What in D&D Next right now would keep you from buying it?

230 posts / 0 new
Last post
What in D&D Next right now would keep you from buying it if those elements remain at launch. You can expand this to what elements are not in D&D Next that would case you to not buy it or just any reason whatsoever that you won't buy it.
Vancian casting as the only casting system for the Wizard and others...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.
Booyaka to that.

-Brad

Ditto to Vancian, also:

the pervasive mundanity of the current rules

Fighters(and others) being limited to at-will abilities only

it being a hassle to remove/ignore rules regarding mechanical effects of allignment, rolled HP, and/or rolled stats.

It being covered in DM fiat to the degree it is currently.

Lack of tactical depth.

the overall system not being elegant or transparent 

the game being (un)balanced around the adventuring day
...whatever
my list has all of that but includes these additionals

the races being boring and unbalanced

ability caps

boring feats/specialties



I honestly think the game assumes you don't roll stats as everything works out better (IMO) if you don't roll stats.
My problems right now are advantage/disadvantage . I wish it would just go away already. Skill mastery would be my other one but I know it is going away/getting altered.
The heavy reliance on DM Fiat.  Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.

Fluff and mechanics intertwined in the classes.  It seems like classes that DDN feels have a poor identity get new fluff stuck onto them and that new fluff used to justify a radical redirection of the class.

Modules, modules, modules.  Advanced modules that don't automatically assume gridded combat, 2E Skills and Powers point buys, and casting modules allowing different casting styles of the same class to coexist in harmony at the same table are all needed before I buy DDN.

Balancing around the "day" is old and busted.  We need new hotness.

Alignment needs to made completely optional to the point of not even being mentioned in any class section.

Feats need to be more like feats.  As it stands they are completely lackluster.  They also need ability, level, and class prerequisites removed completely.

Monster recharges just need to go away.  They are a crutch tacked on to monsters that can't be made unique or challenging enough in their own right, and such lazy design can't be good for the game as a whole.

My current non-buy-for-this-reason list is as follows (in random order):




  • lack of story-based reward for players; in other words, they are not being given XP, Action Point, Fairy Dust, etc. for playing out the story of their PCs' belief, dreams, goals, motivations, alignment, instincts, etc.

  • lack of campaign-altering authority for players; more specifically, a creation guide in the image of Dresden Files' A City Full of Problems subsection of City Creation chapter. Really, the whole chapter. (recognition is currently being afforded to D&D Next that this is not currently on the agenda while classes, races, monsters, and spells are more important issues.)

  • over-abundance of combat-related class features, combat-centric adventure-day designs (such as HD per day), and monster interaction mantra

  • feeble representation of three pillars in equal balance; by this I infer that exploration and interaction are not provided as much support as combat (if you subscribe to the three-pillars model described). As a point, there is not sufficient mechanical weight to the appropriate skills for exploration or interaction which a player or DM can rely upon to create reliable results and solid rulings. Furthermore, there is not sufficient mechanical reward to pursuing threads in exploration and interaction which a player or DM can use to deepen or enliven an adventure. Lastly, there is not sufficient mechanical benefit to pursuing threads in exploration and interaction which a player or DM can use to fulfill adventure objectives.

  • class system relying on mechanical representation of story elements, rather than class system providing role elements without story ties. This is possibly not an item which can be discussed, but I would prefer to see a class system which offers far less fluff and far more mechanical packaging that can be applied to player-built fluff. (e.g. Defender class is provided +n to defensive stats and given class-bound defensive features; player tells whether this is knight, paladin, cavalier, swashbuckler, warden, barbarian, etc. by way of personification, background, choice of weapons and armor, culture, equipment, religion, etc.) One might say I prefer fewer classes and hope those classes are not terms which may be applied by NPCs or PCs to describe themselves in-game.

  • over-reliance on existing canon; lack of innovative change-of-scenery with respect to time period analog, technology era analog, and more. I really want to play a fantasy world experiencing a different time in their history; currently, the mechanics rely upon narrative description within a similar time frame as has always been presented in D&D.

  • pandering to other playstyles; rude, but true. I feel the discussion from R&D via weekly articles does not open the discussion for changes I want to discuss. It doesn't present an open forum for presenting the sort of game I'd like D&D to evolve towards. As such, I feel R&D is pandering to another playstyle which excludes my interests. So, as I said, rude. I ought o have a more open mind, but I'm selfishly looking at this game lacking really interesting elements for me.

My problems right now are advantage/disadvantage . I wish it would just go away already. Skill mastery would be my other one but I know it is going away/getting altered.



Your problem is one of the almost universally liked things about the game.  Pretty sure you are going to be disappointed.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
My problems right now are advantage/disadvantage . I wish it would just go away already. Skill mastery would be my other one but I know it is going away/getting altered.



Your problem is one of the almost universally liked things about the game.  Pretty sure you are going to be disappointed.

I'd call it a problem as well.  It is far from universally liked.

I'll agree, dis/advantage is a giant red flag that says "we don't care about the math"; if they at least mention that you can swap out dis/advantage for +2 and -2 (stacking), then I'll give it a chance.
The metagame is not the game.
Going to throw my voice to the "nay to adv/disadv" group. That out of the way, I don't like the universal skill tre-I mean fighting styles, schemes, traditions, and domains. I mean, really, how dumb do they think I am? I would at least have a little more respect if they just admitted its all the same stuff. It was tolerable before, when the classes had enough unique mechanics to make them feel, well, unique, but now with only a few unique manuevers and one or two minor things to differentiate "non-casters" and even less to differentiate "casters" I'm kind of wondering what the unique appeal each class is supposed to offer.

Fighters should feel significantly different from a monk, for example, and they really aren't right now. Right now just about the only thing that makes clerics and wizards different is the actual spell lists, but their actual systems are pretty much the same, though they are called something different, and their flavor text implies difference that doesn't actually exist. When I feel like the rogue offers something noticeably different from the fighter, I'll buy Next. Same for wizard/cleric.

I want the DM's side of the game to be more internally consistent and I'll need that to right itself before I do more than shell out for a PHB to poach ideas from. Even then, I can probably do that with the packets so I probably won't bother if this is the best they can do.


Course, I don't think this is the best they can do.

I'll agree, dis/advantage is a giant red flag that says "we don't care about the math"; if they at least mention that you can swap out dis/advantage for +2 and -2 (stacking), then I'll give it a chance.



I see Advantage as a meaningful method of providing a concrete bonus within the limits of Bounded Accuracy.  It makes you more likely to succeed at tasks you're already capable of doing without making you objectively better at the task than you already are.  It's a very neat solution that, in my experience, works very well at the gaming table even if it appears to fail on a statistical spreadsheet.

As for the OP's question... Next doesn't have any dealbreakers on the table at the moment (at least, none that aren't obviously changing in the near future). Though, hypothetically speaking, if I HAD to DM/play strictly by the Rules-as-Written, then I suppose having Alignment hard-coded into the mechanics (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you) would be a dealbreaker for me.
I also do not like the advantage/disadvantage mechanic currently.  If DCs are handled over a broad spectrum of numbers, I don't see why we don't simply have situational modifiers that do the same.

Other things that currently disinterest me about D&D Next:



  • Complete lack of balance among classes throughout the three pillars of play

  • Fighter practically no options outside of combat

  • Strength is largely useless, dexterity is a god stat

  • Combat actions like disarm, trip, and push are absolutely terrible and not sound choices in the slightest

  • Humans need a revamp

  • Advantage and disadvantage system is lacking

  • Feats are extremely ho hum

  • Weapons are boring

  • Armor is boring

  • Martial classes are awfully samey and downright redundant with the Expertise system


I hope another packet comes out soon to see what is currently being done, and if common complaints among the community is even being considered.  If the game continues as such, I may have to consider getting Dungeons Of the Unforgiving Gods over this.

For me it's simple: currently the math of nearly everything put out is wonkey in one way or another. This edition desperately needs to be fixed on a mathematical level for it to be acceptable to me.

Advantage/disadvantage is a god awful kludge if you understand stats and/or probability. (No amount of "feel" can fix this if you understand basic probability because at least for me I can't forget how crappy the odds are). I should mention that I feel that Disadvantage is by far the more egregious issue from both a design and psychologial perspective. Getting a second chance to succeed is a very different psychological beast to being forced to have a second chance to fail. It may be mathematically identical but from the point of view of human psycholocy and intuitive economic decision making it is a disaster. Read books on behavioural economics to learn more about why this is such a pernicious issue.

Monsters can't hit, defend, take a hit but can one shot a squishy.
HP/damage out of whack for both monsters and PCs
Balancing by gold = bad (5000g plate i'm looking at you)
and a whole lot more.

Other no-nos
Gameplay pillar spotlight design. No more fighter goes and plays X-box when social time comes round please.
Mechanical allignment.

Rolled stats and HP are also terrible as they produce massive cheeting or gaming of the system to produce characters that are viable/over-powered or leads to a lot of naked orc charging to dispose of mechanically crippled characters.
Obviously it's not even remotely done.  That's the biggest thing by far. It's about 15% of a game. Need full class selection, a couple more races wouldn't hurt (especially gnome, being such a long time staple), full equipment selection, complete rule sets, vastly wider spell selection with more explanation and parts (like components, traditions, etc), clear division between optional and reuqired components (backgrounds, skills, feats, etc being optional), adventure creation guidelines, needs at LEAST 20 levels of play (probably more like 30), optional rules modules for those that want them (map/minis, tactical combat, wild races and classes, etc), vastly wider monster selection, a bunch more besides. Until we see about 200-300 pages of material we know they're not even close to done.

Second biggest thing, for me, is that it's no where near that pre-3rd feel any more. 1st playtest packet hinted pretty well at it, but since then it's gone further and further from the 'old days'. Unless us pre-3rders can find 'our playstyle' with it, we won't buy it. We were promised it, same as everyone else, and we won't pay a dime unless they deliver pretty well. When me and my fellow grognards can sit down to a playtest and have a very similar experience to basic/1st/2nd play, then we'll be on board.

Personally I'm still not sold on some of the fairly major elements (like advantage/disadvantage, skill based rogue, etc) either, so we'll have to see a complete ruleset before we know if we're ok with it, if it can be removed without significant impact, etc.

Pretty much this.

I actually like the (Dis)Advantage system.

P.S. Those that really like the (Dis)Advantage system: check out these dice, made by Koplow.

 The Cleric and Fighter are the best designed classes right now, Rogue and Wizard need help. The skill section sucks and monster math is way off.

 Theres just not enough and it is to something. Just to raw. Needs more feats, skills, classes, monsters etc. I'm actually looking forward to the next packet as hinted at in the recent L&L article.
The heavy reliance on DM Fiat.  Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.

I continue to be confused by this statement. Every D&D edition has been DM fiat based; every edition!

The DMs decide which rules are allowed at their tables and how those rules are adjudicated/interpreted at their tables. This has been true since day one.

I'll agree, dis/advantage is a giant red flag that says "we don't care about the math"; if they at least mention that you can swap out dis/advantage for +2 and -2 (stacking), then I'll give it a chance.



I see Advantage as a meaningful method of providing a concrete bonus within the limits of Bounded Accuracy.  It makes you more likely to succeed at tasks you're already capable of doing without making you objectively better at the task than you already are.  It's a very neat solution that, in my experience, works very well at the gaming table even if it appears to fail on a statistical spreadsheet.

As for the OP's question... Next doesn't have any dealbreakers on the table at the moment (at least, none that aren't obviously changing in the near future). Though, hypothetically speaking, if I HAD to DM/play strictly by the Rules-as-Written, then I suppose having Alignment hard-coded into the mechanics (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you) would be a dealbreaker for me.

This seems to be a problem with some of the people on these forums: 


  • Expecting RAW to be only way to play.


OR


  • Expecting RAW to be only their preferred rules.



Every answer to this thread should indicate that the reasons listed as deal breakers are only reasons to not buy D&DNext if there are no alternative options to those listed.


That is why the "core rules set" should only include the rules that will be used universally. Things such as:


  • d20 check resolution

  • ability scores (and that they provide modifiers to checks), 

  • classes (not specific ones - just that it is a class based system, with a common framework and structure for advancement), 

  • races (not specific ones - just that races provide both flavor/story and mechanical aspects), 

  • pillars of play (i.e., combat, exploration & interaction), 

  • turn based system (movement, action, possible reaction)

  • etc.


Everything else would be considered a module or set of modules (classes, races, etc.).

EDIT: Edited to indicate section of second quote to which I was replying. 
The heavy reliance on DM Fiat.  Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.

I continue to be confused by this statement. Every D&D edition has been DM fiat based; every edition!

The DMs decide which rules are allowed at their tables and how those rules are adjudicated/interpreted at their tables. This has been true since day one.




He said heavy reliance. Meaning there is currently nothing for the DM to base judgments on and nothing for the players to gauge expectations on.  Well I DM the playtest I'm either


  • spending minutes trying to reverse engineer numbers


or


  • pulling rules and rulings out of thin air and hoping too much silliness doesn't happen



But to answer the question, thee is little in DDN that would keep me from buying it. It is a question of what isn't in it.

But DDN is nowhere near done so that is all moot.

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

The heavy reliance on DM Fiat.  Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.

I continue to be confused by this statement. Every D&D edition has been DM fiat based; every edition!

The DMs decide which rules are allowed at their tables and how those rules are adjudicated/interpreted at their tables. This has been true since day one.




He said heavy reliance. Meaning there is currently nothing for the DM to base judgments on and nothing for the players to gauge expectations on.  Well I DM the playtest I'm either


  • spending minutes trying to reverse engineer numbers

I agree that the math could use more attention


or


  • pulling rules and rulings out of thin air and hoping too much silliness doesn't happen

This is my preferred style of DMing; one that has pleased the many players that have played in my games over the years. So much so, that no one has ever wanted to take over the role of DM.


But to answer the question, thee is little in DDN that would keep me from buying it. It is a question of what isn't in it.

But DDN is nowhere near done so that is all moot.

Agreed; and this is why I still have hope that D&DNext will be all it has been proposed to be: all-inclusive, highly modular, easy to learn, and as easy to run as individually desired.

The heavy reliance on DM Fiat.  Playing "DM may I" is no way to release a game.

I continue to be confused by this statement. Every D&D edition has been DM fiat based; every edition!

The DMs decide which rules are allowed at their tables and how those rules are adjudicated/interpreted at their tables. This has been true since day one.




He said heavy reliance. Meaning there is currently nothing for the DM to base judgments on and nothing for the players to gauge expectations on.  Well I DM the playtest I'm either


  • spending minutes trying to reverse engineer numbers

I agree that the math could use more attention


or


  • pulling rules and rulings out of thin air and hoping too much silliness doesn't happen

This is my preferred style of DMing; one that has pleased the many players that have played in my games over the years. So much so, that no one has ever wanted to take over the role of DM.


But to answer the question, thee is little in DDN that would keep me from buying it. It is a question of what isn't in it.

But DDN is nowhere near done so that is all moot.

Agreed; and this is why I still have hope that D&DNext will be all it has been proposed to be: all-inclusive, highly modular, easy to learn, and as easy to run as individually desired.





Exactly. There is still hope for it. Easy to learn. Easy to play. Easy to run. With rules for who wants them and no force to use them for those who don't.

Almost every issue I've ever seen mechanically with D&D has been to either the game having rules too difficult to remove when the group hates them OR the game lacking desired rules and the group/DM creating a horrible subsititute due to no guidance.

DDN could aim to solve both issues.

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

I have some degree of faith that they really will fix this before release, but they really need to put out simple math guidelines for expected damage/level and hp/level and then make sure the classes hit them.  Guidelines about what kind of control effects you can put out (and how frequently) per level would also be pretty good.
What in D&D Next right now would keep you from buying it if those elements remain at launch. You can expand this to what elements are not in D&D Next that would case you to not buy it or just any reason whatsoever that you won't buy it.

Really, nothing.

We like how it's shaping up. Even if it doesn't include everything we'd like to have, our group has the tools to add what we need. If it includes things we don't want, we just wouldn't use them.


The only thing that would keep us from buying it is if it's the same (exactly, or pretty close) to a previous edition. We already have those, so no need to buy another one.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

I love how it's looking so far, so unless it starts to make me feel like I'm playing 4e, I'm good.

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

I would phrase the question differently: as someone that is quite happy with 4e, What in DDN makes me want to buy it?

As of right now, nothing. For people that feel that 4e was the best mechanically designed edition, DDN doesn't really build on it, but rather poaches a measly few innovations from the many to graft onto a framework of wonky math and otherwise bad design.

What's hilarious reading this thread is it's essentially the same argument I made in the first week of the playtest: fans of the editions have fundamentally different interests, many of which are mutually exclusive. No amount of modules can fix funadamentally different design goals baked into the base rules.

It seems like DDN is meant to be the political edition: striving to make each player group minimally dissatisfied, hehe!
I would phrase the question differently: as someone that is quite happy with 4e, What in DDN makes me want to buy it?

As of right now, nothing. For people that feel that 4e was the best mechanically designed edition, DDN doesn't really build on it, but rather poaches a measly few innovations from the many to graft onto a framework of wonky math and otherwise bad design.

What's hilarious reading this thread is it's essentially the same argument I made in the first week of the playtest: fans of the editions have fundamentally different interests, many of which are mutually exclusive. No amount of modules can fix funadamentally different design goals baked into the base rules.

It seems like DDN is meant to be the political edition: striving to make each player group minimally dissatisfied, hehe!


Absolutely this

This whole farce of a playtest has been based on a false premise, that there is a core D&D experience common to everyone. That stopped being true back during 3E, and this playtest just reinforces the fact.
...whatever
MoffIvlis I thought about making another thread to ask that question. I just felt generally with the people on these boards it was more likely something keeping you from buying the game rather than something getting you to buy the game at this stage of development
Ability score prereqs, and alignment screwjobs.

Also this:
class system relying on mechanical representation of story elements, rather than class system providing role elements without story ties.




I would phrase the question differently: as someone that is quite happy with 4e, What in DDN makes me want to buy it?

As of right now, nothing. For people that feel that 4e was the best mechanically designed edition, DDN doesn't really build on it, but rather poaches a measly few innovations from the many to graft onto a framework of wonky math and otherwise bad design.

What's hilarious reading this thread is it's essentially the same argument I made in the first week of the playtest: fans of the editions have fundamentally different interests, many of which are mutually exclusive. No amount of modules can fix funadamentally different design goals baked into the base rules.

It seems like DDN is meant to be the political edition: striving to make each player group minimally dissatisfied, hehe!



I don't think this was ever disputed. I've said from day 1 that what WotC SHOULD do is release a pre3rd, 3rd (or buy Paizo), and 4th edition lines simultaneously, thereby pleasing everyone. The odds of making a single version that even a portion of each group would play is roughly equivalent to rolling exactly a 19.73 on 2 standard 6-sided dice.


WotC claims to believe that it is possible, though there actions put some doubt on that claim.
...whatever
It's easy to have hope when 5E is more or less delivering the D&D you want at present.
...whatever
Vancian casting as the only casting system for the Wizard and others...


This.

That set of exclusive auto-success rules should have been excises and burned in hell a long time ago. 
Vancian casting as the only casting system for the Wizard and others...



Yes, WotC should have learned that only having one power system for classes was a big mistake.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I'm hearing a lot of pre 3rd fans, 4e fans, and 3/pathfinder fans unhappy with the current playtest version.
OSR/AD&D purists hate it just as much
...whatever
OSR/AD&D purists hate it just as much
...whatever
I'm hearing a lot of pre 3rd fans, 4e fans, and 3/pathfinder fans unhappy with the current playtest version.



References?

"The turning of the tide always begins with one soldier's decision to head back into the fray"

I'm hearing a lot of pre 3rd fans, 4e fans, and 3/pathfinder fans unhappy with the current playtest version.



References?



Just spend some time browsing and reading the forums. Now, granted, "a lot" is relative to the number of people who actually post frequently in these threads, but for the amount of regular posters on the front page, there seems to be a lot of general dislike across the board. I would give names of posters that I've seen express strong negative sentiment, but I don't like speaking for people.

Just the current "dealbreaker" thread alone is pretty significant.
The first May? packet had great math and lore but unbalanced class and a 110% DM Faith Requirement. The current packet has less requirements on the DM and more accessibility to players but the numbers are all off and the lore is setting specific.

DDN has to be easier to run and modify which was the problem with Every other edition.

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

I'm hearing a lot of pre 3rd fans, 4e fans, and 3/pathfinder fans unhappy with the current playtest version.



 Its very raw and alot of people are whining about stuff the developers are already fixing and the die hard edition warriors more or less want D&DN to fail as their preferred edition is either dead and buried or failed on its on merits.

 Read the poll results. The forums here are rather toxic and have been since 2008. The largest group of D&D players WoTC needs to sell D&DN to are the casual players of D&D.

 If WoTC are "ignoring" what is really an egotistical goup of nerds raging online there is a reason for that as this section really only has a couple of hundred posters vs 80k or so playtesting and try reading the poll results which seem to indicate that over half of the respondends are saying they are on the right track.

 Try to ignore people who use words like "this is unacceptable" or threaten to take their gaming dolars elsewhere  on a regular basis. They are usually so entrenched in stone that nothing less than an update of their prefered editon is going to appeal to them.