Goodbye 5e discussions


I have been mulling it over a while after viewing the playtest. 

I do not believe that 5e will be so impressive that it will justify another $500+ in D&D materials making my investment of $500+ in 4th edition obsolete. 

I have changed my signature to remind me not to talk 5e. I don't want to put my opinions where I won't put my money. 

I wish you guys luck, and I wish to redact my opinions on 5e where I have expressed them so far. 

Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.

( I can't believe what they did to the forums. The sterile lack or color is rather depressing. )

 

Wow even after VIEWING the bare bone basic playtest that DOES NOT INCLUDE....

 ....encounter creation, charactor creation, tactical modules, grit modules, Crit tables, advanced classes, multiclass/hybrid rules, paragon path/prestige classes, the other 4+ base classes, the other X options for those classes schemes for rogues/schools for wizards ect.., the nonvancien casting system alternative, the alternative healing modules, maneuvers for martial classes and themes, more themes backgrounds and races, ect, ect, ect.....AKA a remotely finished product??

Deuces, youll be missed.

Undecided
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
Good luck in the future and happy gaming.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Wow even after VIEWING the bare bone basic playtest that DOES NOT INCLUDE....

 ....encounter creation, charactor creation, tactical modules, grit modules, Crit tables, advanced classes, multiclass/hybrid rules, paragon path/prestige classes, the other 4+ base classes, the other X options for those classes schemes for rogues/schools for wizards ect.., the nonvancien casting system alternative, the alternative healing modules, maneuvers for martial classes and themes, more themes backgrounds and races, ect, ect, ect.....AKA a remotely finished product??

Deuces, youll be missed.

Undecided



You don't need to see the finished building to know its going to be a disaster because they are building the foundation on a bed of sand...
"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.
You don't need to see the finished building to know its going to be a disaster because they are building the foundation on a bed of sand...



Did you know that as architectural and building design and philosophy have advanced, engineers and architects learned to build on continually shifting foundations via "floating" walls, floors and ceilings.

Did you know that off the coast of San Diego there is a floating castle, out in the ocean? (at least it was off the coast there when I lived there. It may well have moved since. It floats, after all.) If you can build on water, you can build on anything.

I know you chose that analogy to make your point, not out of any literal truth, but I contend that it simply means you have to adjust your design to accommodate. It doesn't mean they will be successful, but it doesn't mean that they CAN'T be successful either.

Edit: Come to think of it, the Burj Khalifa which is the tallest building in the world (in Dubai) is built with a foundation of sand intentionally, because nothing else has the give to let something that massive withstand hurricane forces.

Maybe that's what they're going for here.
You don't need to see the finished building to know its going to be a disaster because they are building the foundation on a bed of sand...



Did you know that as architectural and building design and philosophy have advanced, engineers and architects learned to build on continually shifting foundations via "floating" walls, floors and ceilings.

Did you know that off the coast of San Diego there is a floating castle, out in the ocean? (at least it was off the coast there when I lived there. It may well have moved since. It floats, after all.) If you can build on water, you can build on anything.

I know you chose that analogy to make your point, not out of any literal truth, but I contend that it simply means you have to adjust your design to accommodate. It doesn't mean they will be successful, but it doesn't mean that they CAN'T be successful either.

Edit: Come to think of it, the Burj Khalifa which is the tallest building in the world (in Dubai) is built with a foundation of sand intentionally, because nothing else has the give to let something that massive withstand hurricane forces.

Maybe that's what they're going for here.



Great post, Gurka.  I learn something new every day.   I'm completely optimistic about this building!

Cheers.

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

You don't need to see the finished building to know its going to be a disaster because they are building the foundation on a bed of sand...



Did you know that as architectural and building design and philosophy have advanced, engineers and architects learned to build on continually shifting foundations via "floating" walls, floors and ceilings.

Did you know that off the coast of San Diego there is a floating castle, out in the ocean? (at least it was off the coast there when I lived there. It may well have moved since. It floats, after all.) If you can build on water, you can build on anything.

I know you chose that analogy to make your point, not out of any literal truth, but I contend that it simply means you have to adjust your design to accommodate. It doesn't mean they will be successful, but it doesn't mean that they CAN'T be successful either.

Edit: Come to think of it, the Burj Khalifa which is the tallest building in the world (in Dubai) is built with a foundation of sand intentionally, because nothing else has the give to let something that massive withstand hurricane forces.

Maybe that's what they're going for here.



Nice.

You don't need to see the finished building to know its going to be a disaster because they are building the foundation on a bed of sand...



Did you know that as architectural and building design and philosophy have advanced, engineers and architects learned to build on continually shifting foundations via "floating" walls, floors and ceilings.

Did you know that off the coast of San Diego there is a floating castle, out in the ocean? (at least it was off the coast there when I lived there. It may well have moved since. It floats, after all.) If you can build on water, you can build on anything.

I know you chose that analogy to make your point, not out of any literal truth, but I contend that it simply means you have to adjust your design to accommodate. It doesn't mean they will be successful, but it doesn't mean that they CAN'T be successful either.

Edit: Come to think of it, the Burj Khalifa which is the tallest building in the world (in Dubai) is built with a foundation of sand intentionally, because nothing else has the give to let something that massive withstand hurricane forces.

Maybe that's what they're going for here.


+1 Well said.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Eh, I'm starting to agree based on how much of a mess i think this is going to turn out. Modular systems still need design goals and need to be their own game at the core. This is trying to be many games at once, and is going to be a nightmare for the DM to handle all of the modular options at once, or start plucking them out. 4e became a mess after Essentials because it broke away from the original design goals, and there was no clear direction. I'm seeing the same thing here. "Add in this, remove that."

Optional rules are fine, but the core itself needs to be its own game and do its own thing. You can't have the core be far away from 3e and 4e and then add a module to give it a 3e or 4e feel. The core will still be very far from it, so it will feel duct taped on. All in all, the system is going to be very clunky and messy and hard to manage. That is inevitable if they want to make 8? different versions of D&D, which are all basically different games, into one game.
That just means my analogy doesn't work, not that 5E is going to be good.

There are two major play styles:


  1. Where the DM is the arbiter of all things and players have to get permission from the DM to do cool things. It works fine when you have a good, balanced, fair DM. It doesn't work with other DMs.

  2. Where the DM is merely the storyteller, but the rules allow the players to know exactly what they can do. This works well with all DMs, but good, balanced, fair  DMs might find it a little restrictive and have to make changes to their play style (note it doesn't restrict creativeness, it does restrict DM house ruling).

5E panders to style #1 while almost entirely ignoring playstyle #2. Its baked into the core and not really fixable unless they change the core...
"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.
That just means my analogy doesn't work, not that 5E is going to be good.

There are two major play styles:


  1. Where the DM is the arbiter of all things and players have to get permission from the DM to do cool things. It works fine when you have a good, balanced, fair DM. It doesn't work with other DMs.

  2. Where the DM is merely the storyteller, but the rules allow the players to know exactly what they can do. This works well with all DMs, but good, balanced, fair  DMs might find it a little restrictive and have to make changes to their play style (note it doesn't restrict creativeness, it does restrict DM house ruling).

5E panders to style #1 while almost entirely ignoring playstyle #2. Its baked into the core and not really fixable unless they change the core...



Basically this, plus how much work and policing it is going to be on the DM's part to run this. Then the DM is more than likely going to be forced to house rule a lot. Neither of which I am interested in. In 4e, I can simply allow all material ever printed for 4e with errata at the table, and really have nothing to worry about. I won't be able to do that with this system.

Savage Worlds is a good model for a modular system. The core rules are the core rules, and other stuff is sprinkled on top. They don't try to make entire other games out of it, as every setting under it is interchangeable. It maintains a well balanced, unified system across everything.

Bye-bye.
Again:
Why do people imagine that they are *sooooo* central to our lives that they have to make a dramatic speech when they leave?

Lokiare, all you're "proving," even if we grant your premise is true, is that DDN seems to be appealing more to the fans which made D&D one of the most successful and influential franchises in history, at the expense of the fans of its financially disastrous, most despised iteration. Even if we grant your false dichotomy is cottect: good!
Based on his one post, without any basis or without a complete set of posts, I can tell I don't care if Baja leaves or stays so I don't have anything to say.
Viva La "what ever version of D&D you are playing right now!"
4e here, just came by to say we dont want this guy back, so plz, keep him. were begging you.
Based on his one post, without any basis or without a complete set of posts, I can tell I don't care if Baja leaves or stays so I don't have anything to say.



I guess it's good to know that you didn't care so much that you felt compelled to log in and express your opinion to the entire board. Keep up the good work.
Im honestly tired of people "bowing" out of the playtest because the first iteration isn't what they expect it to be. 

First off, this might make downloading it easier

4e here, just came by to say we dont want this guy back, so plz, keep him. were begging you.




Very funny!  

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Again: Why do people imagine that they are *sooooo* central to our lives that they have to make a dramatic speech when they leave? Lokiare, all you're "proving," even if we grant your premise is true, is that DDN seems to be appealing more to the fans which made D&D one of the most successful and influential franchises in history, at the expense of the fans of its financially disastrous, most despised iteration. Even if we grant your false dichotomy is cottect: good!



That's an assumption. Its just as likely that 4E was wildly successful for a ttrpg, but it just didn't meet the hasbro expectations of $100,000,000 profit margins...
"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.
Cute, but logical fail. If Hasbro/WotC is in this for the big money, and they're the ones with access to the sales figures, the very fact that they're largely rejecting 4E in their initial designs for the 5e core would actually prove that 4E was a comparative financial flop. You just proved my point. Again.
Cute, but logical fail. If Hasbro/WotC is in this for the big money, and they're the ones with access to the sales figures, the very fact that they're largely rejecting 4E in their initial designs for the 5e core would actually prove that 4E was a comparative financial flop. You just proved my point. Again.



Nope sorry, logical fail on your part. Facts show they did the same thing with 3E. They reprinted 3E to try to sell more because they weren't meeting their unrealistic sales goals. When that didn't work, they did 4E, now they are doing 5E. Seems like the same problem 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.
Cute, but logical fail. If Hasbro/WotC is in this for the big money, and they're the ones with access to the sales figures, the very fact that they're largely rejecting 4E in their initial designs for the 5e core would actually prove that 4E was a comparative financial flop. You just proved my point. Again.

You will notice, 5e core doesnt support 3e either.

It seems to me, the impetus for 5e was dissatisfaction with the splitting of the D&D community. So they decided to reunify all D&D players, starting with Old D&D (1e-2e), which has a simpler entry anyway. Later, modules will cover New D&D (3e-4e). That seems to me to be the plan. We will see how well New players respond to the modules.

For sure, multiclassing will be 3e, but hopefully it will be balanced using hybrid mechanics, so 4e will like it too.
wait...multiclassing/leveling on 5e will be based on 3e/3.5? where have that been said, please link, Haldrik!?

Because if it's like that, i am out.  That's the complete dealbreaker for me, i am not spending 7 levels playing 2 classes i don't want, just so i can reach the point where my character start to fill my character concept in a "competent way", when my character should fit it's character concept on creation.
One of the reasons i like 4e is because i can make almost any character concept on 4e at level 1 or 2, thanks to the high amount of classes, class variations on it, hybrid rules and 4e themes,thought i dislike many of the themes like the ones on book of vile darkness and it's dragon's magazine article attachment, because they seem alot more focused on combat/optimization/builds, while in my opinion, themes shouldn't affect that and should be almost mostly flavor oriented with benefits that reflect that flavor...5e themes don't takes this route...hence my reason for disliking them .  

The multiclass/leveling from 3e/3.5 is the reason i will NEVER play those editions or any d20 game based on that system.
It really sucks to see people leave. The opinions of people who DON'T like it are important. The best reason to continue playtesting something is if you think it needs fixing.

That just means my analogy doesn't work, not that 5E is going to be good.

There are two major play styles:


  1. Where the DM is the arbiter of all things and players have to get permission from the DM to do cool things. It works fine when you have a good, balanced, fair DM. It doesn't work with other DMs.

  2. Where the DM is merely the storyteller, but the rules allow the players to know exactly what they can do. This works well with all DMs, but good, balanced, fair  DMs might find it a little restrictive and have to make changes to their play style (note it doesn't restrict creativeness, it does restrict DM house ruling).

5E panders to style #1 while almost entirely ignoring playstyle #2. Its baked into the core and not really fixable unless they change the core...


If you'd like to be pessimistic about it you can be pessimistic about it, but there isn't enough evidence to support this theory, and there are easily more than 2 basic ways to for this to go... so the premise is bunk as well.
I mean there are certainly shades between your #1 and #2... I've played in them. There is also a less popular #3 & #4 that spring immediately to mind. 

Meanwhile, the core is the core. It releies on fiat because it IS the core. Less rules, faster play, simpler design and more fiat.
More defined rules with less fiat are, in an objective sense, what the modules are by definition. Maneuvers, stances, cover, facing and other tactical things? We don't know if they are garbage or not, but we do know that the developers are planning on defining them.

So, if you choose to be pessimistiv about the playtests, I can understand many reasonings for that, but your theory quoted above is full of logical holes. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
wait...multiclassing/leveling on 5e will be based on 3e/3.5? where have that been said, please link, Haldrik!?

Because if it's like that, i am out.  That's the complete dealbreaker for me, i am not spending 7 levels playing 2 classes i don't want, just so i can reach the point where my character start to fill my character concept in a "competent way", when my character should fit it's character concept on creation.
One of the reasons i like 4e is because i can make almost any character concept on 4e at level 1 or 2, thanks to the high amount of classes, class variations on it, hybrid rules and 4e themes,thought i dislike many of the themes like the ones on book of vile darkness and it's dragon's magazine article attachment, because they seem alot more focused on combat/optimization/builds, while in my opinion, themes shouldn't affect that and should be almost mostly flavor oriented with benefits that reflect that flavor...5e themes don't takes this route...hence my reason for disliking them .  

The multiclass/leveling from 3e/3.5 is the reason i will NEVER play those editions or any d20 game based on that system.



I don't know much about how they did MC'ing in 4E so I can't comment on that.  But...I can not STAND 3.x multiclassing.  UGH!  I do so hope you're wrong on this.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Mearls has been saying they've been "shooting for a more 3.x-styled multiclassing system" for some time now. Apparently, with some influence from 4E hybrids, whatever that means.

I suppose we will know that on the next playtest if that one include character creation rules...if it's like that, i am out and there will be nothing Mearls and team can do to make me interested on D&DNext
Heh. Quite frankly, I'm almost at the point of completely ignoring the devs myself. I'll let the Playtest documents do the talking.

Yeah, it could just be a PR stunt that will never materialize, because some people seems to love that system of leveling/MCing.

Thought at this point, i see it more probable for them to bring that, because of how they talk about not repeating the mistake of 4e of feat tax with the math fix that is expertise feats...by taking levels in fighter or other similar classes... wish made me facepalm...[sarcasm]"because we all know that level taxing is better than feat taxing"[/sarcasm] ...
It really sucks to see people leave. The opinions of people who DON'T like it are important. The best reason to continue playtesting something is if you think it needs fixing.

That just means my analogy doesn't work, not that 5E is going to be good.

There are two major play styles:


  1. Where the DM is the arbiter of all things and players have to get permission from the DM to do cool things. It works fine when you have a good, balanced, fair DM. It doesn't work with other DMs.

  2. Where the DM is merely the storyteller, but the rules allow the players to know exactly what they can do. This works well with all DMs, but good, balanced, fair  DMs might find it a little restrictive and have to make changes to their play style (note it doesn't restrict creativeness, it does restrict DM house ruling).

5E panders to style #1 while almost entirely ignoring playstyle #2. Its baked into the core and not really fixable unless they change the core...


If you'd like to be pessimistic about it you can be pessimistic about it, but there isn't enough evidence to support this theory, and there are easily more than 2 basic ways to for this to go... so the premise is bunk as well.
I mean there are certainly shades between your #1 and #2... I've played in them. There is also a less popular #3 & #4 that spring immediately to mind. 

Meanwhile, the core is the core. It releies on fiat because it IS the core. Less rules, faster play, simpler design and more fiat.
More defined rules with less fiat are, in an objective sense, what the modules are by definition. Maneuvers, stances, cover, facing and other tactical things? We don't know if they are garbage or not, but we do know that the developers are planning on defining them.

So, if you choose to be pessimistiv about the playtests, I can understand many reasonings for that, but your theory quoted above is full of logical holes. 



I'd believe you but you didn't actually point out any logical holes. Note I said 'there are two major play styles' not 'there are only two play styles'. I can't see any alternatives to those two styles. I don't know maybe rolling randomly to determine DCs or something could be an alternative, but no one wants that. The problem with your solution is that they will have to have a module that basically replaces the 'core' by giving charts and DCs and restricting the DM to exactly what the rules say to make the #2 people happy. In other words a whole different core.
"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.
Yeah, it could just be a PR stunt that will never materialize, because some people seems to love that system of leveling/MCing.

Thought at this point, i see it more probable for them to bring that, because of how they talk about not repeating the mistake of 4e of feat tax with the math fix that is expertise feats...by taking levels in fighter or other similar classes... wish made me facepalm...[sarcasm]"because we all know that level taxing is better than feat taxing"[/sarcasm] ...



I hope they scrap that and go with 4E hybrid rules.

You pick 2 classes at character creation and can then pick features from each. They then level normally.

Like a wizard fighter. You get to use all weapons and have 1-2 spell slots per level, or you could get bonuses to your weapon attacks, use wizard weapons, and have 1-2 spell slots per level. Whatever combination you want.

If they go with the fighter 1/ wizard 1 crap and you literally have all the stuff from fighter and all the stuff from wizard I agree with everyone, I wouldn't play that...
"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.
Wow even after VIEWING the bare bone basic playtest that DOES NOT INCLUDE....

 ....encounter creation, charactor creation, tactical modules, grit modules, Crit tables, advanced classes, multiclass/hybrid rules, paragon path/prestige classes, the other 4+ base classes, the other X options for those classes schemes for rogues/schools for wizards ect.., the nonvancien casting system alternative, the alternative healing modules, maneuvers for martial classes and themes, more themes backgrounds and races, ect, ect, ect.....AKA a remotely finished product??

Deuces, youll be missed.

Undecided



You don't need to see the finished building to know its going to be a disaster because they are building the foundation on a bed of sand...



The foundation is still rapidly changing, so it's still too early to tell.
Good luck in the future and happy gaming.



Thank you, you too Smile



I want to say I liked the MC of the 3.x games in preference to the 4e hybrids because the 4e hybrids lose their class features unless you spend feats.  The experiences I had with 3.x games were fun. I came to a few games at 12th level and made wizards. Though my view of either should not effect 5e.

I am not abandoning 5e because of vancian magic or hit die. It will just cost more money than I will benefit from it. I rather wish that voicing your opinions on 5e required being a crowd source/backer like for Clang on Kickstarter. 
I think there are many people trying to push their views onto 5e that don't really intend to get it.

Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.

( I can't believe what they did to the forums. The sterile lack or color is rather depressing. )

 


Please remember to keep your comments positve, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a
mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in. At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!


If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:


company.wizards.com/conduct


Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!


Thank you for your understanding!

I got thinking about crowd sourcing applied to d&d. I think it would be great. 

It could take the risk out of product flopping.

I would sponsor some things like a loot generator, random encounter generator, or really anything that I could press two buttons and it gave me things that I would otherwise spend 10 minutes or more generating. 
If it could also give me the macros to use in maptools, that would be sweet. 




Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.

( I can't believe what they did to the forums. The sterile lack or color is rather depressing. )

 

I got thinking about crowd sourcing applied to d&d. I think it would be great. 

It could take the risk out of product flopping.

I would sponsor some things like a loot generator, random encounter generator, or really anything that I could press two buttons and it gave me things that I would otherwise spend 10 minutes or more generating. 
If it could also give me the macros to use in maptools, that would be sweet. 







Have you checked out the Aetherianica links in my signature, that's exactly how I'm designing that game...
"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.
Nice! Good luck man!

Concisely: I want a system where players don't have to pick between mechanics and roleplaying. I hope 5E fails asap so a better system can be made asap.

( I can't believe what they did to the forums. The sterile lack or color is rather depressing. )

 

what made you think that something like this is threadworthy?

it reeks of melodrama and i can't believe that the mods didn't just delete it on sight.
    I've removed content from this thread because forum disruption/discussion of forum conduct actions outside of designated threads is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Cute, but logical fail. If Hasbro/WotC is in this for the big money, and they're the ones with access to the sales figures, the very fact that they're largely rejecting 4E in their initial designs for the 5e core would actually prove that 4E was a comparative financial flop.


This is a good point, and deserves repeating.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Cute, but logical fail. If Hasbro/WotC is in this for the big money, and they're the ones with access to the sales figures, the very fact that they're largely rejecting 4E in their initial designs for the 5e core would actually prove that 4E was a comparative financial flop.


This is a good point, and deserves repeating.




Yeah, no again.

It doesn't prove anything. It looks like they needed more profit so they are targeting all versions of D&D, to try to reach unrealistic sales numbers that Hasbro has set for the brand. If 4E was such a flop they wouldn't keep promising 4E style mechanics...
"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.