential. I still play 3.5e, as I did not see 4e as an improvement over the earlier edition.

When 4e came along, I purchased the DMG, PH, and MM with the hopes of using a campaign comcept I devised long ago to learn the new edition. 4e, at launch, lacked druids, greenhags, and the Awaken spell, so I abandoned the idea altogether. I have been running my 3.5e chat-based game since 2007, so I still had that to keep me going.



Wow, looks like you missed out on 4E due to a misunderstanding. You can create any monster you want, as well as house rule a power in as a ritual scroll....wow...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Understood. Making things up is half the fun, after all. But there comes a point when it makes little sense to houserule EVERYTHING, when a different system already has such rules in place.

And, to be fair, that was not my only issue with 4e. Rather than go through that extensive list again, the final descision rested with my players, who wanted to stay with 3.5e.
Understood. Making things up is half the fun, after all. But there comes a point when it makes little sence to houserule EVERYTHING, when a different system already has such rules in place.

And, to be fair, that was not my only issue with 4e. Rather than go through that extensive list again, the final descision rested with my players, who wanted to stay with 3.5e.  



You misunderstand. You literally have a guide in the book on how to make iconic monsters without going throw the long drawn out process in 3.5E. You could literally throw together the monster in just a few minutes looking at the guideline charts. The only house rule would be the awaken spell ritual scroll...not much for an adventure...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 The only house rule would be the awaken spell ritual scroll...not much for an adventure...



And the druid class. But, as I said, I had other issues with 4e and its presentation. If I had to start a new campaign tomorrow, I'd probably choose Pathfinder and the Cerulean Seas supplement run via MapTool. 

 The only house rule would be the awaken spell ritual scroll...not much for an adventure...



And the druid class. But, as I said, I had other issues with 4e and its presentation. If I had to start a new campaign tomorrow, I'd probably choose PF. 




its cool. I was just hoping you didn't throw 4E down because of a 10 minute playtest or something. As long as you gave it a real chance I can't gripe...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Default/Hard to Excise Grid Requirement.  Let me make one thing clear: I like using the battle grid.  Sometimes.  But I also like the ability to play a pick-up game with character sheets, a dice bag, and some sort of box lid to roll on, and have had some pretty amazing sessions that only worked because I was able to run TotM combats.
Threat: Negligable.  Devs seem focused on supporting TotM

Default/Hard to Excise Encounter Paragdim.  I like the freedom to be fluid with encounters, something that I didn't feel 4e did a good job of delivering.  The push to distinct, bite-sized encounters with the ability to rest between each one a standard expectation put a crimp in the style of active dungeons.
Threat: Low.  "Short Rests" are in but right now only for HD-based healing.  Devs seem to be focusing on adventure-as-unit

"Dude, Where's my GDSM and Amulet of Reflection?" ~or~ Magic Items as part of Character Build.  The game should be playable without magic items.  Characters should not plan ahead for *specific* magic items even in campaigns where magic loot of some description can be safely anticipated.  If Magic Items are part of Character Build and I somehow run the system anyway, I will have Santa Claus show up to deliver the Player Progression Loot like a scene out of Narnia (but played for spiteful humor)
Threat: Low.  There's been a lot of talk about flat math and magic items being magical, not math fixes.  However, I think that's kind of been a "love it or hate it" proposition, with some demanding exactly what I don't want to see.  Time will tell if the devs change their tune.

Critical Mass of Stuff That Makes My Brain Hurt.  Proning oozes.  Bleeding Skeletons.  Burning Fire Elementals to death.  The sort of things that shouldn't even work with magic involved (I'm not going to dip so much as a toe into the martial versus magic logic argument here).  A little of this isn't a dealbreaker; It's practically inevitable as the rules make a lot of round holes and specific situations throw out a lot of square pegs.  A lot of it is.
Threat: Moderate.  Current design talks the talk ("For conditions, we want to think first about what's going on in-universe") but doesn't quite Walk the Walk (Ray of Frost versus Flyers, for instance).

Everybody Resource Manages the Same.  A more accurate way of stating the complaint that "All classes are the same" under early-4th ADEU.  Different classes, or at least different castes of classes (Power Sources, if you will) should have different mechanical skeletons on which they're built.  Especially with Themes and Backgrounds providing a lot of your surface differences, the classes need to be unique to their cores.
Threat: Moderate.  Right now we have Vancian (Wizard), Weirdo psudeo-Vancian (Divine), and ??? (Martial), but I'm prety sure there's a ton of support to sliding towards ADEU, and I'd really like to see Arcane and Divine drift farther apart...



Great list. I'll add:

Thousands upon thousands of feats, and any other game element choice that further complicates the game by inducing analysis paralysis

Monsters being designed with arbitrary attack, defense, ability and damage scores based on their level and role instead of their physiology, training, surroundings, natural abilities, etc. In short, monsters designed to "challenge" X number of PCs at Y level by expending approximately Z% of their daily resources.

Skill points. Never again.

PCs with ability scores that go up to 30. No more silly anime D&D, please. I'm completely fine with and do want that stuff in supplements such as the Epic Level Handbook and Deities and Demigods. Just keep that stuff out of the core.

Two dozen classes. I'm tired of the class bloat. I don't know of any classes outside of the ones found in the various PHB 1s from each edition that really need to be a fully realized class in 5e. Even a fair few of those have never really justified themselves, but it's no use fighting a losing battle on that subject.  

The "everything is core" philosophy. This won't keep me from playing really, but I would hate to see it adopted again. It just waters down everything to the point that nothing is ever special and wondrous anymore. 

Failure to properly implement the promised bounded accuracy system. I really hope this plays out like you've made me envision it. I really hope I never see an attack bonus, saving throw or skill check over +11. 
Deal breakers would be if the printed material was of poor quality. I am looking for a hard cover book that will last years and endure a lot of usage. 

Content wise I would be dissappointed with a staggered release of all the potential character classes, I want 1 players handbook with every class that will ever be there included at the start. Release options for these classes in the PHB at later, fine, but don't make me wait to play a formerly iconic class.

Not releasing the 3 traditional core books at once would be frowned upon.

Making core rules beholden to online content, huge deal breaker.

 
I'll second the "it has to be fun" deal breaker. But of course, that is too generic to be fair, so here is a better list:

1) Not balanced: The options available to all the players at my table have to be within the same ballpark in terms of usefulness. I never want to see two players able to take two ways of solving the same problem where one of these ways is almost always going to be better. For example, picking locks as a skill vs. the automatically successful Knock spell or the feat that lets me choose several languages vs. the Comprehend Languages spell.

2) Extra work for the DM: As the main DM for my group, I have enough on my plate creating interesting adventures and interesting encounters (not always combat) for my group. I don't need more work to create NPCs, monsters, or being hounded at the table by players wanting me to make decisions about how effective their narrative description is or how I ruled such a situation several sessions ago.

3) Lack of online tools: The DDI tools, while not perfect, were a wonderful thing compared to what we had to use before. The character builder was a great tool (compared to not having one) and it made making characters so much easier (and easier to read since I didn't have to write out all of the stuff for my character, like the who knows how many spells my 3.5e Druid had that I used most often). The compendium was also very useful since it allowed me to find what I was looking for without having to go through a large number of books.

4) A split definition about what gets to be gritty realism and what gets to be fantastical. I want everything in the book to be moving in a similar direction where either gritty realism is what we are trying to achieve (low-levels of healing even if you have a Cleric, generally mundane characters with no one having especially epic feeling abilities, etc.) or fantastical (healing is spread between a large number of sources and characters can self-heal, everyone can do things that feel epic based on character sheet information). Previous editions allowed too much of the forced gritty realism stuff, such as low levels of healing and long travel times, be trumped by self-contained caster classes.
Mind-control fighters, who can somehow non-magically compel an enemy to attack the guy wearing plate armor instead of the sorceress with no armor to speak of.

Has that ever happened? Because I can't think of any edition where that's ever happened, and I've seen no indication that it'll happen in DDN. That sounds like the kind of thing that people say about 4E when they have never actually read 4E.



Anyway, the major deal-breaker for me is going to be ease of encounter-building as a DM. 4E is absolutely amazing when it comes to how easy and straightforward it is to build and customize encounters. I don't have to do any wacky math, adjusting monster level is simple, and everything that I need to run an enemy is right there in its stat block. I cannot and will not go back to the days of 3E where running a mildly complex encounter required maneuver around the clunky encounter numbers table, adjusting monster level was clumsy and time-consuming, and running enemy spell-casters required endless book-flipping.

Another deal-breaker is going to be lack of interesting races or lack of support for them. For whatever reason, race is a big deal to me in D&D, and more of my character concepts center around playing a cool character of Race X than of Class Y. If the core only includes Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, and Human as many have suggested, or if other races are monster-manual-only and thus get no comparable support, then I'll probably be waiting for more options to come about before picking up the new edition. Hopefully, since they said that they're including every class that's been in a PHB, they'll do the same thing with races, meaning that I can play cool stuff like Dragonborn, Half-Orc, and Tiefling right from the start.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Monsters being designed with arbitrary attack, defense, ability and damage scores based on their level and role instead of their physiology, training, surroundings, natural abilities, etc. In short, monsters designed to "challenge" X number of PCs at Y level by expending approximately Z% of their daily resources.



I don't get the distinction. From a DM's perspective, everything the players encounter in the world is chosen by me. Every monster they ever fight was placed there by me, every NPC they could suddenly challenge or attack was placed there by me. I choose how strong or how weak to make the monsters they fight and I also get to choose their reactions (does the ultra-power NPC the party wasn't ready to challeng slaughter them all or walk away laughing at their pitiful attempts).

When I choose monsters to place in the path of the party, I want the clearest way possible to know how that monster is going to fare against the party. I want as full as control as possible over how tough I want that fight to be. Things like roles and monster CR values do nothing but help me do this and if the DMs guide wants to give me guidelines on how to build fights such as a series of fights in a given day will challenge but not kill my party, then I'm only happy to have such advice. I am under no requirements to follow those guidelines and I can easily have a dungeon with ten encounters while expecting the party to figure out among themselves when to turn back and rest and when to push forward.

Two dozen classes. I'm tired of the class bloat.



I think you are going to be seriously disappionted then. They will print more classes after the main books are released. In fact, they might print more classes than usual now that Backgrounds and Themes are carrying much more weight than before. But the main reason why you are likely to be disappointed is that new classes sell books and selling books is important.
I will buy all 5e core books, and most/some optional books.
Reading the playtest, I really like it's direction and relate to the material, as I come from AD&D 2e, OD&D, and some AD&D 1e.

Deal breakers for me:
1. Radical changes of fundamental rules - If the game rules change drastically and the product no longer has the D&D 'brand feeling'. (I really doubt this would occur.)
2. Money grab/quality - A deliberate money grab and also comprimises the quality of the prodct. E.g. there should only be several core books to play the game (PHB, DMG, MM1...), but there can be many many optional books to enhance the game (PHB2, DMG2, MM2-10+...).
I have no deal breakers... but my default position is "will not buy unless it impresses me".  I can't point to any specific thing it has to do to impress me, part of that is being interesting and novel.  I have every previous version of D&D and can play them already, next will have to do new things.  If all it's got going for it is nostalgia, then it might get me to bust out my basic or AD&D or 3e stuff and play a campaign of one of those games, but it won't inspire me to buy a new game.

Actually, there is one thing that could guarantee my participation.  I'm a sucker for dark magic, shadowy stuff, illusion, necromancy, all the stuff that fell under the "shadow power source" conceptually in 4e.  Kyler in the Night Angel trilogy, Isyllt from the Necromancer Chronicles, Riku from Kingdom Hearts; complete book of Necromancers in 2e; Shadowcasters, Shadowdancers, Beguilers, and Dread Necromancers from 3e; Vampires and Blackguards and Ossassins from 4e.  Give me a fancy supplement or set of classes or other interesting options for characters focusing on that stuff, and I'll at least give it a look.  Give me fluff and supplements and support for a variety of characters entirely revolving around such concepts and I won't be able to stay away, no matter how little I care for the rest of the system.

Not letting me play characters focused on that stuff isn't a deal breaker, though, I happily played warlords in 4e before such uptions were available since the rest of the game did interesting and new stuff.
Necromancy: Friendship is Magic