How does D&D Next cater to your playstyle? How does it not?

One of the stated design goals for Next is creating an edition of D&D that can cater to all playstyles. How do the packets we have now, and have had in the past, accomplish that goal for you and your group? What elements are they missing?
Now, of course there are some elements we know will be in the game but have not been released for testing yet - more races and classes, play beyond level 10, etc.  
Nevertheless, what do you think?

My answer:
Show
The background and skill system works very well with my roleplaying and narritive-oriented tendancies. Backgrounds provide an easy way for players to define their characters beyond statistics, while picking up some gameplay-relevant skills as well. The skill system, though the number and types of skills could use some tuning (listen + spot should be the same, for example), is good in that even a coordinated party won't have someone good at every skill, and in that it defines them as situational modifiers to ability checks. The presented monsters are all right. I'd like to see an easy way to differentiate members of the same monster type - for example, slightly different stats for hobgoblin spearmen, archers, and skirmishers. Of course, monsters hitting is broken, especially the higher level ones. I want them to be more deadly - my players need to feel fear! The ability score system works pretty well with my favorite style of generation - 4d6, drop the lowest, in order, then pick race and class. Of course, my players would be outraged if I forced this on them, and the random roll than arrange as you wish works alright too. The Cleric is... alright. Words of Power are probably great gameplay-wise, but for me they break verisimilitude - I can easily imagine my cleric laying on hands, but throwing band-aids at players as I swing my mace doesn't work so well. In addition, I think the cleric is not malleable enough in role. Few gods care about the undead, and some don't care about healing wounds, so why should I be forced into those options? The Fighter is great. Exactly what I want my Figher to be. It can be any kind of warrior I can imagine, from the grizzled mercenary to the skilled archer to the foppish duelist to the stalwart knight. You could make a party of entirely fighters and have a great time. The Rogue needs work. It's just too stuck into one role; the skill monkey. While I'm not one to cry that the sky is falling on sneak attack and such, I feel that the rogue should encompass any number of archetypes, and this one doesn't seem to have room for some of them. The Wizard is pretty good. While in the last packet I felt that at-will spells broke verisimilitude (freeze a lake with Ray of Frost! Hire a High Elf to refresh the streetlights in a town every hour!), they played well and I don't feel like limited-use cantrips are quite as good - the at-wills of the last packet would satisfy me, with a note that explains they're not truly at-will, they're just functionally at-will in most situations. I'm okay with not having a million level 1 spells at L10, and the signature spells are pretty decent. The DM guidelines very much support my preferred style of DMing - making things up as you go along. The encounter building guidelines in this packet don't look quite as broken, and I might start using XP again! I'm not terribly satisfied with the equipment. A silver standard would be a good option to have for those of us who like to preserve the majesty of gold. Having "magical" armors listed on the normal table is a problem for me, except possibly mithral chain - dragon scale armor should not be available for purchase! Everything else is alright. Checks, attacks, and so on are great - exactly how I'd expect them to be in D&D. Advantage/Disadvantage is a great mechanic for "on the fly" DMing and freeform combats. I've mostly ignored the exploration rules, but that's true for many editions - it's something I tend to eyeball. Combat is good, and I like how there are options to either take defined or undefined actions. It's not needlessly complicated, and forgetting a small rule won't substantially alter the game balance. Damage and healing feels right as is. I don't plan on using the experimental rules. The magic item rules seem good. The tables give things a good story with a minimum of work, and no items feel particularly bland. The percentage chance of finding items per encounter seems way too high for this magic-light guy, but it's easy to ignore. For story-focused groups, attunement should have an option to be more complicated. Maneuvers are good - simple, but they give the figher and rogue some good options. Even though this is a 4E-like resource mechanic that will likely apply to most martial classes, it feels a lot better because there are no "encounter" or "daily" powers, which really only make sense for spellcasters. The races are okay, although a sidebar mentioning the fluff can be changed might be nice. As a DM, I want players to have fair warning when elves in my world aren't exactly the same thing as elves in every other world ever. Humans are bland, but it's played well so far. Specialties seem to me to be a great way of combining 3E's customizability (in terms of feats) with an easy-to-navigate system. I liked how Packet 2's specialities let characters "dip" into another class, and this has been lost with the Arcane Magic Specialist. I guess it's okay to have a wizard-exclusive feat tree, but there should be an option for a minor spellthief or spellblade as well. Spells are okay. More low-level spells should work like Magic Missile - there's no reason to have Summon Monster or Cure Wounds listed nine times in the spell list. I'm not seeing higher level support for the Illusionist, which is a bit odd. The cleric list is a bit boring for my taste, but it's always been that way.
Pros:

I like the general "Old-School" feel of it so far.  It does a fairly good job of recapturing, for me, that air of mystery that good old 1e held for me as a child.

I like that it places heavy armour wearers in the lead of the Armour Class race.

I like that the Fighter kicks more butt in combat than other the classes--he hits the hardest and is the hardest to hit;  that's the way it should be.

Cons:

I think some of the armour names need to be changed.  If it were up to me, "displacer beast hide" would become Brigandine, "studded leather" would become (Chain)mail shirt, "scale mail" would become Breastplate, and "ringmail" would become Scale armour.

I would prefer a heavier, more overt medieval European flavor to the entire thing.

I think some of the numbers are too big in certain places.  In particular, I think the PCs attack bonuses are too high from the start.  If it were my decision, I would grant only the Fighter a +1 bonus to hit at 1st level, and none of the other classes would have any at all for several levels, relying solely on their ability score bonuses to attack.  However, even if this isn't fixed, I can always maintain control of runaway PC attack bonuses by placing restrictions on ability score maximums at character generation in order to achieve what is, I feel, a more realistic and manageable level of PC combat competence.

The monster stat blocks resemble those from 4e far too much for my taste.  I don't care for a monster's ability to "recharge" on a die roll at all.  That's just weird.

Generally speaking, I am satisfied with the direction of D&D Next so far.  I feel that it will support my playstyle very well, and most of my quibbles with it are related to aesthetics or fluff rather than mechanics.

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

Fair enough I will have a go, but a lot less detail

The ways it caters to my playstyle;
-The first thing which I was in two minds about putting here was the feel of power and Ive decided im going to put it in both lists and talk about two sides of the coin, the feel of character worth and power. Being able to fight far more monsters is a huge boon to this game, but this feel is more of a comparison to 3e/4e. You can kill a lot more monsters in the same time frame in D&DN ( which I will here on refer to as V ) compared to these previous editions and thats just great for me fleshing out weaker races and monsters being able to fight.

-Carryon from above, keeping monsters viable for longer. I love players levelling up in my games but I always hated leaving behind a lot of key monsters in terms of power so quickly, I love being able to keep my key monsters and NPCs viable without a huge deal of effort on my part. Keeping my playstyle without bending the rules too far is always a great feeling.

-Backgrounds, yes... just, yes. I have had plenty of issues of players not liking the RP side of things and not fleshing out backstory, and while that is a table not a game issue, this feeds mechanical benefit into having a story and makes things feel more "real" overall. Not only that but simply having the trades list fleshed out gives inspiration, and that alone would have been great for me as a note to have in the players guide.

-Fighters, whenever I play as a character its almost always a fighter and I liked the previous packet, LOVE this packet. The only problem I'm having on this front is the great deal of people who don't like the way the fighter has a leap in power... Please wizards, give a boost to other classes at level 5, something comparable, what I was thinking was "Recall" for wizards, the ability to recall one spent spell of a level worked out by a die roll, for rogues, a nice "coup de grace" specialisation would be nice, being able to put that weakened enemy down a lot easier than other players would make them a great benefit to any party without overshadowing with raw damage.

The problems I am having;
-Zombies, a minor issue but one that has caused some issues for me running games. Being able to save vs death every time I have to "fudge" results far more than I like in a game. I would prefer to see a penalty on their saves in relation to this, but a penalty that doesnt require a lot of bookkeeping such as simple disadvantage or a static -2/3.

-Monsters, this one I can keep short as you all probably know. I would love to see them hit something. This is the flipside to my positive about V earlier, yes killing more makes you feel awesome but not so much when the things your killing are pitiful.

-Personal gripe, I would love to see rules for travelling distances be more acceptable to use and not just a boring roll fest. I've never seen groups stick to these little rules but I always feel there should be something most people would accept, I just cant work it out. ( If anyone has any interesting houserules on this I would love to hear from you ) but you can take or leave this gripe as its not in the playtest, I just needed to vent :p

- Stat emphasis, some stats are just outright better, and this will always be the case, but does it need to be by this much. Dexterity has been the uberstat for a very long time, we need to give charisma a bit more flavour.
It supports my playstyle by:

- Giving me the old-school feel of BECMI/1E, but sprinkled with bits of of more modern games. It seems as though they are truly looking at all 38 years of D&D and interjecting bits and pieces from all of those years and editions, not truly favoring 1 particular edition over another.

- Gridless by design. Yes, any and all editions of D&D can be played on a grid, but it was only hard-wired into the rules in OD&D and 4E. I much prefer TotM to grids and minis. Tactics depend more on narration and improvisational thinking as opposed to the precise measurements of who is where, who is adjacent, who is within my 3 square blast, and so on. Yes, it takes more attention to detail and better explanations of surroundings by all involved, but that's how our main group plays (and has always played).

- Bounded Accuracy. When you gain an ability score bump, it actually means something. When you gain a magic item, you can, in theory, keep it forever without the need to trade it in every level to keep up with the game's assumed math. There's true growth of power as opposed to the illusion of advancement.

- Humble Beginnings. Not starting out at level 1 as a superhero, in other words. A definite cut above the bulk of society, but not to the point that I feel like dressing my character in brightly-colored spandex body-suits with the underwear on the outside. We gain the title "hero" by our actions, not by default.

- The multiple, optional methods for healing. This is important for me. If I want a more gritty feel, I have that option.  If I want a faster rate of recovery, that option is also available.

Things I do NOT like so far:

- Monsters. They can't hit easily, but when they do, it hurts. Bad. I hope to see them square up the monster math significantly more than it currently is. Making it so they can hit more often but do a bit less damage is a good step in that direction.

- Specialties. I know, many people love them. I do not. To me, they really feel like little more than things that should've been included as class features, but were instead left out in the name of keeping the core "clean". They're not a real issue right now, and certainly not a deal-breaker, but I truly hope they don't go down that 3.5/4E road of using feats to patch holes in the rules or to cover up blatant mistakes. Using ham-handed specialties to deliver those feats won't make them any better. I also don't want to have to take a particular specialty in order for my class to be viable. Specialties should be added goodness and nothing more...certainly not patches or cover-ups for mistakes elsewhere in the design process.

Overall:

I am pleased by what we have so far, and expect many more changes as we continue forward with the playtest. Right now I'm not ruling anything out or in. We're still in the "does this work or not" phase. I fully expect by the time we receive packet #7 or 8, the entire feel of the game will be drastically different than it is right now. If it keeps heading in the direction it is, DDN will be a game I will play. If it swerves too much away, that opinion might change. Time will tell.    
One of the stated design goals for Next is creating an edition of D&D that can cater to all playstyles.

Yep.  And it's a tough one.  The practical way of doing that would be to be 'style-neutral,' to cater to no specific style, but to allow as many as possible.  Unfortunately, those who have been accustomed to D&D radically over-rewarding certain styles in the classic and 3.x eras, consider anything playable more broadly to make their favored style 'impossible.'

'Customer education' could theoretically be a way of addressing the problem, but I don't think WotC has the necessary trust of it's customer base for such an approach to work.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

An easy fix to zombies is that they stay alive only for one round. Any damage after that round kills the zombie. You can also increase the same dc
My biggest issue with specialties is how many of them are obvious choices. A cleric not taking healer is just being stupid
Pros:

No more map requirement
Spell balance is pretty good
Magic items are no longer a christmas tree setup
Magic items can't be purchased anymore

Cons:

No fix for the 5-minute workday (this one is huge)
Too much dependence on the cleric for healing
1st level hit points are too low
Monsters just feel too weak (why are they less accurate than PCs?)

Pros:
• 3 Choice Characher Design: Class, Background & Specialty
   Simple, fast, and versatile. Unlike other versions of D&D, and most other RPG's i've ever played. This system gives so much versatility at no expense of complexity. It prevents the problems associated with charachter rail-roading of all previous editions of D&D I can make a Cleric Skill monkey, and a fighter/healer. Thanks D&D next, it's liberating. Just the 

• Advantage/Disadvantage.
   Again, simple, fast, and brilliant. The first time I have ever seen such a good idea for incentivising thinking on your feet. Rewarding players for smart/creative play in a simple, fast, efficient way. Of course, DMs have been doing this in their own way since the dawn of RPG, but this dismantles the arbitrary, and at time,s time consuming elements of determing reward/penalty. Makes it easier for players can anticipate the value of the reward/penalty (adv/disadv) before throwing it out there.

• Bounded Accuracy.
   For the same reasons mentioned above.

• Tree Based Charahcter selections. I don't care if there is an option for people to pick and choose from feats, or manuevers. But allowing for Tree-Style of Selection is cleaner, less likely to be broken, and allow them to build a system that doesn't have balanced individual feats.


Cons
• Inbalanced Races: Why make humans mechanically superior?
• Specialities that lock out specific classes
• Excessive skils, skill redundancies, and lack of skill balance (skills that aren't relevant for tests, should be given freely for RP)
• Rogue class as a skill caddy
• Fighters being superior to all other classes in combat pillar

Thats all I can think of for now, I'm mostly positive at the moment, becuase all of the cons can be easily fixed with house rules. We are playing by the playtest to support the endeavor of contributing to the surveys. But if the PT3 is final we'd be A-ok, and just fix the pain points. This would have been in impossible in 4ed and 3.5.



 

My mind is a deal-breaker.

It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for

...whatever
Pros
Magic items are interesting again. I have no real comments on power or usefullness, as I'm sure that will be shifted around. I'm just glad they aren't "Welcome to magic item mart, what would you like? A +1 sword? Would you like to add an effect today? This weak frost and viscious are 1/2 off!". More unique items is what we need.

Open ended skills. This was a big + from the current packet, going back to skills not bieng tied down. I love the feel of this in play, being able to call ability checks off the cuff. It feels a lot more comfotable to me as a DM than looking through the skills list for the correct skill. I think some people are still set on needing a skill to be able to make a check, which is what is causing all the hubub about perception. I'm all for splitting things up, especially skills as omniuseful as perception.

Spells are really interesting. I am really liking their inclusion to real world mechanics, like gravity, wind, etc.

Combat moves faster. Ooooh my god, I played a couple of 4e sessions after I had been playing the playtest a bit, and combat seemed to take forever.

Backgrounds are amazing. I love them, my players love them, they are great. They allow players to easily flesh out a backstory, and it allows the DM to easily integrate the players. Win freaking win.

Cons
Specialties. I love the idea of specialites, but I do feel they took a slide back towards the 3e/4e style feat design. I was really digging their direction in the first and second packets. Now they seem too specific, not nearly as universal.

TWF. I don't really have any damage complaints, but rolling 4 times each turn is far too cumbersome to make it useful.

Armor rules still stink. Enough said. 
My two copper.

I am a story oriented Dm and player.  I like lots of room to let stories develop.  I prefer to let roleplaying flow without a lot of roll playing.  I like to let my players define large parts of thier world, developing home towns and npcs important to thier pcs.

As a player I like getting into the role.  I often speak in character, giving my pcs thier own voice and accent.  My pcs will often turn to a random npc and say, "Hey old friend, long time no see.  How yah been?", hoping the dm will play along with me.

pros
Couching the Dm to make a call, instead of trying to codifing every situation. 

Option healing rules to fit your game needs.

Simplier ability based resolution system.  No list of multiple defenses, no list of saving throws, i.e. Reflex, Will, Fortitude, Spells, Rod, Staff & Wands, etc. 

Ability checks, and skill bonuses instead of skill checks and ability bonuses.  I like freeing skill use from specific abilities. 

I like the direction the rogue is going.  Unlike the views posted above, I don' t see the rogue locked into the skill monkey role.  IMO, the current rogue is far more versatile than ever before, allowing a sneaky assassin attacking from shadows, a swashbuckling rake swinging from chandelier to the dungeon explorer who realies more on wit and skill than on combat prowess, who never skeaks attack. 

I like the versatility of the fighter, from swarod and board standard, through slayer and the archer archtype.

I like background traits.  It gives a player an idea of his place in the world.  It gives dm an idea how the world is going to react to a pcs.

I like attunement in magic items

Advantage/ Disadvantage.  It's random and we find that lots O fun.

cons

I'm not feeling signature spells and wizard traditions.  It just feels weak sauce a  reason to justify encounter powers.  Please try again.

I prefer the @-will magic missile.  I always felt the magic missile as the classic go to for the wizard in combat. 

overall

I like the direction they are going.  I like the modular approach they are promising, where options for various styles of play can be layered on as a group needs.  It allows the same group to change styles using the same rule set.  This week heavy role playing in a high magic epic campaign, next week gritty survival horror.

I like the speed of play, and as a result, I like how it is much easier to bounce between exploration, combat and interaction/roleplaying.  This also makes it easier to balance sessions to give players a more equal taste of each, and depending on the group, DM can tailor the game to give them more of what they really want.   I think it was a terrific idea to make a move action and a standard action...getting rid of the minor action.

I like bounded accuracy because it makes improvising and creating original monsters fast and easy.

I also like bounded accuracy for skill/attribute checks for the same reason, easy to improvise and make decisions on the fly.  

I love going back to "Theater of the Mind" but also having the option to do some combats on a grid.  It will be really interesting when WoTC realeases the tactical combat module.

I like the more vulnerable feel of the PCs (even though the monster "to hit" scores are dreadfully low).

Most of my cons have to do with class elements that are still in flux, so I won't even mention them.   Overall, I like the idea of backgrounds and specialties so that it becomes easier to customize and create more variety in classes (this can also be worked on more over the next few months).

Expertise dice are interesting, but still need some work (especially for rogue).

Overall, I think it allows for me to run games that address a number of play styles.   That's golden.  


 


         


       



A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

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

 

 

I'm going to focus more on things that feel like design decisions, rather than numbers stuff that I assume is going to get some more love down the line. So things like the rogue just being a bad fighter are things that I don't love, but since it feels more like works-in-progress than a decision, I'm not going to hold that against.

I don't know if I think of the things that I like most as necessarily "catering to" me or my playstyle. Certainly if you'd asked me at the outset what were things that I thought were the most important, I wouldn't have said "fighters should have a resource mechanic that is round-based and can be used for a variety of combat benefits, depending on which options are taken" - but that's far and away the most impressive part of the playtest to me. So I guess one way the playtest is "catering to" me and my playstyle is that it's not afraid to try new things.

I also like bounded accuracy, which is also a fairly new idea. It's actually kind of remarkable that the best ideas in the packs are not the ones where we're clumsily putting on a puppet show for people who think they know what they like, but fresh ideas for the game.

As far as things that need work, monster math is probably the biggest one. The PCs feel like godly titans brushing aside the paper monsters like they're barely there. I'm used to 4e where battles are more dynamic back-and-forths, instead of players just being total blenders of death. I hope that the monster math gets tightened up, or else PCs are brought a little more in line. PCs are fairly fragile at level 1 - they're essentially all glass cannons at that point - but that disappears by about level 3, and they still grind monsters into a fine powder like they're nothing.

I do like that combat moves fast, but not at the expense of it feeling like monsters aren't even threats to the players. The only combats that are remotely threatening are ones with a huge number of monsters... and those aren't fast.

Backgrounds are pretty sweet. The magic items system is pretty sweet, although the "drop tables" need some actual thought put into them instead of just being numbers scribbled down randomly. (They generate way, way, way way too many common items.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
My pros:

1. I appreciate the versatility in character creation, this has gone over very well in my group. I also appreciate that it takes very little actual time to create a character. I also like that character creation has a fair amount of complexity, without feeling complex.

2. The minimalist approach. I like that numbers are much smaller, that a +1 to something is intended to mean alot.

3. The monsters. The best thing about 4e in my opinion was the monsters, and the xp buy system. I'm glad to see xp buy in the game, and I'm also happy to see a bit of a combination of 3e and 4e monster design philosophy. Oh, and I love the zombies as they exist right now. I loved the look on my players faces when the zombies just would not go down. Makes a ton of sense to me.

4. Optional Rules. This is a big deal, and I think pretty much mandatory in this day and age. It recognizes that no two tables are the same, and that there are many game types.

5. I appreciate that the casting system is still primarly vancian. It's just not d&d to me without it and losing it would be a deal breaker for me. I also appreciate that there will be alternate casting methods added, so having vancian in the game doesn't become a deal breaker to others.

6. While I like backgrounds and specializations, I'm glad the option to freely pick and choose what you want exists. My players are happy to not have their hands held while making decisions.


7. I guess it says good things about a system when the only two cons I really have right now are about balance and damage environment issues


Cons:
1. I'm not really a fan of giving characters arbitrary dice added to damage from special abilities or class abilities that can be used at will. This is an issue for me primarly with the fighter. As it stands right now, who cares if you find a +1 weapon that deals 1d6 extra damage when you're already getting 2d6 or 3d8 from your class. I'd like to see this extra damage gone, or at least massively toned down. It would work for me as an encounter power. I'm sure that not everyone will agree, it's a playstyle preference. Again, I like the minimalist approach and think it should apply to character damage as well.

2. Sneak Attacks are now more like 3e sneaks. I prefer them to only occur from advantage, instead of anytime you have a friend nearby. It makes each sneak more special, instead of something that's expected every round and inflating damage. Get flanking and move the rogue up play is boring to me, I saw 10+ years of it a a 3e dm. Again, your mileage may vary.

It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Pretty much this. It's not offensive to me as a DM, but as a player, it really doesn't give me what I want. I mean, I could build a Human Cleric Commoner Stealth Specialist, but what the game uses to represent that? Does not interest me in the slightest.   

"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

It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for



I agree with this.  I find the Wizard to be less magical and interesting in the current packet than it has ever been.  In 4E, I had never ending sources of magic, and could do awesome stuff frequently on top of those other sources.  The current version really worsens the 5MWD problem, since it cut the Wizard in half, and axed the at-will choices the 2nd Playtest Wizard had.  And when the meager amount of spells runs out, it is back to plunking away with a crossbow.  To me, that is boring as hell.

To me, the biggest Con right now though is the game doesn't FEEL like D&D.  It feels like a game that is trying to evoke D&D tropes, but it isn't capturing the feel I had for 2E, 3E, or 4E.
Pros: 

1) Advantage / Disadvantage is fun and engaging.

2) Combat Superiority is an excellent mechanic and I feel it should be implemented with more than 2 classes, and not just the martial classes. Warlock could be really cool, balancing Eldritch Blast damage with their Invocation effectiveness.

3) Hit points are reasonable, as is the damage most characters can put out. Mages still deal more in bursts, but I can live with that.

4) Armor and weapons are decent enough, not enough for me to complain.

5) Magic items have interesting lore and minor quirks that give them personality. Personally, I'd give ALL of them Attunement options, so players could only get the full power out of a handful of items at once.

Cons:

1) Races and attributes are screwy. Humans should have lower stats than the other races, not more. They should have more customization options, not better baseline stats. I'm cool with some humans being as tough as dwarves, but I don't like the idea that every human's on average as tough as a dwarf, etc.

2) Vancian magic. It has to go! I'd be cool with Wizards learning progressively better effects, but they should be implemented in the same way that Fighters learn maneuvers. WotC NEEDS to know that reduced uses per day does not balance having more options than other characters. I'm not saying that Fighters need the same options as a Wizard, not even close, but Fighters need comparable options with the wizard. Otherwise we get Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit.

3) Saving Throws divided by individual attribute... it's not a good idea. In 3E and 4E, it was hard enough to cover four defenses, but seven is excessive. You're ensuring that every character's going to have a glaring hole in their defense, probably two or three. I don't want to agonize over whether my Wizard's 9 Wisdom will get me killed by failing a Wisdom Save. Maybe that's personal preference, but then again, so is everything I say.

4) Magic Items need to be more balanced. Some are nearly worthless, others are ridiculously powerful. The flavor is great, but the meat of the underlying system needs a tune-up.

5) Oh boy, this is a big one. If you want Bounded Accuracy, stop giving classes bonuses to hit and saves! With all their talk of Bounded Accuracy, all it meant was classes got a slower bonus over time. Give the Fighter and Rogue +2 to hit with Weapons, give Wizards +2 to hit with Magic, give Bards and Clerics +1 to hit with each. Then, remove the bonuses to AC, attack, defenses, or save DCs that items might grant. There you go. Finished. It's literally that simple.

6) A continuation, if you don't want Bounded Accuracy, then give progressive bonuses to defenses as well as attacks. It's very simple - if my Fighter can hit better at higher levels, then he should be able to dodge better too. This is why Small creature in 3.5 got a +1 to hit AND AC, and the reverse for Large creatures - because it makes no sense that a Small creature would be able to hit a same-sized target better than a Medium creature.

7) The skill list is a mess. Refine it to something like 9 Knowledge skills and 15 other skills, at most. Skills like Profession and Craft can be role-played and implemented as Attribute checks with Advantage - if theres nothing at stake, don't roll. Skills should be Knowledges, physical activities that would lead to consequences if failed, and social abilities that would, likewise, screw you over if you failed your check. 

8) Make 5 classes - Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest, and Bard. Every character could be created by taking the fundamentals of that class and adding a Specialization or something. Barbarians are Warriors with Rage, Paladins are Warriors with Smite (or Priests with Militant Training), Rangers are Warriors with Wild Magic or Skirmishing Tactics (your preference), Monks are Warriors with Brawling, Duskblades are Warriors with Elemental Weaponry, etc. The Bard class would be the "jack-of-all-trades" class, having sub-par basic abilities (like health, armor, weapons, and Expertise Dice), but starting with two of the above specializations. So you could have your classic Bard (Arcane Magic and Inspiration), a Factotum (Skill Mastery and Impromptu Magic), a Binder (Impromptu Magic and Impromptu Expertise), etc. They'd never be as strong as another character in raw power, but they'd have more versatility. That's the balancing point: Classes should trade POWER for VERSATILITY, but they should all have PLENTY OF BOTH.

My 2 coppers.
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?

It supports my playstyle by:

- Giving me the old-school feel of BECMI/1E, but sprinkled with bits of of more modern games. It seems as though they are truly looking at all 38 years of D&D and interjecting bits and pieces from all of those years and editions, not truly favoring 1 particular edition over another.

- Gridless by design. Yes, any and all editions of D&D can be played on a grid, but it was only hard-wired into the rules in OD&D and 4E. I much prefer TotM to grids and minis. Tactics depend more on narration and improvisational thinking as opposed to the precise measurements of who is where, who is adjacent, who is within my 3 square blast, and so on. Yes, it takes more attention to detail and better explanations of surroundings by all involved, but that's how our main group plays (and has always played).

- Bounded Accuracy. When you gain an ability score bump, it actually means something. When you gain a magic item, you can, in theory, keep it forever without the need to trade it in every level to keep up with the game's assumed math. There's true growth of power as opposed to the illusion of advancement.

- Humble Beginnings. Not starting out at level 1 as a superhero, in other words. A definite cut above the bulk of society, but not to the point that I feel like dressing my character in brightly-colored spandex body-suits with the underwear on the outside. We gain the title "hero" by our actions, not by default.

- The multiple, optional methods for healing. This is important for me. If I want a more gritty feel, I have that option.  If I want a faster rate of recovery, that option is also available.

Things I do NOT like so far:

- Monsters. They can't hit easily, but when they do, it hurts. Bad. I hope to see them square up the monster math significantly more than it currently is. Making it so they can hit more often but do a bit less damage is a good step in that direction.

- Specialties. I know, many people love them. I do not. To me, they really feel like little more than things that should've been included as class features, but were instead left out in the name of keeping the core "clean". They're not a real issue right now, and certainly not a deal-breaker, but I truly hope they don't go down that 3.5/4E road of using feats to patch holes in the rules or to cover up blatant mistakes. Using ham-handed specialties to deliver those feats won't make them any better. I also don't want to have to take a particular specialty in order for my class to be viable. Specialties should be added goodness and nothing more...certainly not patches or cover-ups for mistakes elsewhere in the design process.

Overall:

I am pleased by what we have so far, and expect many more changes as we continue forward with the playtest. Right now I'm not ruling anything out or in. We're still in the "does this work or not" phase. I fully expect by the time we receive packet #7 or 8, the entire feel of the game will be drastically different than it is right now. If it keeps heading in the direction it is, DDN will be a game I will play. If it swerves too much away, that opinion might change. Time will tell.    



I agree with all of this except the thing about monsters. I prefer monsters that hit less often for a lot of damage than ones that hit more often for little damage. And I'll add to the list of pros magic items. They feel . . . magical again--like they're not just accessories you order from the Ikea magic item catalogue to keep up with the orcs down the road. 
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.

...whatever
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.




TBH I'm pretty angry about it too.
Your opinions aren't wacko, just your lack of patience.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Your opinions aren't wacko, just your lack of patience.



They've given nothing more than empty promises and the opposite of what i want out of D&D for 11 months, being patient is wacko.
...whatever
Pro's


  • They want faster combat

  • Expertise dice for rogues and warriors has potential but needs a lot of fleshing out.


Cons



  • Racial bonusus are screwy (humans are the poster child of this being as tough as a dwarf and agile as an elf by default)

  • Disadvantage/advantage - This is just mathematically way to powerful and is being applied in far far to many situations. As it stands I can easily see the best thing for a bard/cleric etc to do with thier action is give advantage to the rogue/warrior as the overall damage done by the party will be greater that way. Unless you have this enabling role as a specific character concept (Eg 4th lazylord) then this should never be the best option for your action.

  • +X weapons still exist and still cause math havoc

  • Monster math in general

  • Combat is back to stand and swing - I don't know how they plan to put mobility back into the combat

  • Multi-attacks at high level are back. It was boring in 3.x and it's boring now

  • SoD/SoS is back

  • Spell effects >>> damage again

  • Defences in general ranging from armour tables being broken to each stat being it's own defence. Each character will have between 2 and 4 defences that are basically a free swing for an attacker depending on how they rolled (See below)

  • Related to defences is defender saving instead of attacker rolling. Pick one or the other and apply it to all attack types consistently

  • Skills - need to take the current skill list and compress it back down or go back to the idea that everything is just a attribute check.

  • Spotlight game balance - the fighter standing in the corner drooling by default in a social situation or the mage sitting down waiting for the fighter to carry her up the cliff both suck.


Cons so bad as to verge on deal breakers



  • Rolled stats

  • Rolled HP


These are bad bad bad bad in my opinion, yes there are options but the latest array is so aenemic that it may as well not exist.

Things I like:

The fighter finally feels like what I always envisioned a fighter feeling like. The expertise dice give it a unique flavor that I don't feel like it had before. Not even 3e weapon specialization did that. Tying it in with the moves that the fighter gets was pure gold. They have the concept down, now they just need numbers tuning.

I like the fact that the wizard gets some spells to cast even once his big ones have been spent. I don't care if they are even less effective than a crossbow, I'm still happy they get to contribute in a thematically appropriate way. The lower amount of spells per day is also good. I think that combined these two elements really contribute to the unique, strange, and wondrous feel that magic in heroic fantasy is supposed to invoke.

Magic items feel more unique. Now tune them to be proportionately balanced and you're golden, Wizards.

Things I don't like:

The rogue. Seriously, stop ****footing around and just remove it from the game. No one wants something that is just a crappy fighter. That, or you could try not borrowing all the things that make the fighter good, and give the rogue things that make it good. I really think the fighter needs to be the only one with expertise dice. I'm not one of those guys that thinks the rogue shouldn't be good in combat, I think the rogue should contribute by doing roguish things in combat. I think the real problem is that they haven't been able to work out what the rogue's identity should be. Once they figure that out I think they can get the design down.

The cleric. Feels too much like the wizard. I would suggest making domains play a larger role in the class' functionality. This actually leads me to my third point.

Wizads of the Coast, if you homogenize the classes, I'm telling you right now, I won't buy the game. I will continue working on my own game which will become my replacement for D&D if this falls through. If everyone gets expertise dice, and everyone gets skill trees, oh, wait, excuse me, I mean domains, schemes, traditions, and styles, (seriously, you're not fooling anyone, the fancy names don't impress) then it's a deal breaker. Each class should be unique, balanced, and interesting. I don't want to feel like I am playing the same class when I try something new out. I know you can come up with independent and self-contained systems that are balanced with each other that maintain the unique feel and aesthetic of each class.

Monsters hit too little and too hard. Normalize this and they will be awesome.
dnd does not cater to my playstyle by not being available in a comprehensive digital format

due to the level of content inclusivity, rules customization, on the fly improvisation from both myself and the players, and the overall size of my worlds, i find traditional pencil and paper to be extremely inhibitive
Zaramon, you claim you want the classes "balanced," in and out of combat...then you claim you don't want them "homogenized."

Those two desires are mutually incompatible.
Zaramon, you claim you want the classes "balanced," in and out of combat...then you claim you don't want them "homogenized." Those two desires are mutually incompatible.



Power is far from the only axis of differentiation between characters. In 4E, classes are balanced power wise but play completely different, even within a single role(defender, striker, ect.) and often within the same class(I have two paragon RPGA Fighters that bear little resemblance to each other).
...whatever
Zaramon, you claim you want the classes "balanced," in and out of combat...then you claim you don't want them "homogenized." Those two desires are mutually incompatible.



I'm not claiming I want classes balanced in and out of combat, I'm saying I want something meaningful for them to do in any given situation they might find themselves in. I don't expect the fighter to outshine or even shine as brightly as the rogue in an exploration-based encounter. That would just be plain ridiculous. That doesn't mean the fighter shouldn't have things to do though that contribute in meaningful ways, same for the rogue in combat. The main thing is to have the way they contribute in each encounter function differently. If they can pull that off, avoiding homogenization will be easy. If the rogue is still feeling like a fighter who isn't as good as a fighter, that means they did it wrong.

And for the record, if I did in fact have to choose homogenization and balanced vs. unbalanced and unique, I would take unbalanced and unique in a heartbeat.
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.




@CasualOblivion: in all seriousness why don't you just play 4th?  You have a game that you love.  Play it?  You've said in other threads your desire for Next is to be 4th with shorter combats.  Why this constant reitieration of your dislike of the Next?  If I had a game I loved I would play it with a light heart knowing it is nearly everything I desire in an RPG.
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.




@CasualOblivion: in all seriousness why don't you just play 4th?  You have a game that you love.  Play it?  You've said in other threads your desire for Next is to be 4th with shorter combats.  Why this constant reitieration of your dislike of the Next?  If I had a game I loved I would play it with a light heart knowing it is nearly everything I desire in an RPG.


Why did people who preferred 3E complain about 4E as viciously as they did when they could have just stuck with 3E?

In all seriousness, three reasons:

1. They promised that 5E would support all playstyles and I'd like to see them actually keep that promise
2. In terms of community, ease of finding a game, ect a 5E that delivers what I want is a more attractive proposition than being a 4E holdout.
3. If 5E can't unite the community, D&D fails and I don't believe for a second 5E can succeed without bringing 4E fans on board. 
...whatever
Zaramon, you claim you want the classes "balanced," in and out of combat...then you claim you don't want them "homogenized." Those two desires are mutually incompatible.


No they're not. 

Balanced does not mean identical.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Pros


1)      A return to holistic DM arbitration.


2)      A return to non-grid based combat as a base assumption.


3)      A return to 2e style combination of mechanics and flavor.


4)      Balance between the Cleric, Wizard, and Fighter.


Cons


1)      An arbitrary divide between light weapons and finesse weapons, which makes it impossible to build certain character concepts.


2)      Rogues suck at combat and are too good at skills (though, I do want rogues whose primary spotlight is skill use; I just want the discrepancy between the rogue and the fighter, in combat, to be a little less extreme, and I want rogues to deal their DPR via spikes/bursts, which individually do more damage than a fighter does, but over a course of time still leave rogues with only about 80% of a fighters DPR).


3)      Some of the magic items need rebalancing. 

Zaramon, you claim you want the classes "balanced," in and out of combat...then you claim you don't want them "homogenized." Those two desires are mutually incompatible.


No they're not. 

Balanced does not mean identical.



Thank you.
"Balanced does not mean identical."

Nice theory, but in practice, yes, it does.

This has come up in thread after thread. Someone complains that the rogue, for instance, isn't "balanced" with the fighter in combat. When it's pointed out they shouldn't be dealing the same damage, the complainant declares, "oh no, of course not, I just want the rogue to have meaningful options." When it's pointed out that this is already the case, since rogues are backstabbing, sneaking, hiding in shadows, picking the locks while the fighter distracts the guards, etc., the complainant eventually shifts around to defining "having meaningful options" as "doing as much combat damage as the fighter."

The classes already *are* balanced by each having functions in and out of combat. Some are better at certain tasks than others. Any movement towards even further balance would, by necessity, constitute one class stepping into the role of another class, the road to blandville this edition must avoid.
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.




@CasualOblivion: in all seriousness why don't you just play 4th?  You have a game that you love.  Play it?  You've said in other threads your desire for Next is to be 4th with shorter combats.  Why this constant reitieration of your dislike of the Next?  If I had a game I loved I would play it with a light heart knowing it is nearly everything I desire in an RPG.


Why did people who preferred 3E complain about 4E as viciously as they did when they could have just stuck with 3E?

In all seriousness, three reasons:

1. They promised that 5E would support all playstyles and I'd like to see them actually keep that promise
2. In terms of community, ease of finding a game, ect a 5E that delivers what I want is a more attractive proposition than being a 4E holdout.
3. If 5E can't unite the community, D&D fails and I don't believe for a second 5E can succeed without bringing 4E fans on board. 



I apply the same question to 3E players in regards to their opinion about 4E.  It's not that I believe you or 3E players don't have a right to complain, my overall point is playtest, give concrete suggestions of how you would change concrete concepts and/or specific things that displease you.  You may have done this in other threads, I have not looked at all your posts (you seem to post a lot ;p).  But what I have seen of your complaints seem to be broad concepts such as the 'mundanity' of the classes.  My overall impression is that you keep beating your head against a wall.  I like your passion, I would love to have a player with that kind of passion (more players any way, I love my players) but your, apparently, unrelenting anger seems to be directed at the wrong things or in the wrong way.  

1. It's a tall order and one I actually think it is absurd to promise as they worded it.  Perhaps if they said they would try to support all playstyles?
2. Agree also if you can't find 4E games then that sucks.  But then it sucks for any rpg.  Have you tried Anima: Beyond Fantasy or other gaming systems that may be run in your area?
3.5E's uniting of the community and subsequent results is beyond the scope of any reasonable predictions.  It could be that there are not enough 4E players to matter in Next's failure or its success.  It could be the 3.5 players are perfectly content with PF.  It could be that Next will rely most on new players or those players (such as myself) who were disenfranchised by all the previous editions of DnD.  No one can say.
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.




@CasualOblivion: in all seriousness why don't you just play 4th?  You have a game that you love.  Play it?  You've said in other threads your desire for Next is to be 4th with shorter combats.  Why this constant reitieration of your dislike of the Next?  If I had a game I loved I would play it with a light heart knowing it is nearly everything I desire in an RPG.


Why did people who preferred 3E complain about 4E as viciously as they did when they could have just stuck with 3E?

In all seriousness, three reasons:

1. They promised that 5E would support all playstyles and I'd like to see them actually keep that promise
2. In terms of community, ease of finding a game, ect a 5E that delivers what I want is a more attractive proposition than being a 4E holdout.
3. If 5E can't unite the community, D&D fails and I don't believe for a second 5E can succeed without bringing 4E fans on board. 



I apply the same question to 3E players in regards to their opinion about 4E.  It's not that I believe you or 3E players don't have a right to complain, my overall point is playtest, give concrete suggestions of how you would change concrete concepts and/or specific things that displease you.  You may have done this in other threads, I have not looked at all your posts (you seem to post a lot ;p).  But what I have seen of your complaints seem to be broad concepts such as the 'mundanity' of the classes.  My overall impression is that you keep beating your head against a wall.  I like your passion, I would love to have a player with that kind of passion (more players any way, I love my players) but your, apparently, unrelenting anger seems to be directed at the wrong things or in the wrong way.  

1. It's a tall order and one I actually think it is absurd to promise as they worded it.  Perhaps if they said they would try to support all playstyles?
2. Agree also if you can't find 4E games then that sucks.  But then it sucks for any rpg.  Have you tried Anima: Beyond Fantasy or other gaming systems that may be run in your area?
3.5E's uniting of the community and subsequent results is beyond the scope of any reasonable predictions.  It could be that there are not enough 4E players to matter in Next's failure or its success.  It could be the 3.5 players are perfectly content with PF.  It could be that Next will rely most on new players or those players (such as myself) who were disenfranchised by all the previous editions of DnD.  No one can say.



As long as the goal of 5E remains "a modular D&D for everybody", my general overarching complaints are important. This playtest is so far from what I want that little tweaks to concrete concepts or specific things isn't enough. This playtest has it wrong in a broad, general sense.

1. Trying isn't enough. Trying doesn't give me a game I'll enjoy playing.
2. I want to play D&D, either 4E or an enjoyable 5E. 
3. There are enough 4E players to matter in Next's success or failure. Take that to the bank. It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. 
...whatever
It doesn't cater to me in the slightest, on any level.

Pros:

I honestly can't think of anything I like in the current rules

Cons:

Too much emphasis on DM Fiat at the expense of player agency

The game in general and the character rules in particular are painfully mundane, as opposed to heroic

 Too much old school focus, I want something more modern, and am not fond of D&D's traditions for tradition's sake

Combat is fast but dull as dirt, lacking the tactical depth I'm looking for




Are you me?




Its funny how people try to paint me as some fringe wacko. I actually think my opinions are fairly common, I'm just angrier about things.




@CasualOblivion: in all seriousness why don't you just play 4th?  You have a game that you love.  Play it?  You've said in other threads your desire for Next is to be 4th with shorter combats.  Why this constant reitieration of your dislike of the Next?  If I had a game I loved I would play it with a light heart knowing it is nearly everything I desire in an RPG.


Why did people who preferred 3E complain about 4E as viciously as they did when they could have just stuck with 3E?

In all seriousness, three reasons:

1. They promised that 5E would support all playstyles and I'd like to see them actually keep that promise
2. In terms of community, ease of finding a game, ect a 5E that delivers what I want is a more attractive proposition than being a 4E holdout.
3. If 5E can't unite the community, D&D fails and I don't believe for a second 5E can succeed without bringing 4E fans on board. 



I apply the same question to 3E players in regards to their opinion about 4E.  It's not that I believe you or 3E players don't have a right to complain, my overall point is playtest, give concrete suggestions of how you would change concrete concepts and/or specific things that displease you.  You may have done this in other threads, I have not looked at all your posts (you seem to post a lot ;p).  But what I have seen of your complaints seem to be broad concepts such as the 'mundanity' of the classes.  My overall impression is that you keep beating your head against a wall.  I like your passion, I would love to have a player with that kind of passion (more players any way, I love my players) but your, apparently, unrelenting anger seems to be directed at the wrong things or in the wrong way.  

1. It's a tall order and one I actually think it is absurd to promise as they worded it.  Perhaps if they said they would try to support all playstyles?
2. Agree also if you can't find 4E games then that sucks.  But then it sucks for any rpg.  Have you tried Anima: Beyond Fantasy or other gaming systems that may be run in your area?
3.5E's uniting of the community and subsequent results is beyond the scope of any reasonable predictions.  It could be that there are not enough 4E players to matter in Next's failure or its success.  It could be the 3.5 players are perfectly content with PF.  It could be that Next will rely most on new players or those players (such as myself) who were disenfranchised by all the previous editions of DnD.  No one can say.



As long as the goal of 5E remains "a modular D&D for everybody", my general overarching complaints are important. This playtest is so far from what I want that little tweaks to concrete concepts or specific things isn't enough. This playtest has it wrong in a broad, general sense.

1. Trying isn't enough. Trying doesn't give me a game I'll enjoy playing.
2. I want to play D&D, either 4E or an enjoyable 5E. 
3. There are enough 4E players to matter in Next's success or failure. Take that to the bank. It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. 



1. I was asking (poorly worded as it was) if they had said they would try to make it appeal to everyone would that have not raised your expectations so much.  
2. At this point everyone is more than well aware of what you want in regards to DnD.  You mention it in every thread you post on.
3. My point is that we don't have the numbers as to the relative amount of players who play any of the editions.  Who bought the books is at best only an indicator of who bought the books, not who actively plays the game.  I'm not saying the 4e crowd is irellevant, nor any preferred edition crowd.  All I am saying is we have no accessible means to determine any groups relevance to the survival of 5E.  Further you could be an extreme outlier of the 4E crowd's opinion thus while your opinion is valid you hardly represent 4E players or can speak in any reasonable manner for their loyalties or the necessity of their goodwill for the success of a product that is minimally a year away.  It's the opposite of wishful thinking.  Wishful thinking is unceasingly railing on about how 5E isn't 4th and how Next needs 4E players support to survive when it comes out in a year or more.  There are ways to change things, or contribute to changing things, and what you are expending your energies, time, and forum space doing are not it in my opinion.
@Casualoblivion: An example:  Since you universally hate everything in the playtests, you literally can't find a single thing positive about them, my guess is your opinion is weighted much less by everyone, including the developers, than someone who takes more of a 'compliment sandwich' approach.  You can't find a single positive thing to say about anything regarding the playtest packets.  Not a single thing.  Everyone knows your opinions, and they are unvarying and unalloyed.  No one ever has the need to find out what you think because it will always be the same in regards to the playtest.  And you are not the only one who they are trying to please.  Even the entirety of the 4E crowd is not the only group they are trying to please.  It's difficult to please someone who relates no standards by which they are pleased save that a previous edition that WoTC already made and is not going to remake is the sole measure of your satisfaction.  That and 5E should be fun, whatever that means for you, and you specifically.       

1. I was asking (poorly worded as it was) if they had said they would try to make it appeal to everyone would that have not raised your expectations so much.  
2. At this point everyone is more than well aware of what you want in regards to DnD.  You mention it in every thread you post on.
3. My point is that we don't have the numbers as to the relative amount of players who play any of the editions.  Who bought the books is at best only an indicator of who bought the books, not who actively plays the game.  I'm not saying the 4e crowd is irellevant, nor any preferred edition crowd.  All I am saying is we have no accessible means to determine any groups relevance to the survival of 5E.  Further you could be an extreme outlier of the 4E crowd's opinion thus while your opinion is valid you hardly represent 4E players or can speak in any reasonable manner for their loyalties or the necessity of their goodwill for the success of a product that is minimally a year away.  It's the opposite of wishful thinking.  Wishful thinking is unceasingly railing on about how 5E isn't 4th and how Next needs 4E players support to survive when it comes out in a year or more.  There are ways to change things, or contribute to changing things, and what you are expending your energies, time, and forum space doing are not it in my opinion.



1. If that promise wasn't there, I'd be more angry, not less. I'd be angry that my D&D was being shelved for some backward piece of traditionalist garbage. 

2. As long as WotC is asking for feedback on 5E, you'll keep hearing it.

3. A number of people have echoed my position in tis very thread. I game with 4E people, I talk to a decent sized group of them at weekly organized play, and attend a few cons a year and generally spend most of my time there with 4E players. I'm in a far better position to speak for them than someone on the outside. I don't really care what you think about the effort I'm putting in. As I said, the big picture is wrong, and big changes are needed, not small ones.
...whatever
Sign In to post comments