Poll: Would you buy 5E if it resembled this packet (12/17/12)?

"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.
No. On the plus side its better than the  last one and level 1-10 looks decent for the most part.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

No.  While it was a vast improvement over the last packet, there is still little 5E has to offer me at this point.  I am not counting on it suddenly becoming a good game.
Assuming this is the foundation for which their system is based off of, then yes.
No. Way too pro-caster for my tastes. No feats or manuevers for high level characters? Come on.

I love where they're going with class and spell design and balance, I love the emphasis on speed of play, and even to some extent, simplicity at the table (not the simplicity in character creation or a PC's very limited list of abilities). But I really dislike the current presentation of high level play. I don't think it will make for interesting encounters, although I think it will do well to make exploration or RP interesting.


But I wouldn't buy it, and won't if the current trend continues. The bounded accuracy and flat math just kills it for me. I like the idea of slower scaling, but I think this is too far, both with bonuses, and with class options. To me, a 20th level PC feels like he/she should be a 10th level PC. If they bumped up the scaling just a bit, and were willing to slightly increase the options for high level PCs, I'd be on board a lot more.


Basically if you break the game down into tiers, the current game is a great way to make an entire game based on the heroic tier. But most of my campaigns really hit their stride in the paragon and epic tiers, and it doesn't look like Next will do a good job of supporting that.

It feels to me (again, after improving somewhat) that non-casters are being thrown under the bus in favour of the "Casters Uber Alles!" brigade.
No. Still too much caster fetish going on.
No I would not buy it if it was sold in the present state. DD5 is still in its infancy. There is much to do yet.

No. Still too much caster fetish going on.

Partially, I agree.
Still, I would buy D&D Next if it resembled the packet released in 12/17/2012.

In short, nerf the damn "all-tool possessing" Cleric like it was done in 4E and I 'm game.
No.

The monsters hit too often (though I am happy with PC Attack bonuses now).

The Monk is overpowered, especially at high levels.  Why does he get so much more than the Fighter?

Those really are my only two serious issues with it, though.  Still, they are enough to make me think twice about paying money for such a game.

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

I've changed my answer to "yes", but only for the PHB.  The choice of art style could make it go either way.

I really like how few high-level spells the wizard gets in a day, and even the martial damage progression is significantly less offensive to me now.  They just need to bring it back to 3E martial parity (where fighters end up with a +20 weapon damage bonus, wizards get +10, and clerics get +15) for me to be really happy with that aspect.

The metagame is not the game.

I've changed my answer to "yes", but only for the PHB.  The choice of art style could make it go either way.

I really like how few high-level spells the wizard gets in a day, and even the martial damage progression is significantly less offensive to me now.  They just need to bring it back to 3E martial parity (where fighters end up with a +20 weapon damage bonus, wizards get +10, and clerics get +15) for me to be really happy with that aspect.



Pretty much in agreement.  I'm a huge art and writing critic (I run a blog about it after all).  If either is REALLY bad (in my view), then I'll hope for a PDF version without art/fluff or just borrow my friends' books instead.  So far, I'm moderately enjoying the rules (for the most part.  More polish IS needed.)

An undead spectre occasionally returning to remind the fandom of its grim existence.

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
No, God. No.

Personal opinion... If this was the final version, It would be imo the worst edition of D&D. Hopefully it´s not, but not much hope. They are developing it for 1+ year now, and It´s a collection of clunky mechanics married to some meh fluff... So sorry for the devs, I wish we would be in a better place after 1 year, but tha´s the impression I have after reading the whole thing. I would rather stick with basic D&D, 2E or 4E. 
It's a bit better then 3e at this point, but that's not saying much.
I've changed my answer to "yes", but only for the PHB.  The choice of art style could make it go either way.

I really like how few high-level spells the wizard gets in a day, and even the martial damage progression is significantly less offensive to me now.  They just need to bring it back to 3E martial parity (where fighters end up with a +20 weapon damage bonus, wizards get +10, and clerics get +15) for me to be really happy with that aspect.


Ugh, no to that last part. I don't want the Cleric or Wizard even REMOTELY touching the martial classes with weapons. Really, the Cleric's martial advancement is fine, and they should be lucky they're getting it at all.
It's a bit better then 3e at this point, but that's not saying much.



A bit? A bit? It's miles ahead of 3.5/Pathfinder in multiple areas.
It's a bit better then 3e at this point, but that's not saying much.



A bit? A bit? It's miles ahead of 3.5/Pathfinder in multiple areas.



And light years backward in a great many more areas.
...whatever
It's a bit better then 3e at this point, but that's not saying much.



A bit? A bit? It's miles ahead of 3.5/Pathfinder in multiple areas.



And light years backward in a great many more areas.



I don't see any area, aside from a couple hilarious mistakes where this is anything but an improvement. They fixed clerics, they fixed wizards, they're giving fighters more options, they're making rogues what they should have been, I mean, come on, what's not to like?
Simply put, No.

Reasons:

• Needs a longer feat progression

More classes

More Races

They need to combine Listen & Spot into Perception to combat Sneak

They need to fix Two-Weapon Fighting (it's still a worse avenue of combat than anything else and feat taxes won't fix it). 

EDIT: totally forgot

Give me a reason, PLEASE, to not cheat and reflavor ALL Greataxes into Greatswords just for the saving of 20 gp. That, to me, is just too stupid for words.

A Greatsword = 50gp, 1d12, 2-handed, and weights 10 lbs (horribly inaccurate weight, BTW)
A Greataxe = 20gp, 1d12, 2-handed, and weights 15 lbs (have the designers ever even held one?)

So except for weight, it's the exact same weapon but the GP is marginally different. At 1st level, when GP is tight, I'm going to buy a greataxe every single time, change the name to Greatsword, and keep the change.    

 
   
  
  
   
I haven't play tested but I would like to see a more basic version of the game. I liked the XD mechanic presented in the last packet. This one has too much going on. I would like to see many of the subsystems that are presented in the classes to be built in to abilities more.
example, Taunt should be part of charisma, and Rogues get a bonus to charisma actions.
example, Shove Away should be a part of strength, and Fighters get a bonus to strength actions.
I am oversimplifing in my examples but would like to see a storytelling over tactics for the basic system with modules added for those that require it.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Only reading through the packet (I cannot find players for the playtest anymore) I was thinking to myself: that could have worked as an advancement over 3rd in 2008. But then 4E happenend and now it seems to me like there is still a long way to go. But YVMV of course.
So no, I would not buy this.
Only reading through the packet (I cannot find players for the playtest anymore) I was thinking to myself: that could have worked as an advancement over 3rd in 2008. But then 4E happenend and now it seems to me like there is still a long way to go. But YVMV of course.
So no, I would not buy this.



My feelings exactly...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.
It's a bit better then 3e at this point, but that's not saying much.



A bit? A bit? It's miles ahead of 3.5/Pathfinder in multiple areas.



And light years backward in a great many more areas.



I don't see any area, aside from a couple hilarious mistakes where this is anything but an improvement. They fixed clerics, they fixed wizards, they're giving fighters more options, they're making rogues what they should have been, I mean, come on, what's not to like?



 Its not 4th ed and resembles pre 4th ed (and pre 3rd ed) alot.

 I think I would play this but would not buy it. It looks alot of fun but the once the new feeling wears off IDK about long term play even if they added new monsters, races and classes.

 I htink the bounded accuracy thing would get boring fast. Numbers do not need to be fast and loose like 3.5 but I would look towards 2nd ed and 4th ed for progress in this area.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I would. It still needs some tweaking. Martial characters need to learn maneuvers/get more feats after level 10. There need to be fewer dead levels in general. Some localized areas of underpowered abilities need to be reworked. But, overall, I love this last playtest packet. It is probably my favorite version of the game to date...

Lol, it's the ebb and flow of design guys. Casters get weak, casters get powerful. They will nail it down better once they decide exactly how they are going to set it all up.
My two copper.
NO!

Next is getting farther away from anything resembling a product I'd purchase.  The Dev Team talked a good game at Gen Con, but nearly every pack takes huge steps backwards in my opinion.  (There are steps forward here and there, but even some of those get changed for the negative in the next pack.)

I've spent more hours than I can count testing and providing VERY in-depth feedback to WotC, and little to none of it appears to be sinking in.  And I'm not alone in my feedback views based on forum watching.   Not always in the majority, but not a vocal minority either.

A quick glance at the latest packet is almost enough to make me want to stop investing my time.  I'll eventually get around to absorbing the changes, but at first glance nothing I saw gave me any hope for real improvments.   
Stay Frosty! - Shado
No, and that's the point of the Playtest packet.  Much easier to poll if you put in stuff that will be hated and voted out and then put in a new option instead that will be hated and voted out than to poll about what sort of things that MIGHT be put in. 

This isn't complete, and it's not supposed to be.  These aren't work-in-progress reports of some final, eventually complete goal.  They are working 2-5 packets ahead of what we see in internal playtests.  They want to see if our feedback is in line with what their own issues were.  This is why Mearls said quite a while back that he'd want to make Parry Fighter-only.  He already knew that was the next plan.  We're judging if they're making the right choices along the way, and our displeasure about certain things pushes them to make those things better. 

I would not buy it now, but I believe each playtest packet is working me closer to something I probably will buy in 2014.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

"If this car, 1/2 of the way through the process of being manufactured, was offered today for purchase, would you buy it?"

NO WAY. It's like they've COMPLETELY forgot the lessons of adding brakes that we learned in the last model! WHERE ARE THE BRAKES, MEARLS? I mentioned them in the forums. The forums.

Also heated seats are seriously OP'd.

No I would not buy it if it was sold in the present state. DD5 is still in its infancy. There is much to do yet.



This.  There is just no point in this pole happening any time soon.  The playtest needs to be nearing its end for this pole to be useful.
Lokiare posting a useless poll? Never...
Lokiare posting a useless poll? Never...



Cyber-Dave trolling a Lokiare thread? Never...Wink
"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.
When I see these threads, I think I get more amusement from the hoops Lokiare has to jump through to get people to actually answer what he's asking, rather than answering "would you buy a half-finished game?" than anything else.

I feel for you, bro. 
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
This is the same reason why I won't playtest 13th Age: I don't pay to play unless what I have is a finished product in my hand, or I'm paying for something else that's finished alongside it.  I don't care if I'd get a "free" copy of the finished product later, I'm not "buying" the work-in-progress.

However, I am VERY devoted to seein DDN make it from work-in-progress to something I like, and something almost all players will like, and I like the direction they've taken some things, while other things may be either steps in the right direction or thrown out there to test what the limit of "right" is.  We're only seeing half the story here, Lokiare.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Only reading through the packet (I cannot find players for the playtest anymore) I was thinking to myself: that could have worked as an advancement over 3rd in 2008. But then 4E happenend and now it seems to me like there is still a long way to go. But YVMV of course.



Yeah, it feels a bit like getting a portable CD player to upgrade from a walkman when there are iPods around already...
Not yet, but it's gotten closer to my threshold.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

No, I've already got the packet! Laughing

I love where they're going with class and spell design and balance, I love the emphasis on speed of play, and even to some extent, simplicity at the table (not the simplicity in character creation or a PC's very limited list of abilities). But I really dislike the current presentation of high level play. I don't think it will make for interesting encounters, although I think it will do well to make exploration or RP interesting.


But I wouldn't buy it, and won't if the current trend continues. The bounded accuracy and flat math just kills it for me. I like the idea of slower scaling, but I think this is too far, both with bonuses, and with class options. To me, a 20th level PC feels like he/she should be a 10th level PC. If they bumped up the scaling just a bit, and were willing to slightly increase the options for high level PCs, I'd be on board a lot more.


Basically if you break the game down into tiers, the current game is a great way to make an entire game based on the heroic tier. But most of my campaigns really hit their stride in the paragon and epic tiers, and it doesn't look like Next will do a good job of supporting that.


Most campaigns, across the player base, don't even reach the "Paragon" tier (I remember reading that the highest most people play to is around 8th level); so, the game's initial release should focus on the "Heroic" tier. That is the foundation for any higher tier to be built on.

Are you saying that, even if you refuse to buy the game that is focused on heroic tier at release, you wouldn't buy it a year or two later, even if it has released support for paragon and epic tiers that has been lauded by the masses?

I want them to design the game from the ground up, without being rushed into any part of the design process; and it only makes sense to finish the lower tier before finishing the upper tiers. I'm not saying that the lower tiers can be designed without the upper tiers in mind, certain things need to be planned across the tiers; but you can't focus on the upper tiers until the lower tier designing is complete.

That being said, I, personally, would not have a problem with the initial release being heroic tier only.

NO!

Next is getting farther away from anything resembling a product I'd purchase.  The Dev Team talked a good game at Gen Con, but nearly every pack takes huge steps backwards in my opinion.  (There are steps forward here and there, but even some of those get changed for the negative in the next pack.)

I've spent more hours than I can count testing and providing VERY in-depth feedback to WotC, and little to none of it appears to be sinking in.  And I'm not alone in my feedback views based on forum watching.   Not always in the majority, but not a vocal minority either.

A quick glance at the latest packet is almost enough to make me want to stop investing my time.  I'll eventually get around to absorbing the changes, but at first glance nothing I saw gave me any hope for real improvments.   

Please keep in mind that the people that post on these forums, even the vocal majority here, is a small minority of the overall player base. The surveys, and even the on-line article comment sections, see a far broader spectrum of people responding to them than these forums do.

Resembles is a bit too vague.
I like some of the directions this is going, but it is far from polished or finished and 11-20 are obviously in their infancy.
So, if we mean resembles in that we can barely figure out what to do with some characters after lev 10... no.
Also, I'm still eating through everything, but I'm not quite seeing the modularity I would like.
 
Also, I haven't seen any finished art yet...
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.

I love where they're going with class and spell design and balance, I love the emphasis on speed of play, and even to some extent, simplicity at the table (not the simplicity in character creation or a PC's very limited list of abilities). But I really dislike the current presentation of high level play. I don't think it will make for interesting encounters, although I think it will do well to make exploration or RP interesting.


But I wouldn't buy it, and won't if the current trend continues. The bounded accuracy and flat math just kills it for me. I like the idea of slower scaling, but I think this is too far, both with bonuses, and with class options. To me, a 20th level PC feels like he/she should be a 10th level PC. If they bumped up the scaling just a bit, and were willing to slightly increase the options for high level PCs, I'd be on board a lot more.


Basically if you break the game down into tiers, the current game is a great way to make an entire game based on the heroic tier. But most of my campaigns really hit their stride in the paragon and epic tiers, and it doesn't look like Next will do a good job of supporting that.


Most campaigns, across the player base, don't even reach the "Paragon" tier (I remember reading that the highest most people play to is around 8th level); so, the game's initial release should focus on the "Heroic" tier. That is the foundation for any higher tier to be built on.

Are you saying that, even if you refuse to buy the game that is focused on heroic tier at release, you wouldn't buy it a year or two later, even if it has released support for paragon and epic tiers that has been lauded by the masses?

I want them to design the game from the ground up, without being rushed into any part of the design process; and it only makes sense to finish the lower tier before finishing the upper tiers. I'm not saying that the lower tiers can be designed without the upper tiers in mind, certain things need to be planned across the tiers; but you can't focus on the upper tiers until the lower tier designing is complete.

That being said, I, personally, would not have a problem with the initial release being heroic tier only.



I do believe that the vast majority of players do play in the heroic tier, it makes sense since most players will start at level 1 and go from there (especially casual players), and I believe that around 8th is where most of them end, because the campaign is getting a little long in the tooth at that point. But, I don't necessarily agree that the numbers taken from the character builder or even the surveys they've used so far are a particularly good representation of what players actually desire. The character builder is really only a good look at what kind of PCs people who use it are making, but not table play or what people who don't use it are doing. Survey's about levels in previous editions are substantially affected by how poorly the last to editions supported high level play. Survey's could be very accurate and useful in determining what sort of adventures (the tiers) people want to play, but so far I haven't seen one that focused on what people want to play, just what they have played. 


Regardless of how accurate the idea is that most players only care about the heroic tier or strongly prefer it, I still think it is vital that the game's engine work well through every level of play. It's one of those things you mention that need to be designed to work early on, and for my purposes, there's some pretty huge issues with that, especially from a math perspective.


So would I buy it if it only supported the heroic tier? Absolutely not, because it would not support my campaigns. Furthermore, 4E & 3E both did great in the heroic tiere, and even now I don't think Next is better than either in the heroic tier, again because the math is a little weak (at low levels, bonuses are so small that it is the d20 and not a PC's design or "skills" that matters). If they did later release support for the higher tiers later on, again, it would have to be an improvement over 4E or 3E. With how cludgy those systems were at high level, this should be easy, but again, Next's math doesn't seem to be particularly suited to those levels. If that remains the case it will be difficult to make things work once the Core Engine and math have been finalized.


I agree that they should spend more time and support on the heroic tier. But, first, they need the core math to work at all levels they intend to support. Otherwise, we will have yet another editions where high level play gets left behind because it was so cludgy.

Depends on what you mean by 'resembled.'

If this had all the classes, spells, feats, maneuvers, monsters etc - and they went ahead and finished off some of the balance issues... Then yeah, I would be considering it. I might not run any more than one campaign on it... But just for how easy it is to DM... 

So yeah, sitting on the fence. The game certainly has a way to go, but they are making good progress. Ace in the Hole etc. were good first steps in the way of limited resources for martial characters to me.
 
Sign In to post comments