What should the next playtest package have in it?

For those of you interested in the Summer playtest package (or not interested right now), what do you feel should be in the next package? 

Is the ability to make your own PCs a necessity? What if WotC gave us 10 or more unique pre-gens, and gave us rules to level them up to level 6 or higher? 

If we can make our own PCs, how many races, classes, backgrounds, and themes need to be available? Do we need new ones?

How high should the next playtest let us go? If we can make our own PCs, should we stick to low levels, or let us go higher?

Should the next package contain choices for more complexity, and dare I say, rules for Opportunity Attacks. 

What kind of adventure should come with the next package? Something with a spread of Combat, Interaction, and Exploration? Or should we stick to dungeoncrawling?

How many new monsters should there be? How customizable should the given monsters be? What about magic items?         

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

An apology.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Candy!

No, no, a puppy!

... A candy puppy!


(Really though, an actual "Fighter" class, and not a "+2 Damage" class.)
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
What do I want?  

Character creation rules and leveling up to level 6 or higher.  

And I'd want all the races (because they're really simple and I've reverse engineered the ones in the playtest anyway), all the classes we already have, and maybe the Ranger and Paladin, since they've posted about them and are working on them.  We need probably 3-4 times the number of themes backgrounds we currently have, however.  

I do not care if we get Fighter maneuvers, and I actively do not want Attacks of Opportunity in the game (as a module, sure, go wild, but don't saddle me with it in the default game).  

However, what do I actually expect in the next packet?

Fighter Maneuvers, some alternate healing system for the Cleric (probably tied to Channel Divinity), the Ranger or Paladin (probably not both), and a new set of playtest characters, still limited to level 3.  I'm pretty sure they pushed back the playtest packet that was supposed to be released in early July because of all the complaints about Fighters and healbotting, but I doubt they'll want to push the packet back so far that they have everything they intended plus those new things, meaning they'll cut corners.  

I also think they're probably paranoid that if they release character creation, nobody will buy the game because they'll already have something close enough.  I wouldn't actually expect a character creation playtest packet at all--and almost certainly not for many, many more months, unfortunately.

Something to get the 4e players to stop whining about how it's catering to the "powergamers" and "grognards" by going back to earlier mechanics and how they're totally going to abandon 5e for a 4e retroclone once one gets made.

And keep in mind that this is coming from someone who will defend 4e to the death and has no desire to see the return of Derpo the fighter whose only attack option is "I hit it with my sword" (despite my preference towards casters). But it's still really, really obnoxious to hear this endless wailing and gnashing of teeth about a game that's pretty much in Alpha state as of now.
I want new stuff...i don't want old mechanics from older editions, even from 4e. I WANT new stuff, i want 5e to bring new concepts, new mechanics, new paradigms...

That's the reason i respect 3e and 4e, because they tried new things, they broke the former edition concepts and paradigms, and brought new ones (also my lack of any kind of respect for pathfinder)...i am not seeing this on D&DNext
Something to get the 4e players to stop whining about how it's catering to the "powergamers" and "grognards" by going back to earlier mechanics and how they're totally going to abandon 5e for a 4e retroclone once one gets made.


Waiiit, is there a 4e retroclone out there in the works that I'm missing?  Because I pretty much thought we weren't going to be able to have one, what with the GSL and all.
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.
Waiiit, is there a 4e retroclone out there in the works that I'm missing?  Because I pretty much thought we weren't going to be able to have one, what with the GSL and all.



I don't know if it's a retroclone but 4th edition fans are praising 13th Age all over these boards.
I don't know if it's a retroclone but 4th edition fans are praising 13th Age all over these boards.


I've looked at it, and it's not.  It looks like it'll be a very interesting game, moreso than anything I've heard of 5e, but it wouldn't really be true to call it a retroclone, and it isn't the next coming of 4e.  Comapred to 4e, as a pretty big 4e fan, 13th Age looks like it'll have gains in some places and losses in others.  I'm going to be getting the pre-order for my upcoming birthday, but I'll probably keep playing 4e for the most part, unless the final product of 13th Age beats the living pants off the playtest doc.
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.


I don't know if it's a retroclone but 4th edition fans are praising 13th Age all over these boards.



Retroclone, it isn't: 13th Age has significant differences from 4E and won't deliver the same kind of experience.

Interesting, it yes (to me). But not necessarily from the point of view of a 4E-fan.

Here is an attempt to sum up the content of its playtest: community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...   

Back on topic. In the next packet I'd like to see something... exciting.
The first round was to make sure that the basic rules kind of work, and they do (in the way a city car can get you to the supermarket and back safely using little fuel).
The second round should give an idea about what we can get by going full throttle with the system.
@Mexrage
I'm probably the total opposite of your philosophy.  What you seem to want each time is a totally new game.  Thats not an edition of another game.  An edition is like a version.  If you released a totally new game each time then it's not an edition.  This is why to be honest I consider 4e as not really an edition of D&D because it's so different.  Thats just my opinion.  It is it's own game.  

If they make a totally different game every time then they are bound to lose a lot of people.  We want improvements not total rewrites.  This is why the 4e people are wanting a slightly revamped 4e.  I don't blame them.  If 4e had been it's own game then they could have a 2e right now that was an improved version of a system based upon that game.  The 1e,2e,3e people want a version of D&D.

 
What I'm reading is that most people want a complete game. Duh.
But that's not going to happen.

I would like character creation, even with just the current races and classes would be enough.
And the manoeuvre stuff they are talking about.

And I would like to point out that the GenCon stuff does say they will have Character Creation for that, August 15-19, so I expect character creation rules for us playtesters by then, or shortly after as well.
Viva La "what ever version of D&D you are playing right now!"
@Mexrage
I'm probably the total opposite of your philosophy.  What you seem to want each time is a totally new game.  Thats not an edition of another game.  An edition is like a version.  If you released a totally new game each time then it's not an edition.  This is why to be honest I consider 4e as not really an edition of D&D because it's so different.  Thats just my opinion.  It is it's own game.  

If they make a totally different game every time then they are bound to lose a lot of people.  We want improvements not total rewrites.  This is why the 4e people are wanting a slightly revamped 4e.  I don't blame them.  If 4e had been it's own game then they could have a 2e right now that was an improved version of a system based upon that game.  The 1e,2e,3e people want a version of D&D.

 



If it doesn't change enough from what is already stabilished to play and feel like a new game, why do you want to switch...what's the point of buying all the materials all over again if it's going to end up being the same thing?

Is as idiotic as people buying CoD games every year, when it's the same freaking thing. 

When 5e was announced i was like: "oh cool, i wonder what new things will be on this one?", just to be turn very cynical by all the blogposts from the devs, articles...and the playtest. 
For those of you interested in the Summer playtest package (or not interested right now), what do you feel should be in the next package? 



I'm about to say something that alot of you probably won't even understand.....

The next playtest package should contain whatever the designers think needs testing.
Because what you want to see has NOTHING to do with it.

So whatever they give me?  That's what I'll test.  And that's what I'll give them feedback on.   
For those of you interested in the Summer playtest package (or not interested right now), what do you feel should be in the next package? 





The next playtest package should contain whatever the designers think needs testing.
Because what you want to see has NOTHING to do with it.

So whatever they give me?  That's what I'll test.  And that's what I'll give them feedback on.   



+1
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
The next playtest should be a compete set of rules level 1 thru 20 with a 360 page adventure that takes players from 1 thru 20.  It should contain all the schemes, themes, races, subraces, skills, feats, and spells.  Once successfully playtested with all feedback no more rules should ever be added to the game.  :-)
For those of you interested in the Summer playtest package (or not interested right now), what do you feel should be in the next package? 



I'm about to say something that alot of you probably won't even understand.....

The next playtest package should contain whatever the designers think needs testing.
Because what you want to see has NOTHING to do with it.

So whatever they give me?  That's what I'll test.  And that's what I'll give them feedback on.   



+1,000,000

Please folks.  Just read this and understand it. 

If it doesn't change enough from what is already stabilished to play and feel like a new game, why do you want to switch...what's the point of buying all the materials all over again if it's going to end up being the same thing?

Is as idiotic as people buying CoD games every year, when it's the same freaking thing. 

When 5e was announced i was like: "oh cool, i wonder what new things will be on this one?", just to be turn very cynical by all the blogposts from the devs, articles...and the playtest. 



A new edition does change things.  It refines and improves.  It doesn't blow up and start over.  If you do that you are doing a new game.  Words do mean things even though some companies may totally ignore the words themselves.

I'd hardly say that 1e to 2e to 3e didnt' include improvements and innovations.  But none of them blew up the basic game.

 


A new edition does change things.  It refines and improves.  It doesn't blow up and start over.  If you do that you are doing a new game.  Words do mean things even though some companies may totally ignore the words themselves.

I'd hardly say that 1e to 2e to 3e didnt' include improvements and innovations.  But none of them blew up the basic game.

 



Neither did 4e if you think about it.

The game is still divided in levels & classes.  You go in adventures to resolve problems, often involving beating the crap out of other creatures.  You still engage in RP, skills, utilities, exploration, scouting, infiltration, NPC interaction (i actually enjoy to RP NPCs more than RPing with my character when i am a player), PC to PC interaction (wish i found very very entertaining when i am DMing), and often kill things to reach your objective,  unless the PC found a way to avoid or resolve the problem by other means.  Players thinks of way to resolve the problems by their means first, before going thru DM's railroad i have as plan b. It still based on a fantasy settings with monsters, dragons, gods, magic, etc...


Neither did 4e if you think about it.

The game is still divided in levels & classes.  You go in adventures to resolve problems, often involving beating the crap out of other creatures.  You still engage in RP, skills, utilities, exploration, scouting, infiltration, NPC interaction (i actually enjoy to RP NPCs more than RPing with my character when i am a player), PC to PC interaction (wish i found very very entertaining when i am DMing), and often kill things to reach your objective,  unless the PC found a way to avoid or resolve the problem by other means.  Players thinks of way to resolve the problems by their means first, before going thru DM's railroad i have as plan b. It still based on a fantasy settings with monsters, dragons, gods, magic, etc...



Um...aside from Class and Level, everything you mentioned is part of every RPG ever. Seriously, when you have to strip down to the basics of the medium to find similarities, the argument that "it's still the same game" doesn't hold water.
56816218 wrote:
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray


Um...aside from Class and Level, everything you mentioned is part of every RPG ever. Seriously, when you have to strip down to the basics of the medium to find similarities, the argument that "it's still the same game" doesn't hold water.



Yeah...that's the point, you all speak of D&D being unique and all...it isn't anymore. It was unique when it was the only fantasy PnP RPG out there...is not anymore.

That's why they need to try new stuff, new concepts, new mechanics, new paradigms...to become unique and don't blend with all the other Fantasy PnP RPGs 
For those of you interested in the Summer playtest package (or not interested right now), what do you feel should be in the next package? 



I'm about to say something that alot of you probably won't even understand.....

The next playtest package should contain whatever the designers think needs testing.
Because what you want to see has NOTHING to do with it.

So whatever they give me?  That's what I'll test.  And that's what I'll give them feedback on.   



+1,000,000

Please folks.  Just read this and understand it. 

Agreed. I can't wait to see the new packet. I dont care what's in it. I'm just thrilled to get to be a part of the process.

If it doesn't change enough from what is already stabilished to play and feel like a new game, why do you want to switch...what's the point of buying all the materials all over again if it's going to end up being the same thing?

Is as idiotic as people buying CoD games every year, when it's the same freaking thing. 

When 5e was announced i was like: "oh cool, i wonder what new things will be on this one?", just to be turn very cynical by all the blogposts from the devs, articles...and the playtest. 



A new edition does change things.  It refines and improves.  It doesn't blow up and start over.  If you do that you are doing a new game.  Words do mean things even though some companies may totally ignore the words themselves.

I'd hardly say that 1e to 2e to 3e didnt' include improvements and innovations.  But none of them blew up the basic game.

 

I may be old, but I remember a time in the not too distant past that the same complaints were leveled against 3E. 3rd Ed is not the same game. It's not "real" D&D. Its nothing but power gamer nonsense. Spending points on your feats feels like a video game. You can't die, etc etc. The boards that I was active on at the time referred to 3E as TETSNBN (The Edition that Shall Not be Named). Yet now, somehow people have decided it is in fact still D&D. I think the same will happen with 4E. Which I've seen called D&DINO (D&D In Name Only). And the same complaints will probably be thrown at 5E, it's not d&d.  Yet, someday, people will calm down and decide that it is D&D.

If it doesn't change enough from what is already stabilished to play and feel like a new game, why do you want to switch...what's the point of buying all the materials all over again if it's going to end up being the same thing?

Is as idiotic as people buying CoD games every year, when it's the same freaking thing. 

When 5e was announced i was like: "oh cool, i wonder what new things will be on this one?", just to be turn very cynical by all the blogposts from the devs, articles...and the playtest. 



A new edition does change things.  It refines and improves.  It doesn't blow up and start over.  If you do that you are doing a new game.  Words do mean things even though some companies may totally ignore the words themselves.

I'd hardly say that 1e to 2e to 3e didnt' include improvements and innovations.  But none of them blew up the basic game.

 

I may be old, but I remember a time in the not too distant past that the same complaints were leveled against 3E. Not the same game. Not D&D. The boards that I was active on at the time referred to 3E as TETSNBN (The Edition that Shall Not be Named). Yet now, somehow people have decided it is in fact still D&D. I think the same will happen with 4E. Which I've seen called D&DINO (D&D In Name Only). And the same complaints will probably be thrown at 5E, it's not d&d.  Yet, someday, people will calm down and decide that it is D&D.



Penny arcade illustrated that here perfectly...   www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/08/23/

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!

If it doesn't change enough from what is already stabilished to play and feel like a new game, why do you want to switch...what's the point of buying all the materials all over again if it's going to end up being the same thing?

Is as idiotic as people buying CoD games every year, when it's the same freaking thing. 

When 5e was announced i was like: "oh cool, i wonder what new things will be on this one?", just to be turn very cynical by all the blogposts from the devs, articles...and the playtest. 



A new edition does change things.  It refines and improves.  It doesn't blow up and start over.  If you do that you are doing a new game.  Words do mean things even though some companies may totally ignore the words themselves.

I'd hardly say that 1e to 2e to 3e didnt' include improvements and innovations.  But none of them blew up the basic game.

 

I may be old, but I remember a time in the not too distant past that the same complaints were leveled against 3E. Not the same game. Not D&D. The boards that I was active on at the time referred to 3E as TETSNBN (The Edition that Shall Not be Named). Yet now, somehow people have decided it is in fact still D&D. I think the same will happen with 4E. Which I've seen called D&DINO (D&D In Name Only). And the same complaints will probably be thrown at 5E, it's not d&d.  Yet, someday, people will calm down and decide that it is D&D.



Penny arcade illustrated that here perfectly...   www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/08/23/


I've been saying the same thing for over a decade. Anyone around long enough has watched it happen. Heck, there were people in a panic about how bad 2E was, with no devils, no Assassins all this other stuff that made them complain. It's definitely a cycle. Personally, I think B/X/BECMI was the pinnacle of the game and I've played/DM'ed every edition. That's only opinion and everybody has one but I've also had tons of fun with 4th and I'm looking forward to 5th. Nobody can take 4th away from us. So that's why I embrace new editions. If they're not better than the last, I can always keep playing the one I like best.
I'm about to say something that alot of you probably won't even understand.....

The next playtest package should contain whatever the designers think needs testing.
Because what you want to see has NOTHING to do with it.

So whatever they give me?  That's what I'll test.  And that's what I'll give them feedback on.

I salute you good sir!

Hopefully bards will need testing! ;)

Danny

 Agreed. I can't wait to see the new packet. I dont care what's in it. I'm just thrilled to get to be a part of the process.


True enough, but you guys realize the OP is posing a legit question. We know we will see what the designers want us to test. the question is what do we hope/want to see .

I hope we see
•more levels (4-6) of the existing characters
•this "tactical rules" module.  
•non vancian "wizard" if they want to call it a "sorcerer"
•more complex fighter
•a human racial who has more interesting bonuses than +1 everything
•rules for groups of enemies working as a single unit - the rat encounter
•monster overlays that can be added to any monster and boost its xp cost (like the 4e roles- a defender might have that kobold dragonshield ability, a striker might just have +2 to hit and damage)

I'm not as intrested in character creation as I usually DM but my players have mentioned it. (I don't think its as important to playtest so its not high on my list)
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
 Agreed. I can't wait to see the new packet. I dont care what's in it. I'm just thrilled to get to be a part of the process.


True enough, but you guys realize the OP is posing a legit question. We know we will see what the designers want us to test. the question is what do we hope/want to see .

Sure, it's a legit question and I gave a legit answer.

I don't care what's in it.

That's my answer. Seriously.
 I may be old, but I remember a time in the not too distant past that the same complaints were leveled against 3E. 3rd Ed is not the same game. It's not "real" D&D. Its nothing but power gamer nonsense. Spending points on your feats feels like a video game. You can't die, etc etc. The boards that I was active on at the time referred to 3E as TETSNBN (The Edition that Shall Not be Named). Yet now, somehow people have decided it is in fact still D&D. I think the same will happen with 4E. Which I've seen called D&DINO (D&D In Name Only). And the same complaints will probably be thrown at 5E, it's not d&d.  Yet, someday, people will calm down and decide that it is D&D.



Yeah in the 3e case it's a bunch of forum cranks.  In the 4e case it's half the playerbase.  Big difference.  They were very well pleased with 3e sales don't let anyone fool you.  

 I may be old, but I remember a time in the not too distant past that the same complaints were leveled against 3E. 3rd Ed is not the same game. It's not "real" D&D. Its nothing but power gamer nonsense. Spending points on your feats feels like a video game. You can't die, etc etc. The boards that I was active on at the time referred to 3E as TETSNBN (The Edition that Shall Not be Named). Yet now, somehow people have decided it is in fact still D&D. I think the same will happen with 4E. Which I've seen called D&DINO (D&D In Name Only). And the same complaints will probably be thrown at 5E, it's not d&d.  Yet, someday, people will calm down and decide that it is D&D.



Yeah in the 3e case it's a bunch of forum cranks.  In the 4e case it's half the playerbase.  Big difference.  They were very well pleased with 3e sales don't let anyone fool you.  


Well, they sure sound the same from a guy who listened to it then and now more than he should have. I've seen good arguments made that if a 2E version of pathfinder existed shortly after 3E came out to offer an alternative, we would have seen similar results with 3E dying on the vine. The world may never know and I don't personally care one way or the other.
@mbeacon
I was around for BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e.  There is no way 2e or 3e was rejected the way 4e was.  No way.  I remember complaints about no devils.  I'm not saying any game goes complaint free.  But there really is a different been a rainstorm and a hurricane.  In 2e we just kept the devils and went on.  Because basically 2e was completely compatible with 1e.

But hey I agree with you on the playtest approach.  I want it tested.  Thats the purpose of the playtest.  Nothing else.  
@mbeacon
I was around for BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e.  There is no way 2e or 3e was rejected the way 4e was.  No way.  I remember complaints about no devils.  I'm not saying any game goes complaint free.  But there really is a different been a rainstorm and a hurricane.  In 2e we just kept the devils and went on.  Because basically 2e was completely compatible with 1e.

But hey I agree with you on the playtest approach.  I want it tested.  Thats the purpose of the playtest.  Nothing else.  

Certainly 2E was minor compared to 4E, but 3E felt pretty much the same as 4E as far as how it was initially rejected. People really hated it. REALLY hated it. It was a pretty major change, as much as 4E was a change from 3E IMO. In fact, a huge amount of the OSR movement if fueled by people that never made the jump to 3E because it was so different. There's a definitely divide in how people look at D&D pre-2000 and post-2000. It's a very different game from the ground up.
@mbeacon
I was around for BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e.  There is no way 2e or 3e was rejected the way 4e was.  No way.  I remember complaints about no devils.  I'm not saying any game goes complaint free.  But there really is a different been a rainstorm and a hurricane.  In 2e we just kept the devils and went on.  Because basically 2e was completely compatible with 1e.

But hey I agree with you on the playtest approach.  I want it tested.  Thats the purpose of the playtest.  Nothing else.  

Certainly 2E was minor compared to 4E, but 3E felt pretty much the same as 4E as far as how it was initially rejected. People really hated it. REALLY hated it. It was a pretty major change, as much as 4E was a change from 3E IMO. In fact, a huge amount of the OSR movement if fueled by people that never made the jump to 3E because it was so different. There's a definitely divide in how people look at D&D pre-2000 and post-2000. It's a very different game from the ground up.



I agree that each edition things got bigger.  I'm not saying the 2e to 3e gap was smaller than the 1e to 2e gap.  But I still believe that the entire OSR movement isn't 10% of the total playerbase.  Whereas, the anti-4e movement is more than 50% of what's left.  So if you bring back in the 10% thats OSR, then you have a pretty good sized majority (like 55% at least).  My suspicion is that sales under value Pathfinders dominance of 4e.  Tons of 4e books got sold to people like me who then played 3.5e and never migrated to Pathfinder.  I own the core guide and nothing more.  I'm basing the 50% on pure Pathfinder sales so it's definitely undervalued.  So I didn't mean to imply that 2e to 3e conversion rate acceptance was trivial.  In fact it was significant at the time since they didn't have any other experience.  Now though it's not very big by comparison.



 
@mbeacon
I was around for BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e.  There is no way 2e or 3e was rejected the way 4e was.  No way.  I remember complaints about no devils.  I'm not saying any game goes complaint free.  But there really is a different been a rainstorm and a hurricane.  In 2e we just kept the devils and went on.  Because basically 2e was completely compatible with 1e.

But hey I agree with you on the playtest approach.  I want it tested.  Thats the purpose of the playtest.  Nothing else.  

Certainly 2E was minor compared to 4E, but 3E felt pretty much the same as 4E as far as how it was initially rejected. People really hated it. REALLY hated it. It was a pretty major change, as much as 4E was a change from 3E IMO. In fact, a huge amount of the OSR movement if fueled by people that never made the jump to 3E because it was so different. There's a definitely divide in how people look at D&D pre-2000 and post-2000. It's a very different game from the ground up.



I agree that each edition things got bigger.  I'm not saying the 2e to 3e gap was smaller than the 1e to 2e gap.  But I still believe that the entire OSR movement isn't 10% of the total playerbase.  Whereas, the anti-4e movement is more than 50% of what's left.  So if you bring back in the 10% thats OSR, then you have a pretty good sized majority (like 55% at least).  My suspicion is that sales under value Pathfinders dominance of 4e.  Tons of 4e books got sold to people like me who then played 3.5e and never migrated to Pathfinder.  I own the core guide and nothing more.  I'm basing the 50% on pure Pathfinder sales so it's definitely undervalued.  So I didn't mean to imply that 2e to 3e conversion rate acceptance was trivial.  In fact it was significant at the time since they didn't have any other experience.  Now though it's not very big by comparison.



 

I won't derail the thread further but I think your numbers are off. Bring on the 5E summer playtest packet so we can complain some more! ;)
Getting on rails... I've asked this question in a few forums as well.

What I hope to see: levels 4-6. Fighter uniqueness. Narrative combat module. Another class. Advanced themes. Alternate themes for the classes that are (lol, I doubt this'll happen. But, I'd like to see it). A more storybased playtest. Maneuvers.


Oh, and a dragon. A dragon would be cool.
"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
I'm about to say something that alot of you probably won't even understand.....

The next playtest package should contain whatever the designers think needs testing.
Because what you want to see has NOTHING to do with it.

So whatever they give me?  That's what I'll test.  And that's what I'll give them feedback on.

I salute you good sir!

Hopefully bards will need testing! ;)




This and this.

Apart from this fundamental truth, more Races and Classes to Playtest would make me very happy. More Themes & Backgrounds too.  New Weapon & Armor Table. Maneuver System and an even greater robust and codified Ruleset.    

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

@Mexrage
I'm probably the total opposite of your philosophy.  What you seem to want each time is a totally new game.  Thats not an edition of another game.  An edition is like a version.  If you released a totally new game each time then it's not an edition.  This is why to be honest I consider 4e as not really an edition of D&D because it's so different.  Thats just my opinion.  It is it's own game.  

If they make a totally different game every time then they are bound to lose a lot of people.  We want improvements not total rewrites.  This is why the 4e people are wanting a slightly revamped 4e.  I don't blame them.  If 4e had been it's own game then they could have a 2e right now that was an improved version of a system based upon that game.  The 1e,2e,3e people want a version of D&D.

 



If it doesn't change enough from what is already stabilished to play and feel like a new game, why do you want to switch...what's the point of buying all the materials all over again if it's going to end up being the same thing?

Is as idiotic as people buying CoD games every year, when it's the same freaking thing. 

When 5e was announced i was like: "oh cool, i wonder what new things will be on this one?", just to be turn very cynical by all the blogposts from the devs, articles...and the playtest. 






As an avid CoD player I must make my statement against this before i go on topic.

2 different companies work on the Cod franchise, every other year one company releases a version to thier own game. ANYONE who plays CoD will tell you that Treyarch and Infinity Ward produce COMPLETELY different games especially on the multiplayer level. This year will be Treyarchs first sequal to one of its products (Black Ops). Infinity ward has 3 sequals (Modern Warfare) which for the most part are all very similar.



Now on topic: I agree with above posters it should contain whatever they want us to test and I will, however..

Wishlist:

I would like to see more themes
I would LOVE to see the sorceror
I would like to see charector and encounter generation rules
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
@mbeacon
I was around for BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e.  There is no way 2e or 3e was rejected the way 4e was.  No way.


While I don't know if that's accurate, if I were to assume that it was, I would attribute it more to the rising incivlity and lack of common sense (not to sound like anybody's grandparent, but we all know that it's happening; we see it every freaking day) than to 4e itself.

Edit: As for what I want to see in the next playtest packet, that's really a 2-parter.  What I want to see is character generation rules and a module or two, so we can see how they expect them to interact with the core.  What I think we should get is more pregens of different classes and races (Dragonborn Paladin, Tiefling Bard, etc.).  There really is no point in testing the character generation rules until they get each of the classes and races down first.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

What I want to see:

-Character creation, or, if not that, more classes and races in their pregens, and more transparent math.
-More levels, if only to see whether the caster/non-caster disparity returns.
-An example of what they mean by a module. If they have a play-testable version of a grid-based tactical module, I'd take that, but if not, any module would do. They've been throwing around that term so much, I've become cynical that it's not just a buzz-word, to make people happy.
-A better DM packet
-Better monsters. I appreciate the thought that not every monster has to somehow be something special, but I likewise don't want every monster to essentially be a bag of hit points.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

A module.

Just. One. Module.

It can be anything. It can be something really small if they want. Just anything. Show us what they are. Show us how they work. Show us how they fit into the system. Show us how they will be presented, ie. will they be heavily deemphesised compared to the "standard"? At this stage we absolutly NEED some context for modules, because the speculation about them, and worse, use of them as justification for pushing playstyles and opinions to the wayside, has been present on these boards for too long now.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Well, all my griping aside, I do want to see them give Chargen rules, the returnof the non-derptacular fighter, and some of the more oddball options regarding races, monsters, and themes to show the system's versatility, as well as, of course, whatever they feel needs testing.

But, what I want most of all is them to at least release something to show the 4e players they haven't forgotten about them compared to the 3e players they've been pandering to*, because I see an awful lot of them considering jumping ship to games like 13th Age at this crucial moment in the game's and it is vital that they head that problem off at the pass before it gets even worse. Nobody wants the edition war to get even worse.