Critical Misses of D&D Next

I think the obvious critical miss of D&D Next is not paying attention to the complaints about 4th edition. This has most recently manifested itself in all martial classes gaining expertise dice. This makes them generally the same, which was a big problem with 4th. Even more so it seems to me WotC has decided to use these maneuvers with classes that should not have them or with abilities that should be handled separately. For example sneak attack. Even if the rogue gets expertise dice sneak attack should not be a maneuver. It's better handled separately.

Next wotc is trying to make the game easy. This has been a complaint against a lot of game systems recently. Essentially they are making the game easier because people are 'too stupid to figure out the grown up previous edition' (exaggeration, probably, true to an extent) I n other words parts of the game are simplified to make them easier for new players. This makes the game horrible for veteran roleplayers and is a direct link to the claim that the game feels like an mmo. Which I think expertise dice going to every class feels mmo like in addition to making classes seem like copies of each other instead of distinct and different.

Another issue is going back to an earlier game style of having monsters who could barely hit but when they do they hit hard. This leads to all kinds of problems but mostly either near TPK or tpk or the PCs get past the encounter without a scratch, usually depending on initiative order.

It would appear that since only the rogue can use thieves tools it is now required to have a rogue in every party (or a theif) this is bad for the game.

Disadvantage is another miss. Twf shows why this is bad. Anything with disadvantage will always be not an option.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

There's a saying in design, "Accessible does not mean easy". The way they are crafting the game lends itself to ease of entrance, ease of play, and fast combats, all of which make the game more accessbile. These have all been present in one edition of D&D or another, but they are trying to make this edition have all of these. It's a good design move as it will be easier to impliment things without rocking the boat too much. With too much depth every item, ability, or rule you impliment can have ripples down the line and cause crazy rules breakdowns you could have never seen coming. Plus there's easily as much depth here as 3.0 had when it first launched, easily.

Not to mention D&D can't just keep building up forever. An author doesn't just keep writing crazier and crazier books. They try different things to please different parts of fans.

Also, no one wanting disadvantage? Working as intended. No one SHOULD want a debuff.
My two copper.
I haven't seen any misses I consider "critical" in the current version.
Only things that require attention and adjustment.
I guess the butcher job they did on specialties felt a bit off, but it didn't ruin my weekend.

I've really enjoyed the elegant simplicity of expertice dice, advantage/disadvantage and other things. I honestly think they are on the right track in milking those systems and making them universal. It just requires attention to make sure they don't come across as copy/paste undefined laziness, but I'm optimistic. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
Falling rule
Charge action
Monsters accuracy
Sneak Attack maneuver
Weapon and Armor Table
Intoxication condition reducing damage 
Rule for using a weapon you are not proficient with
No critical hit extra damage for monsters without class levels
Too many magical longswords as opposed to other weapons
The rogue can only use thieve's tools?  Did I miss something?  I thought anyone can use the tools.
The rogue can only use thieve's tools?  Did I miss something?  I thought anyone can use the tools.

At present, per RAW, only the rogue can use thieves' tools.

Other characters can become quite skilled at certain tasks that cannot be done without thieves' tools, but can't use the tools.

(Some people seem to think there's a logic error here, and that either RAW or fluff fails to match RAI.)

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

The rogue can only use thieve's tools?  Did I miss something?  I thought anyone can use the tools.

At present, per RAW, only the rogue can use thieves' tools.

Other characters can become quite skilled at certain tasks that cannot be done without thieves' tools, but can't use the tools.

(Some people seem to think there's a logic error here, and that either RAW or fluff fails to match RAI.)



I believe you, but can you give me a reference for my playgroup?  I think we missed it because it was our understanding that you can attempt to do anything and that skills didn't mean you know how to do something; but only that you know how to do it better.  Meaning you can try to disarm trap if you had the tools, but didn't have the skill.  You just would only get the ability check.




Characters proficient with thieves’ tools can use them to find and disarm traps and to open locks. Normally, these tasks are impossible without appropriate tools. A set of thieves’ tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers.

 This is the text of thieve's tools above.  Is the bolded word proficient mean you need the skill to even attempt?  I'm thinking that's what we might have missed.




This has most recently manifested itself in all martial classes gaining expertise dice. This makes them generally the same, which was a big problem with 4th.

I don't know if you were around for editions 1-3, but this is essentially exactly the split between spellcasters and non-spellcasters: if you have spells, then you cast those, but otherwise you do what the fighter does (except not as well).

Actually, it was worse than that, because even clerics and wizards would do what the fighter did (but worse) - until 3.X broke the balance by handing out too many spell slots (or in the cleric's case, allowing it to buff itself to do exactly what the fighter did but better).

The line which 4E crossed in terms of class similarity was to make martial characters use the same mechanics as spellcasters, and even that wasn't the sole cause for 4E detractors - myself, for example, I have no issue with that aspect of 4E.  Even if 5E went further than it currently does, and gave every class expertise dice, that would only put it at 3.X on the same-ness scale because it's conceptually identical to the 3E method of sacrificing BAB to power maneuvers that were learned via feats.

I will agree that Disadvantage is a complete disaster of a mechanic, though.

The metagame is not the game.

I think 3.x got it right....
You must be proficient with thieves tools, only rogue gains proficiency. So yeah what you have bolded
Sneak attack too weak,
medium armor category,
thief tool limited to one class,
advantage/disadvantege system,

I think the big difference between expertise dice and spell slots (so far) is twofold:


Slots are a number rather than a die value. Numbers are less defined; we are more able to separate them from what they do more easily. If a character at 5th level has 1 3rd level spell... well that could mean anything. Our reactin is to hit the spell list and see. If a character at 5th level has 2d6 expertise dice.. well in terms of power it's probably less than the 3rd level spell, but you get it every round where the other character gets the 3rd level spell once in a daycycle. Thing is, if it just says "1 spell" I just internalise that as 1 effect. I have to go look at the spells to figure out what that actually means so the presence of a spell progression in the table is pretty neutral. If it says "2d6" then I know immediately that whatever it is I'm doing, it'll involve rolling 2d6. That creates a powerful connection between what the effects are and the reference on the table, which means the expertise progression has a much stronger impact on how we see a character class.


ED have a unified progression, spells do not. A good analogy for how spell progressions influence our perceptions of power level is what the max spell levels are for that class. If we see a character gets 9th (or 10th) level spells, we know immediately that they're a primary caster. If it goes to 6th we know that the class will use spells reasonably often but they'll be doing other things just as much, and if it goes to 4th level we know that the spells are a garnish for the class that enables some other class feature but is not the main attraction.


Expertise dice currently don't provide that kind of a distinction and it makes the classes feel samey.

ED dice would have been great on a few classes. Seems they are adding them to all the maritial types.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

ED dice would have been great on a few classes. Seems they are adding them to all the maritial types.



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


Simplification can be good for veteran roleplayers as well.  I have a career, wife, 3 kids, lots of other interests that take my time.  I don't need or want a whole bunch of rules in the game.  I have just as much roleplaying experience as any of the designers to make case-by-case DM rulings whenever a corner case happens at the table. 

In short, your analysis on whom simplification targets is inaccurate.
I was looking at it from who it is designed for.
I was looking at it from who it is designed for.



Roleplayers of all backgrounds - kids playing after school for the first time, adults fitting it into their busy schedule but have played D&D in the past, college kids playing between classes that have a mixed background?

I'm sorry, explain again why streamlining rules is a bad thing.

I have 20+ years of roleplaying, streamlined rules aren't a bad thing for veteran roleplayers either.   
I think the sameness is a result of the martial classes not having distinct abilities. So with clerics I've always seen them as essentially a martial class with buff spells. Wizards are the actual spell casting class. Sorcerer while nearly identical to the wizard has never felt the same because the way to cast spells was different being able to cast any spell you knew as opposed to spells you prepared. Warlocks never really operated with spells, their natural abilities were the focus of the class.

Sameness is going to be one of the problems taking different spell casting options to a system level rather than a class level. This is going to be an issue that I don't see Next overcoming.
I never said streamlining was bad only dumbing down the rules was bad.

This is largely bad because it has been a complaint against many game systems recently
I was looking at it from who it is designed for.



There is a general trend for those of us that started gaming in the 80s to shift toward simpler, more streamlined games.  Not everyone in such demographic, mind, but a fair trend.  I have a complicated enough life as is; I don't want complicated gaming fun time.  I just want to slay some dragons while half-drunk and laughing at the jokes my buddies make with it all feeling like the D&D I've played for years.  The R&D articles have definitely been written with my preferences in mind.
 
I think the sameness is a result of the martial classes not having distinct abilities. So with clerics I've always seen them as essentially a martial class with buff spells. Wizards are the actual spell casting class. Sorcerer while nearly identical to the wizard has never felt the same because the way to cast spells was different being able to cast any spell you knew as opposed to spells you prepared. Warlocks never really operated with spells, their natural abilities were the focus of the class. Sameness is going to be one of the problems taking different spell casting options to a system level rather than a class level. This is going to be an issue that I don't see Next overcoming.



Not really.

Vancian
Level Spells
         1st   2nd  3rd
1        1
2        2
3        2     1
4        2     2
5        2     2      1

Spell points
Level Points
1        2
2        3
3        4
4        5
5        6

Warlock Spell List: Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Might, etc...etc...

Wizard Spell List: Magic Missile, Shield, Burning Hands, etc...etc...

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


Which game systems?

The issue is it seems people confuse streamlining with dumbing down the rules.

So far nothing I have seen in D&D Next is dumbing down the game, the game has been streamlined and modified.   
I was looking at it from who it is designed for.



There is a general trend for those of us that started gaming in the 80s to shift toward simpler, more streamlined games.  Not everyone in such demographic, mind, but a fair trend.  I have a complicated enough life as is; I don't want complicated gaming fun time.  I just want to slay some dragons while half-drunk and laughing at the jokes my buddies make with it all feeling like the D&D I've played for years.  The R&D articles have definitely been written with my preferences in mind.
 


Not true.  There is no trend that any of us know about for sure.  Plenty of older players have moved on to another game based on the OGL and it was a massive hit.  That's not a fair trend.  Also, WotC is reprinting earlier editions.  Something tells me that is because they think people will buy them.

Next will have a base core where you can just do a quick dungeon run if you want.  Then they will have tons of options that people can add that will make the game more involved based on what each individual playgroup is comfortable with.
For me personally different spell lists would not be enough to make the classes feel different. 4th edition proves this. Classes all had different powers but felt exactly the same
The modular idea won't work if you have to keep buying books to get all the pieces of the puzzle
Not true.  There is no trend that any of us know about for sure.  Plenty of older players have moved on to another game based on the OGL and it was a massive hit.  That's not a fair trend.  Also, WotC is reprinting earlier editions.  Something tells me that is because they think people will buy them.


Fair critique
The modular idea won't work if you have to keep buying books to get all the pieces of the puzzle



The point of modularity is not to complete everyones' puzzles under a single roof. The point of modularity is to allow people to build different puzzles based on their playstyles and preferences by combining parts under different roofs. All of the pieces needed to make my puzzle might be dramatically different than the pieces you need. You might need less pieces than I do (or vice-versa). Your puzzle might be different-shaped than mine. Modularity is the only real way to allow this level of customization. It allows everyone to make the puzzle they want to make (instead of making everyone force pieces into the same puzzle to make it work for them), even if it means buying more books to do so. As long as the modular books are ridiculously priced (and I rather doubt they will be), this shouldn't be a problem.

New World of Darkness is a good example of this kind of modularity. Everyone has to buy the core World of Darkness rulebook. it lays out the basic guidelines that all of the games will use. Then, depending on what kind of game you want to play, you buy other books to complete your puzzle. You want to play a game where heroes pursue dark forces? Buy the Hunter books. You want to play a feral, violent, gritty game? Buy the Werewolf books. You want to play an intrigue/diplomacy/secretive game? Buy the Vampire books. Not only does this method work, but it works beautifully. All of the pieces are independent of each other, but can be joined together with almost flawless ease.
New world of darkness is not a good example. Those are nearly complete games that are vastly different from one another. They are more like d&d class splat books rather than modular entities. Further if you are going to play a vampire game you need the entire vampire book. With a tactical rules modular I for example would need flanking rules. The rest of the book would be garbage to me.
New world of darkness is not a good example. Those are nearly complete games that are vastly different from one another. They are more like d&d class splat books rather than modular entities. Further if you are going to play a vampire game you need the entire vampire book. With a tactical rules modular I for example would need flanking rules. The rest of the book would be garbage to me.



If all you need are flanking rules, you don't need to buy any other books at all. It would take all of 2 minutes to create your own, thus saving you money. After all, calling any edition or ruleset from D&D's history "tactical" is a bit of a stretch. It would seem that you are arguing for a removal of modular books, when the intended design goal of DDN is modularity. While I could argue about your take on the WoD rules (I find your comparisons very odd and, most likely, misinformed), it would seem that you're not that interested in dissenting points of view, so I won't bother.
For me personally different spell lists would not be enough to make the classes feel different. 4th edition proves this. Classes all had different powers but felt exactly the same

Hm... and I found that two characters of the same class with mostly the same build options were often dramatically different. Much mores so than in 3xE.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
For me personally different spell lists would not be enough to make the classes feel different. 4th edition proves this. Classes all had different powers but felt exactly the same

Hm... and I found that two characters of the same class with mostly the same build options were often dramatically different. Much mores so than in 3xE.




Agreed. They often looked the same, but rarely felt the same or played the same.
For me personally different spell lists would not be enough to make the classes feel different. 4th edition proves this. Classes all had different powers but felt exactly the same

Hm... and I found that two characters of the same class with mostly the same build options were often dramatically different. Much mores so than in 3xE.




Agreed. They often looked the same, but rarely felt the same or played the same.



I feel the opposite. I feel they played the same. Look at your character sheet for an Encounter power, Look down your sheet for a Minor action power. Rinse Repeat, insert daily.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
For me personally different spell lists would not be enough to make the classes feel different. 4th edition proves this. Classes all had different powers but felt exactly the same

Hm... and I found that two characters of the same class with mostly the same build options were often dramatically different. Much mores so than in 3xE.




Agreed. They often looked the same, but rarely felt the same or played the same.



I feel the opposite. I feel they played the same. Look at your character sheet for an Encounter power, Look down your sheet for a Minor action power. Rinse Repeat, insert daily.



Yes, and in previous editions you would hit it, then hit it again unless you were a spell caster. So saying 4E made everything the same is only workable if you also view previous editions in the same light only more so. At least 4E powers felt different and did different things. In previous editions you literally did the same thing over and over no matter how cool you described it. Legolas riding a shield down a stairway and shooting arrows at creatures while doing it in previous editions was just walking down a stairway and making multiple attacks...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
For me personally different spell lists would not be enough to make the classes feel different. 4th edition proves this. Classes all had different powers but felt exactly the same

Hm... and I found that two characters of the same class with mostly the same build options were often dramatically different. Much mores so than in 3xE.




Agreed. They often looked the same, but rarely felt the same or played the same.



I feel the opposite. I feel they played the same. Look at your character sheet for an Encounter power, Look down your sheet for a Minor action power. Rinse Repeat, insert daily.



Yes, and in previous editions you would hit it, then hit it again unless you were a spell caster. So saying 4E made everything the same is only workable if you also view previous editions in the same light only more so. At least 4E powers felt different and did different things. In previous editions you literally did the same thing over and over no matter how cool you described it. Legolas riding a shield down a stairway and shooting arrows at creatures while doing it in previous editions was just walking down a stairway and making multiple attacks...



Will i make everyone mad if I say I found all previous editions boring?  If I didn't really like any previous edition does that count as edition warring?  Or will I unite all edition warriors in opposition to me?  Could I be the Ozymandias of the forums?
Personally i found it aggravating having to buy the world of darkness main book then the game book I actually wanted to play. It would have made me a happier customer if I could have just bought one book that had all the rules I needed to run the game.

And yes I can house rule flanking. But you MISSED the point. If I house rule flanking that means I am not buying the tactical rules module hence modularity failing in the sense of being a profitable idea. My prediction is modular books will have trouble selling especially if there is a lot of them that people only want a couple of rules out of. Players will likely never buy the module rules as they won't be useful since you want know when someone is going to use them.

Pathfinder not having traits in the main book is a huge pain to me. I hate it, and it definitely lowers my opinion of paizo. It was stupid of them to put traits in a book oter than the players handbook. I have no need for the other book and no desire to ever buy it. This means that when we play with the modular traits I have to borrow someone's book to finish my character and since only one person has the book well there is he issue.
And yes I can house rule flanking. But you MISSED the point. If I house rule flanking that means I am not buying the tactical rules module hence modularity failing in the sense of being a profitable idea. My prediction is modular books will have trouble selling especially if there is a lot of them that people only want a couple of rules out of.



Then you simply don't subscribe to the idea of modularity. That's fine, and well within your rights as a consumer. Of course, it's not any different to buy the WoD core book and a few "setting" books than it is to buy the PHB, DMG, MM, X Power, Complete X, X Campaign Setting, and so on.

Unfortunately, in order to do what WotC wants to do (appease fans of all editions), modularity is the only chance they have of getting anywhere even close. No one, single rulebook can encompass enough alternate rules to satisfy fans of all editions...there are simply too many fundamental differences. Well, unless you want a 1,000 page rulebook that would cost $200.00 or more, that is. Then you're stuck with tons of rules you still won't use within the pages of that book, and you have no choice as to whether you buy it or not if you want to play DDN. I will not be buying a "tactical" module if they make one, simply because I have yet to play an edition of D&D that I would consider "tactical". The rules that module would offer, should I want any of them, would be too easy for me to implement myself.
H_S has it right. The fan base is so divided that modularity, and being able to appeal to all parts of the fan base, is the only way they can go, and even that isn't easy due to the Edition Wars.

But, at the risk of stirring the pot, I feel that the developers haven't paid enough attention to the good aspects of 4th edition, because carrying over anything from 4th just makes certain parts of the fanbase lapse back into edition warring.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
 because carrying over anything from 4th just makes certain parts of the fanbase lapse back into edition warring.



Yes because the Alignment Restriction drama came from those of the earlier editions.  The Edition Wars come from the entire community and no one group is better than the other at that.
Pathfinder not having traits in the main book is a huge pain to me. I hate it, and it definitely lowers my opinion of paizo. It was stupid of them to put traits in a book oter than the players handbook. I have no need for the other book and no desire to ever buy it. This means that when we play with the modular traits I have to borrow someone's book to finish my character and since only one person has the book well there is he issue.


They aren't in the main book because they are an optional part of character creation, not a mandatory one. In the 4 pathfinder games I have played in the last year, 2 allowed traits, 2 did not. I personally don't like them as all they seem to do is give people another powergamey step towards optimizing their character. This, again, is probably why they are optional.
My two copper.
4e has been thrown out in the cold this time around, the things that have been tranfered over have by and large been souless mockeries of their original versions.  That seems to be the big issue with next.  They can't please the 4e players by making the game they are making but they also can't please any sizable chunk of the older edition players because none of those people care about Next.

I'm an older edition player and I care about dnd next. Also I feel that there are aspects from 4th edition in it. I felt everything was doing very well until the oct 30th packet.
Sign In to post comments