Dealbreakers for Old D&D players

195 posts / 0 new
Last post
I find it amusing that so many people try to make a point by saying, "I was interested in D&D Next but then they added or changed one thing.  Now I will never play it."

Can we make a list of issues that people have made this statement about?    

1. Vancian magic
2. Skill Dice
3. Dead levels
4. Bounded Accuracy
5. Too much balance
6. Not enough balance
7. Various healing modalities

Anybody else have other issues.

While I may or may not like D&D Next by the time they are finished tinkering with it, I am certain if I don't play it, it would not be a single issue.   
   
There is only one issue that will cause me to leave and that's if the system isn't open to house rules.     

As an old school gamer I have no problem extending a basic system.  I just don't want it rewrite large portions of a complex game in fear that it might break the system.     With 4e I felt paralyzed when confronted with the design goals of the system, which were completely contrary to how I played. 

So far I'm happy to see that some rules like Resting are optional.  

If the expectation is set that not every DM or gaming group will have the same rules on the table and that house rules are part of the course then there won't be a single issue.   


- rogue doing more damage in combat than the fighter?
- rogue not doing more damage in combat than the fighter?
- no epic levels
- epic levels
- lack of multiple attacks
- multiple attacks

and, as seen above, the nebulus "design direction." 

One thing I find funny about all this fighting over DDN mechanics, is that what whill determine DDN's success is whether or not it is able to attact new players.  None of us here are new players, and many people don't even really try to imagine it from a new players perspective. 
Probably bounded accuracy as currently designed and boring classes/races would be the big ones here.
D&DN is a done deal. They've decided on a design direction and will not alter their course. That direction leaves me completely uninterested in anything they produce henceforth.



This pretty much sums up my feelings.  There's no one deal-breaker, but the overall direction is just not where I want to go.
Shazbot and Telwar:

The core mechanics (How to Play Packet) is the only thing that's anywhere near completion. Look at the changes to classes, spells, feats, etc. over each packet. and you can see the designs shift on a dime. If you are concerned about a design philosophy, please elaborate.

I think the general direction (not the specifics, which need massive tweaking) is moving forward. They are attempting to incorperate what they think people liked about each edition. They may be failing (as some 4E posters contend), but that is the design philosophy as I see it. As a grognard, I have played every edition, and I can see the elements they are trying to use. Some things are new, however, such as Marital Dice, Skill Dice, and Advantage/Disadvantage. That is, IMO, the best way to move forward: keep the best of what works, and inovate the rest.

D&DN is a done deal. They've decided on a design direction and will not alter their course. That direction leaves me completely uninterested in anything they produce henceforth.



This pretty much sums up my feelings.  There's no one deal-breaker, but the overall direction is just not where I want to go.



They are still playtesting and yet you are certain you won't like it. 

I am in agreement with dmgorgon.  As long as they allow for house rules to easily change certain aspects, I can live with just about anything.  We'll just adapt it to our style when all is said and done.

Having said that.  I want a little more originality.  The main thing that would keep me from buying it, is if it is just not any different than anything else.
If they change the D&D logo again, I eat my neighbor's daughter alive and without anesthesia. And I'll eat anyone trying to stop me !

More seriously, if the next edition is a mix between any previous edition without something new, which is currently the case except for two rogues schemes, I won't buy it.

But it's far too early to judge it, as it's possible that the devs will keep some surprises for the edition launch. 
Disadvantage.  There's another dealbreaker.  Whoever thought it would be a good idea for players to ever see their successes revoked by the rolling of a second D20 clearly has never had a significantly diverse player base to understand player emotions in an RPG.  A player often feels like that success is theirs, not their character's.  The neurochemical response to seeing that removed from them is not one that supports the longevity of a game with such a mechanic.
For me it's not a single thing that I don't like; moreover it's that I struggle to find just one - just a singular example - of anything DDN does better than the edition I favor. I have waited for that for months, since the very first playtest, and nothing has popped up - not a single thing.

You should never ask "What are the reasons I will discard my current favored edition and play this one instead". You should ask "What does DDN do that my current edition doesn't?".

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

"Dealbreaker" for me is a bit too harsh of a term. From all the information I have on D&DN so far, the only real issue I have is whether or not WotC keeps many of the older settings on mothballs or not. If I can get a few of the classics (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Mystara, etc.) I'll be happy enough.
I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D. But I have played basic, 1E, 2E, 3.5, & 4E, and found all to be fun. IF IT'S D&D, I'LL PLAY IT, NO MATTER THE EDITION. Just roll some dice.
I find it amusing that so many people try to make a point by saying, "I was interested in D&D Next but then they added or changed one thing.  Now I will never play it."

Can we make a list of issues that people have made this statement about?    

1. Vancian magic
2. Skill Dice
3. Dead levels
4. Bounded Accuracy
5. Too much balance
6. Not enough balance
7. Various healing modalities

Anybody else have other issues.

While I may or may not like D&D Next by the time they are finished tinkering with it, I am certain if I don't play it, it would not be a single issue.   
   



There is actually nothing that will stop me from buying a few of the books and playing.  I will enjoy it as a game and as a hobby. 
Wizards. Basically how they end up will dictate if I will even be able to find enough people to play. I have had to almost beg people to try the latest packet because they played the first packet and wrote off the edition because of how wizards were.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
For me it's not a single thing that I don't like; moreover it's that I struggle to find just one - just a singular example - of anything DDN does better than the edition I favor. I have waited for that for months, since the very first playtest, and nothing has popped up - not a single thing.



This. I'm still waiting, after a year, to see something fresh or interesting in DDN. I have half a dozen versions of D&D, and at least three times that many fantasy adventure games, on my shelf. I have yet to see any reason to pay $30 a book, or whatever the final price ends up being. 
I find it amusing that so many people try to make a point by saying, "I was interested in D&D Next but then they added or changed one thing.  Now I will never play it."

Can we make a list of issues that people have made this statement about?    

1. Vancian magic
2. Skill Dice
3. Dead levels
4. Bounded Accuracy
5. Too much balance
6. Not enough balance
7. Various healing modalities

Anybody else have other issues.

While I may or may not like D&D Next by the time they are finished tinkering with it, I am certain if I don't play it, it would not be a single issue.   
   



Prerequisites, Feat tax, Skill Mastery

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I think my dealbreaker would be a return of Combat Drag.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I'll still support 5E (at least early on), but there are plenty of things that would frustrate me and the way I play.
Too many non-optional elements to slow combat (as just said), not enough variation between classes (this may slowly be fixed.  Before, "muscle" classes were boring and not too easily distinguishable), unneeded metaplot further diving settings off the deep end (Hey, it's what made me stop playing Forgotten Realms.  5E Realms will be an UNLIKELY return to the setting), lack of ways to modify races to expand upon options (See also, my blog post on modifying races), same deal with classes (I liked where they were going with specialties... and then something went weird)

The Knights of W.T.F. may as well be ghosts, but the message still stays;

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

I'm going to start with the boxed set. I would like to see it support a complete game up to level 10, with artwork that I will feel comfortable leaving on the coffee table. And I want to see that box advertised and be able to buy it Kmart, Walmart, Target, or Amazon. So I guess the big draw for me will be if DDN can expand the market. I have no interest in just another rules system.

Shazbot and Telwar:

The core mechanics (How to Play Packet) is the only thing that's anywhere near completion. Look at the changes to classes, spells, feats, etc. over each packet. and you can see the designs shift on a dime. If you are concerned about a design philosophy, please elaborate.



No...it is a done deal at this point.

WotC may be hammering a few specifics, but all of the major design decisions have been made and they are not changing. If there are any major load bearing mechanics that you don't like about D&DN...be it class structure, rersource management, bonus scaling, monster design, etc. well then too bad...it's there to stay.

There is one and only one thing the design team could have possibly done to make this iteration a success, and that's to reboot the franchise from the ground floor.

WotC doesn't need to listen to or appease the Pathfinder crowd, or the 4E crowd, or the OSR crowd. They need completely tear D&D down to it's sub-cockles and rebuild it as the best game they can possibly make it, without regard to partisan gaming ideologies or nostalgia or anything else that isn't just good design.

In this, they have failed because their course has been set and will not be swayed from the path of miserable patchwork abomination of pandering game mechanics. D&DN is going to be like the middle-aged parent that desperately wants their teenager's school friends to think they're the coolest parent. It's just upsetting to watch at this point.

Here's how this story ends...

WotC releases D&DN to the public at large in 2014 and is met with a resounding: "Meh". A lot of people pick up the initial release out of habit and curiosoity, but ultimately find that the game does nothing particularly novel or interesting. After a few months, most players just go back to whatever edition they were playing before 5th came out.

Some people HATED 2nd edition when it came out. People LOATHED 3rd edition. People ABHORRED 4th edition. The thing is, even though each iteration had it's detractors,people at least talked about them...the sad fate of 5th edition is that nobody will really even care.

So what happens after the game largely fails within it's first year of release is that WotC reevaluates the state of the D&D franchise and decides that it's true value is as an IP, and a liability as a physical product. The roleplayign game gets mothballed for a few years until they try to resurrect it in some other form of media.

After this there are two possibilities:

No more D&D roleplaying game ever.

The rights to produce a roleplaying game are licensed to a third party, who produces their own "6th" edition which will probably be an all around better game.

Either way, WotC is off of the D&D rpg gravy train for good...all because they don't have enough backbone to innovate.

See in two years whether or not I'm wrong.




 They tried innocative, didn't work. 3rd ed was popular and still is via Pathfinder. In 2008 I think people waned a fixed 3rd ed, 4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.
For me it's not a single thing that I don't like; moreover it's that I struggle to find just one - just a singular example - of anything DDN does better than the edition I favor. I have waited for that for months, since the very first playtest, and nothing has popped up - not a single thing.

You should never ask "What are the reasons I will discard my current favored edition and play this one instead". You should ask "What does DDN do that my current edition doesn't?".



I totally agree here, at this point it is failing to give me any reason to change. The "new" aspects such as bounded accuracy or dis/advantage skill dice and expertise dice do nothing for me and they have backed off the idea of themes/backgrounds I liked from the first packet.
For me it's not a single thing that I don't like; moreover it's that I struggle to find just one - just a singular example - of anything DDN does better than the edition I favor. I have waited for that for months, since the very first playtest, and nothing has popped up - not a single thing.

You should never ask "What are the reasons I will discard my current favored edition and play this one instead". You should ask "What does DDN do that my current edition doesn't?".



I totally agree here, at this point it is failing to give me any reason to change. The "new" aspects such as bounded accuracy or dis/advantage skill dice and expertise dice do nothing for me and they have backed off the idea of themes/backgrounds I liked from the first packet.


There is nothing new under the sun. The real treasure that DDN has to offer is more gamers. And much of that possibility rests with us, the current gamers.

4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.



You keep saying this, yet I don't think you know what the meaning of "flopped" is. You see, it doesn't mean "I didn't like it and people online bitched about it". It means "Was not successful". The game was consistantly the best selling RPG on the market. It has a large following on these forums and elsewhere.

Until you can actually back it up, might I suggest you stop continuously saying that 4E "flopped", "tanked", or "failed"?
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
There is nothing new under the sun. The real treasure that DDN has to offer is more gamers. And much of that possibility rests with us, the current gamers.



When 4e hit, it was a new take on D&D. It moved the industry forward; it advanced.

Me and my group have been playing together for years. I've been a GM for years; this tends to give me a leg-up on finding a group if I need to. I'm not worried about finding a game group - I'm worried about finding a game that lets me run things well as a GM.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

 They tried innocative, didn't work. 3rd ed was popular and still is via Pathfinder. In 2008 I think people waned a fixed 3rd ed, 4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.

Even if you consider Fourth Edition to be a failure, there's no way to know if it failed because it changed too many things, or if it failed because it changed the wrong things.

If Fourth Edition had axed the concept of classes and levels, it might have done even better for itself!  I can certainly imagine a point-based class-less D&D game that I would have bought into.

The metagame is not the game.

4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.



You keep saying this, yet I don't think you know what the meaning of "flopped" is. You see, it doesn't mean "I didn't like it and people online bitched about it". It means "Was not successful". The game was consistantly the best selling RPG on the market. It has a large following on these forums and elsewhere.

Until you can actually back it up, might I suggest you stop continuously saying that 4E "flopped", "tanked", or "failed"?



 It had a minis line on launch and it got canceled, got beaten by a D&D clone, cut the printing schedule in half 2 years in, failed to have any 3pp support, failed to spawn a successful computer game or a campaign setting and it is still alive for another 2 years with no new books coming out for it. Whatever those reasons  are I don't think they add up to something good.

 I'm not 100% sure but I think third may have been more popular and 1st and 2nd ed lasted for over a decade in print. You don't cancel a successful product.
There is nothing new under the sun. The real treasure that DDN has to offer is more gamers. And much of that possibility rests with us, the current gamers.


With most things, this is true, but with RPGs, it just isn't.  TTRPGs are new enough that there are still frontiers to be explored.  3e, for all its faults, pushed new ground.  4e, for all its faults, pushed more still.  I'd love to see 5e push more new ground, but the team seem content instead to retread old ground, with innovation put on the back burner.  That isn't a game I'll buy.  If I want nostalgia, I have the old editions, and they do nostlagia better.  The only way 5e can get me to buy is by being better and more innovative than what has come before.  I'd love to see them do it but all I've seen so far is D&D Previous, not D&D Next.  What few new ideas they have are buried under and ruined by too many old problems.
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.
what I find funny is, I'd bet cash money that most of the haters in this thread will buy the books anyways.

You guys are going to find problems with a system that's set up as "guidelines". Seriously, do what I always have done since AD&D: If you don't like a rule, CHANGE IT. Plain and simple. It's a pen and paper game, get your pen and paper out and write down some new rules.

Also - to those complaining that D&D lacks "innovation" - They tried innovation with 4e, and people hated them for it. Now, they're taking inspiration from the tried-and-true editions, as well as creating a few newer systems (A feat that grants cantrips to a fighter? Clerics with Familiars? Maneuvers in general?), as well as unbinding class requirements for skills, it really creates a LOT more room for customization with the classes themselves. Sure, you had customization in 3.5, but you had to work your head around the math of multiclassing, min-maxing your character so he's not completely useless in a fight.

My only issue thus far is this: They need more content in the playtest packets! I'd love to get a chance to see more of the races and classes, I think they are doing a great job thus far, and everything about running my group's sessions so far, from character creation to actual gameplay, feels refreshingly different than any edition to date. 
what I find funny is, I'd bet cash money that most of the haters in this thread will buy the books anyways.

You guys are going to find problems with a system that's set up as "guidelines". Seriously, do what I always have done since AD&D: If you don't like a rule, CHANGE IT. Plain and simple. It's a pen and paper game, get your pen and paper out and write down some new rules. 



I'm not paying money for a game I have to design myself. DDN currently offers no benefit over previous editions. WotC has to give us a reason to buy it over its predecessors. 
I'm not paying money for a game I have to design myself. DDN currently offers no benefit over previous editions. WotC has to give us a reason to buy it over its predecessors. 



Yes, because there's been a version of D&D before where you didn't have to rely on multiclassing to play a Rogue who could cast Mage Hand. Or, a Fighter that specializes in Archery and Healing, along with Healing spells to go along with it.

Your post is full of opinion with no evidence to back it up, I get the feeling you haven't actually played the playtest packet, just gave it a brief read-through and got caught up in all the hate posts flying around the forums. My advice: Go play the game. Get a group together if you can, make characters, and do some basic little noncommital adventures. It's actually quite an improvement over 3.5 where turns at high-levels took FOREVER, and 4.0 where characters had to keep track of 3890468936 different powers they could use in a given situation.

I'm not paying money for a game I have to design myself. DDN currently offers no benefit over previous editions. WotC has to give us a reason to buy it over its predecessors. 



Yes, because there's been a version of D&D before where you didn't have to rely on multiclassing to play a Rogue who could cast Mage Hand. Or, a Fighter that specializes in Archery and Healing, along with Healing spells to go along with it.

Your post is full of opinion with no evidence to back it up, I get the feeling you haven't actually played the playtest packet, just gave it a brief read-through and got caught up in all the hate posts flying around the forums. My advice: Go play the game. Get a group together if you can, make characters, and do some basic little noncommital adventures. It's actually quite an improvement over 3.5 where turns at high-levels took FOREVER, and 4.0 where characters had to keep track of 3890468936 different powers they could use in a given situation.




I actually like resource management for martial classes and the strategic choices 4e allowed for. DDN is lacking any of this. I HATE dead levels, which DDN is LOADED with. I like having tons of character customization choices, which DDN is severely lacking. I prefer grid based combat, which DDN is only going to staple on at some point. It currently gives me 0 reason to leave 4e. 13th Age has done a much better job of addressing any isses I had with 4e while making a very unique game.  DDN is just a hodge podge mess right now. More than 2 years into development, this is pretty sad. 

DDN is just missing too much mechanically for my group to take an interest in. I also refuted your statement of saying rules don't matter because you can change them. If I have to house rule a game into something playable for me and my group, I have no reason to buy it. DDN currently offers no benefit over previous editions.

The rest of your post is just straw man nonsense.  
what I find funny is, I'd bet cash money that most of the haters in this thread will buy the books anyways.

You guys are going to find problems with a system that's set up as "guidelines". Seriously, do what I always have done since AD&D: If you don't like a rule, CHANGE IT. Plain and simple. It's a pen and paper game, get your pen and paper out and write down some new rules.

Also - to those complaining that D&D lacks "innovation" - They tried innovation with 4e, and people hated them for it. Now, they're taking inspiration from the tried-and-true editions, as well as creating a few newer systems (A feat that grants cantrips to a fighter? Clerics with Familiars? Maneuvers in general?), as well as unbinding class requirements for skills, it really creates a LOT more room for customization with the classes themselves. Sure, you had customization in 3.5, but you had to work your head around the math of multiclassing, min-maxing your character so he's not completely useless in a fight.

My only issue thus far is this: They need more content in the playtest packets! I'd love to get a chance to see more of the races and classes, I think they are doing a great job thus far, and everything about running my group's sessions so far, from character creation to actual gameplay, feels refreshingly different than any edition to date. 



 Right now D&DN is errata for my PF game.

 They tried innocative, didn't work. 3rd ed was popular and still is via Pathfinder. In 2008 I think people waned a fixed 3rd ed, 4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.



Are you really arguing AGAINST innovation? Really?

Really?

What's the alternative then? Do the same thing over and over again, ad infinitim, until the end of time?

What do you want out of D&DN then? Repubish 3.x? Because they did that already. So what you must REALLY want out of D&DN is for it to not exist at all.

Oh...I get it now. You want to be RIGHT and everyone else to be wrong. Not only that...you want your righteousness enshrined and institutionalized so that no one can argue with you again on the subject.

Well I want to be right too. One of us is bound to be. Either innovation kills D&D and back pedaling is it's only hope...or lack of innovation kills it and serious revamping is the answer. Guess we'll find out which it is in a couple years.




 My ideal versio wouldbe Star Wars Saga and 4th ed being used for the base game. I would settle fora d20 rewrite of 2nd ed and maybe a 4.5 ed if they got away from the AEDU and role structure of the game and went back to 3.5 style classes (but with new spells/nerfed spellcastyers).

 I would like them to take the elements from 3.5, 4th ed and SWSE that actually worked and would not have to be playtested. Right now it feels like they wasted a year.

I wish they had used SWSE as the baseline, as well. Reinventing the wheel every edition is really annoying. They had a really good baseline and blew that chance. An SWSE base with ToB inspired martial classes would have gone a long way to grabbing my interest.
I actually like resource management for martial classes and the strategic choices 4e allowed for. DDN is lacking any of this.



Blatantly and completely wrong, demonstrating your lack of understanding of this new ruleset. Every class still has resources to manage, whether that be Combat Surge, Ki, Spells, Channel Divinity, or the rogue Ace in the Hole feature.

I HATE dead levels, which DDN is LOADED with.



You never played any version outside of 4.0, did you? "Dead Levels" are a myth anyhow - you still gain Hit Dice every level, even if you don't get handed a new feat or maneuver every level. (And if you actually look at EVERYTHING you gain each level, for most classes, you generally get something outside of Hit Dice as well.

Also - for the "slowing down" of new features past level 10 - we haven't seen everything this system has to offer yet, not even close. Note in class descriptions that they all say "Taking (class) as your FIRST CLASS" - implying that they will likely introduce a Paragon class system for additional customization.

I like having tons of character customization choices, which DDN is severely lacking.



Note the fact that this is a BETA playtest packet, provided for FREE for the purpose of game testing. You're not going to see an entire edition's worth of options presented at this stage of development yet.

Also - I'm assuming you are comparing this to 4E, where every class was FORCED into a one or two combat styles by design, and there was no escaping that besides simply playing another class. There might be options within that class to play that role in a different way, but no way to escape that role. Even in the basic form of the rules that we have about D&DN, you've already got more ways to customize your characters than any edition since 3.5.

I prefer grid based combat, which DDN is only going to staple on at some point.



That's funny, did you read the "How to Play" section on movement? It pretty much details that 5 feet is a "space" - sounds like a grid based combat system to me.

It currently gives me 0 reason to leave 4e. 13th Age has done a much better job of addressing any isses I had with 4e while making a very unique game.  DDN is just a hodge podge mess right now. More than 2 years into development, this is pretty sad.



You're assuming that the books are going to launch with all of the content that we've seen thus far, and nothing more? Again, you seem to forget the fact that this is a Beta, and we will likely not see everything that this system has to offer until it fully launches. If they just made the whole system available, they'd be giving it away, and that would be a suicidal mistake as a company.

DDN is just missing too much mechanically for my group to take an interest in. I also refuted your statement of saying rules don't matter because you can change them. If I have to house rule a game into something playable for me and my group, I have no reason to buy it. DDN currently offers no benefit over previous editions.



As with every edition that launches, there will still be campaigns that use older editions. Nobody's going to force you to stop using your old books. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure why you signed up for the beta, because it stills sounds like you haven't actually contributed anything worthwhile to the playtest yet.

The purpose of these "playtest packets" isn't for people to throw rocks at Wizards because they don't like the current system, it's to actually TEST it and offer constructive feedback on what's wrong and what's right. From the lack of understanding your previous post shows, I'd say that you really haven't tested anything.

Also - the premise of this thread was how people like me and the OP find it funny that you guys think all your table-flipping will actually make a difference in D&DN's development. You're really just providing entertainment for those of us who understand what beta testing is, and who are here to contribute helpful feedback instead of throw furniture around in frustration.

 They tried innocative, didn't work. 3rd ed was popular and still is via Pathfinder. In 2008 I think people waned a fixed 3rd ed, 4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.



Are you really arguing AGAINST innovation? Really?

Really?

What's the alternative then? Do the same thing over and over again, ad infinitim, until the end of time?

What do you want out of D&DN then? Repubish 3.x? Because they did that already. So what you must REALLY want out of D&DN is for it to not exist at all.

Oh...I get it now. You want to be RIGHT and everyone else to be wrong. Not only that...you want your righteousness enshrined and institutionalized so that no one can argue with you again on the subject.

Well I want to be right too. One of us is bound to be. Either innovation kills D&D and back pedaling is it's only hope...or lack of innovation kills it and serious revamping is the answer. Guess we'll find out which it is in a couple years.




What I expect out of D&DN is more of the same innovation that they've already put into it - it's a familiar system, but there is a LOT more breathing room when it comes to character customization thus far (Note that "backgrounds" and "specializations" are presented, but clearly stated as OPTIONAL in the rules for character creation).
I actually like resource management for martial classes and the strategic choices 4e allowed for. DDN is lacking any of this.



Blatantly and completely wrong, demonstrating your lack of understanding of this new ruleset. Every class still has resources to manage, whether that be Combat Surge, Ki, Spells, Channel Divinity, or the rogue Ace in the Hole feature.

I HATE dead levels, which DDN is LOADED with.



You never played any version outside of 4.0, did you? "Dead Levels" are a myth anyhow - you still gain Hit Dice every level, even if you don't get handed a new feat or maneuver every level. (And if you actually look at EVERYTHING you gain each level, for most classes, you generally get something outside of Hit Dice as well.

Also - for the "slowing down" of new features past level 10 - we haven't seen everything this system has to offer yet, not even close. Note in class descriptions that they all say "Taking (class) as your FIRST CLASS" - implying that they will likely introduce a Paragon class system for additional customization.

I like having tons of character customization choices, which DDN is severely lacking.



Note the fact that this is a BETA playtest packet, provided for FREE for the purpose of game testing. You're not going to see an entire edition's worth of options presented at this stage of development yet.

Also - I'm assuming you are comparing this to 4E, where every class was FORCED into a one or two combat styles by design, and there was no escaping that besides simply playing another class. There might be options within that class to play that role in a different way, but no way to escape that role. Even in the basic form of the rules that we have about D&DN, you've already got more ways to customize your characters than any edition since 3.5.

I prefer grid based combat, which DDN is only going to staple on at some point.



That's funny, did you read the "How to Play" section on movement? It pretty much details that 5 feet is a "space" - sounds like a grid based combat system to me.

It currently gives me 0 reason to leave 4e. 13th Age has done a much better job of addressing any isses I had with 4e while making a very unique game.  DDN is just a hodge podge mess right now. More than 2 years into development, this is pretty sad.



You're assuming that the books are going to launch with all of the content that we've seen thus far, and nothing more? Again, you seem to forget the fact that this is a Beta, and we will likely not see everything that this system has to offer until it fully launches. If they just made the whole system available, they'd be giving it away, and that would be a suicidal mistake as a company.

DDN is just missing too much mechanically for my group to take an interest in. I also refuted your statement of saying rules don't matter because you can change them. If I have to house rule a game into something playable for me and my group, I have no reason to buy it. DDN currently offers no benefit over previous editions.



As with every edition that launches, there will still be campaigns that use older editions. Nobody's going to force you to stop using your old books. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure why you signed up for the beta, because it stills sounds like you haven't actually contributed anything worthwhile to the playtest yet.

The purpose of these "playtest packets" isn't for people to throw rocks at Wizards because they don't like the current system, it's to actually TEST it and offer constructive feedback on what's wrong and what's right. From the lack of understanding your previous post shows, I'd say that you really haven't tested anything.

Also - the premise of this thread was how people like me and the OP find it funny that you guys think all your table-flipping will actually make a difference in D&DN's development. You're really just providing entertainment for those of us who understand what beta testing is, and who are here to contribute helpful feedback instead of throw furniture around in frustration.



They're still reduced to at-will spam. I'm talking ToB style maneuvers and resource management here.

Hit points only are considered a dead level. No real character growth when you level up is boring. I want something new every level. That is the point of levels. If you only gain hit poiints, one level is identical to the last. I've also played every edition of D&D and I hated dead levels then, too. 4e and Pathfinder eliminated them. DDN has them. If they do not do something about that, it is a deal breaker.

4e is my favorite edition of D&D. I HATED essentials martial classes, though. DDN martial classes mostly resemble that. I liked the idea of CS when it was fighter only. Now that it is the martial mehanic, I hate it. It is generic now.

13th Age is currently answering the call for being close to what I'm looking for post 4e. DDN has done basically nothing to reach out to the 4e fans. 13a is built on the same foundation as 4e, but puts a very different building on top. WotC has yet to show any interest in supporting the 4e playstyle. Until I see non daily resource management built specifically for martial classes, non vancian wizards, fighters with some non combat utility, and actual innovation.... it isn't going to be for me. They need to stop reinventing the wheel with new editions and build on what they have.

My ideal D&D would be using SWSE as the basis. They had a very solid game going there, and like every new edition, they throw out everything they had before and start fresh again. We'll be doing this in 4 years again with the way they run this thing.

I'm not flipping any tables. I'm just saying that they have yet to do anything to remotely impress me. Until they do, my wallet goes elsewhere.

My group playtested the 1st packet for one session, and that was it. We playtested a little of the 2nd packet, and thought it had some good ideas. They completely lost interest with the 3rd as it basically went in the complete opposite direction we were hoping it would go. The 4th packet still didn't address any concerns. Still no Warlord, everything is still built on daily resources, vancian magic is still the only way, no miniature rules, weapons are very boring, combat is only about damage since the monsters die so fast, still nothing even close to a page 42 for DM's, hit dice completely miss the mark of the role healing surges played, etc. This is pretty sad design considering how long this game has been in development.

Again, 13th Age has pretty much addressed all of these concerns. It even manages to switch from TotM to strategic miniatures without any real issues or the need for these miracle modules we keep hearing about.

DDN is not modular. It has far too many default assumptions within the core to be truly modular. It might have some modular elements, but it is not a modular system. Something like vancian casting being the core rule for wizards eliminates that. It should start as a simple blaster, and then the ability to add in a vancian element or some other magic system on top of the existing one would make it modular. That ship has sailed, though. I was excited when I heard it was going to be modular. They failed to deliver in that regard. The core is too complex for that.
Even if you consider Fourth Edition to be a failure, there's no way to know if it failed because it changed too many things, or if it failed because it changed the wrong things.

If Fourth Edition had axed the concept of classes and levels, it might have done even better for itself!  I can certainly imagine a point-based class-less D&D game that I would have bought into.




Let's not say "failure."
That's too strong a word and open to interpretation.
4ed may have "failed" to improve the D&D game but have been a success in sales nonetheless, for example. And that's just one way to view failure and success, so I suggest not doing that. Better to specify what we're saying.


The way I see it, the biggest difference in development of the 3ed, 4ed and 5ed was the initial approach.


What I think made 3ed so great (and that's my opinion, from an old player perspective who had played lots of AD&D) is that when they set out to create it, their main guideline for making the new system of rules was asking themselves that:
What are the things AD&D players always want to do in their game sessions and always end up in a dead end of "there's no rule for how you do that?"

Things like: How do you grapple an opponent so he doesn't run away? How can I attack an enemy in different ways that is not just rolling TH and DMG? How do I make my character better at finding a thief trying to sneak up on me? Basically, they were first trying to answer how their AD&D characters could do the things players had already been craving to do in-game for a while.

Then they made systems for that. And then they picked the old AD&D which was so full of micro-rules and systems, each with its own specific mechanics, and joined it all into a more unified system of rules.

For that reason, when it came out 3ed "felt" a lot more like ye good and ol' D&D game (except reviewed and improved), than the 4ed, or now the 5ed to some extent.
3.5 and Pathfinder did basically the same, but making mostly minor changes to the 3ed, so much that they didn't actually call it a "new" edition, but a revised d20 3ed. Yet again they were trying to see what players were trying to accomplish in 3ed games and not been quite successful, or what rules were causing slight problems.


Now 4ed went about it quite differently.
With 4ed it felt like they practically threw the whole D&D system away and kept only some iconic things like the 3-18 Ability Scores, so that it could still be said to be a D&D game.

Which is not to say that such approach would necessarily lead to a bad new system of rules. It could just as well be good, but see how the initial approach was different?
In 4ed they weren't asking themselves what was lacking in 3ed and using that as a starting point...
They were basically saying "well, let's try something entirely new and see how it goes."

That's why so many people hated 4ed, and why others loved it.
At 3ed's launch however, I barely saw any old AD&D player say "well, this is terrible, I'm gonna stick with the 2ed."

Not really because "3ed was better than 4ed," but because 3ed was a natural evolution of the 2ed. It was the kind of thing 2ed had been hoping for in a while.
While 4ed was more like a wild attempt at "let's try something different and see how it works."


I'm not particularly fond of that latter approach. I mean, of course it could produce a good, entirely new system that could be fun to play. But if you're setting out to make a new edition of D&D, I expect it to be a revision of the old stuff, and improvement.
Maybe to do that you'll end up having to change a lot in the core rules, but if so, do that because it felt like it was what was needed to improve the old, not just to try something new at random.
Or else just make a brand new set of original rules and call it something else.



With 5ed I'm seeing what I believe is a mix of the 3ed and 4ed approach.
Some stuff like the Advantage/Disadvantage system is a clear attempt to improve some old 3ed rules, and put all of minor rules into a single, unified system.
And it's looking good! It feels natural.

Other stull, however, like the MDD MDB system and removal of multiple attacks... just feels like the 4ed approach of "let's try something completely different and see how it goes."
Cause they're not trying to improve anything from the old rules. There was nothing wrong with what they took out to put that in, it was a part of the system which was working pretty well; they are not trying to fulfill what players were craving that was missing in the old rules.
They're just trying something new out of the blue, not following a natural evolution of the system.

And just as with the 4ed... that kind of sudden change will displease many, and please some.
Good post Rastapulos. One could see the evolution in 3rd ed form 2nd ed starting as early as 1989 as the fighters handbook had some things that evolved into feats in 3rd ed. The players option books also had things like non vancian wizards and added grid based combat options. Throwing out level limits and racial limits were rules that 2nd ed had been relaxing in various splats and settings anyway.

 The strongest indications of 4th ed in 3.5 was the Book of Nine Swords and the Miniatures handbook along with small things like the Warlock class in the Complete Arcane. One ting lacking in the lead up to 4th ed was Dragon magazine as a year or so they were dropping spoliers in the lead up to 3rd launching, I think they used the internet. I perosnally avoided 4th ed spoilers and the only one I read was the Elf and people more or less worked out what the elf was about with no other 4th ed rules to base it on.

 Problem was the miniatures habndbook was one of the worse 3.5 books they made (rules changes to D&D minis made it obsolete fast), Book of Nine Swords was very good but it may not appeal to everyone.

 In 2007 WoTC also launched Star Wars Saga which was the "fixed" version of 3.5 which retained BAB but threw out the extra attacks and it had the same skill system as 4th ed and NADs. When 4th ed launched the poo storm really started on these forums and never really went away. There was the odd nerdrage post on the forums here back iin 2001 and they more or less dried up by 2002. 3.5 coming out caused more angst than 2nd ed to 3rd ed. Mystic Theurge was widely regarded as broken when spoiled lol.

 3rd ed was an evoluiton of 2nd ed , 3.5 was an evolution. 4th ed had its genesis in 3.5 but it was more of a revolution than evolution. At the time D&D minis was also very popular and maybe they saw DDM being the new MTG. They changed the rules to D&DM but that killed off the skirmish game part of it. Some of those minis were going for large amounts of dollars on ebay.

 I think they assumed a tactical RPG would sell very well and it did for a year or so. They got alot of positive feedback on the Warlock, minis etc so maybe 4th ed seemed logical. I sometimes wonder though if they ever had someone say no or think what people wanted. I suspect people wanted a fixed 3.5 and 4th ed did address the problems 3.5 had but maybe in the wrong way IDK. Failed may be the wrong word but it did alienate the D&D playerbase and thats before Paizo made PF and that was only made because around 70% of Dragon/Dungeons userbase supported Paizo when they decided to stick with 3.5 for a bit because of the GSL which at the time read somehting like "you can only make GSL product, you can't sell your exisiting stock of OGL and when we terminate the GSL you can't make anything else".

 I don't think anyone asked the question back in 2007 "Do 3.5 players want a tactical based RPG" I'm guessing they used sales of D&D minis to say yes but IDK. They probably thought they could sell the idea anyway.

With the way that Line of Sight works, movement works, and the way they defined creature "spaces", I'm curious why people think this game hasn't provided rules for grid-based combat. It actually seems pretty clear to me that they are assuming players are using a grid for combat.
Hit Point / Damage Inflation is a deal breaker for me.

If they don't nurf Martial Damage Dice (and remove Martial Damage Bonus) and don't allow you to modulate it (such as with extra attacks or something), then I'm just not interested.

I like Bounded Accuracy and everything else they have done with DDN, but this damage inflation is not for me.
4th ed slaughtered a few to many sacred cows and flopped harder than all the other editions.



IMO, it changed far too many things that didn't need to be changed.