It Misses The Point Entirely

I have played from AD&D onwards....I have played Deadlands, Shadowrun, Gurps, Whitewolf, tons of D20 variant games, Pathfinder etc. etc.
I think I can say that I am pretty well versed in role-playing game mechanics, and D&D Next is as dull as dishwater.

Here's the thing.... you can find any number of simplified, streamlined games out there with little to nothing in the realm of specific mechanics for anything other than very basic combat.  You can find all sorts of games that have ho-hum homogenized combat statistics and abilities.  You can find tons of fantasy games that do everything that D&D next seems to be attempting just as well if not better than it is doing it.

What is missing are the options.... I know that many people start to feel bogged down too many of them.... but they are necessary.  D&D next leaves very little in the way of character customization.  I know that these things are difficult to hammer out, but all WOTC seems to have done is remove options entirely rather than fix them.

I judge many games based on how well they deal with turning flavor into function.  I can't seem to find either here.  I fully applaud simplification where it is necessary.  There is a difference, however, between simplification and dumbing down.

What I cannot abide is looking at classes that are so incredibly linear in their progression.  Once a player has made their choice of class and race, they are essentially finished all the way to 20 (and presumably beyond).  Each level should be exciting for the player.  Each choice should be impactful.  How many ways does D&D next present you with to play a particular class?  None!!!  Sure there are minor cosmetic differences, but nothing close to what previous editions have offered.  

This is lazy design and nothing else.  Yes, many of the old problems will disappear, but this is like fixing the power imbalance between fighters and casters in 3.5 by just banning casters.  Problem solved right?  Wrong...  just a poorer level of game.

The meetings at WOTC must sound like MMORPG forums.  Everyone just seems to want to deal damage at an equal rate.  This is NOT D&D.  This misses the point entirely.  Non-combat mechanics have once again been thrown out the window.  Customization has gone as well.  

Why not just play a game of minis?

You know.... the best thing I can say about Pathfinder (with all of its many many flaws) is that they seem to take an approach where, if a player/DM has an idea, there is a rule for that.  Now, there really shouldn't be rules for absolutely everything.  But, when it comes to making a character.... there should be lots of different ways to play a class.  One player's fighter should be different from another's.

I don't know.... I just don't get it.  Just play 3.5, turn spells with more than a 1rd cast time into rituals.  Give full heals for short rests.  Stop giving out feats at lvl 10.  Force players to take a feat if they want to do something other than a basic attack.  Stop spells from scaling, and remove the full-attack option from the game..... there you go, its pretty much  D&D next.

How this is progress is beyond me.
How Wizards plans on retaking the market with this product is beyond me. 

 
I think you kinda missed the part where this is an incomplete product, a vastly incomplete product, that's still in its playtesting stage.

I can't, and won't, comment on the state of DDN because I know full well that everything presented in the playtest packets is not the final product that still needs tweaking. A lot of things will be added in the future, and I look forward to seeing it.  
why are you mad?
Comparing a new system to the breadth of options available to a 3.5e/Pathfinder game is just silly. It's a playtest, and there aren't a lot of options yet. The core mechanics are still being tweaked, and many could be thrown out next week.

I agree that if this were the final product, I'd be disappointed too. However, I like the direction they are taking in some areas, so I hope they have a chance to realize that.

You know.... the best thing I can say about Pathfinder (with all of its many many flaws) is that they seem to take an approach where, if a player/DM has an idea, there is a rule for that.  



I suppose I'm just burned out from the rules-heavy mentality, it's actually a breath of fresh air to see that there aren't huge piles of rules for everything.

The problem with rules-heavy mentality is it gets to build rapidly into a mountain, because whenever there's a problem, the answer is always "write another class/archetype/feat"

I'd prefer classes that were a little more open. I don't really feel for instance that you need tons of customization on a fighter, because that equates to really specialization. Wizards don't have to specialize, they get all the schools of magic, so let a fighter be Zorro, Conan, Robin Hood and Lancelot combined. You obviously can't be all that stuff because being in heavy armor should restrict your styles, but I don't feel like we need all these separate kinds of fighters.

O.p. I have to agree with at least some of what you are saying here. D&D Next is as dull as dishwater. I personally am bored with it. It doesn't appeal to me in the least. It's not retro enough to keep my old school side interested and it's not innovative enough to garner my interest by being New. Your comparisons to Pathfinder are funny, this is like comparing a 2013 Caddy with a 71 Pinto. Yes -Pathfinder has alot of options. It is also a finished product.( And a dang good one) As it stands this couldn't compete with Basic D&D as far as I am concerned, much less Pathfinder. Thus far for me and my group D&D Next is looking like a pass.
Oh and Lazy is one thing, Incompitant, is another and I think that the problem is the latter.
I also see the Staff meetings at WOTC differently than you do. I should hope they are a bit concerned about peoples lack of interest even at this stage.
I think you kinda missed the part where this is an incomplete product, a vastly incomplete product, that's still in its playtesting stage.

I can't, and won't, comment on the state of DDN because I know full well that everything presented in the playtest packets is not the final product that still needs tweaking. A lot of things will be added in the future, and I look forward to seeing it.  



Isn't that kind of the point of a playtest?

 
Amen, OP.
   My biggest complaint, and it's not just DnD that does this, is the way RPGs are designed. The class system is so generic that no matter what character you make up, it's the same as the last one you made up. For instance, fighters are always melee tanks. The rogue is only one who can bypass mechanical traps and pick locks. The wizard is useless when they somehow forget their spells. And priests are, for some reason, field medics.
  Add barbarians, the idea is Conan, but not all barbarians storm into battle half dressed wielding a sword as long as they are tall. Barbarism, historicly, refered to anyone who was not Roman. So a barbarian could just as easily be a fighter, rogue, cast spells both divine and arcane.
   Add monks. Historicly monks are basicly priests. The dress in robes and chant all day. My full-plate wearing dwarven fighter could also be a monk. That just adds a flair to roleplaying, it's not a cause to add an entire class. 
  So here is my suggestion: Allow the basic classes to be fully customizable, or throw out the class sytem, cuse it's really broken anyway. 
Amen, OP.
   My biggest complaint, and it's not just DnD that does this, is the way RPGs are designed. The class system is so generic that no matter what character you make up, it's the same as the last one you made up. For instance, fighters are always melee tanks. The rogue is only one who can bypass mechanical traps and pick locks. The wizard is useless when they somehow forget their spells. And priests are, for some reason, field medics.
  Add barbarians, the idea is Conan, but not all barbarians storm into battle half dressed wielding a sword as long as they are tall. Barbarism, historicly, refered to anyone who was not Roman. So a barbarian could just as easily be a fighter, rogue, cast spells both divine and arcane.
   Add monks. Historicly monks are basicly priests. The dress in robes and chant all day. My full-plate wearing dwarven fighter could also be a monk. That just adds a flair to roleplaying, it's not a cause to add an entire class. 
  So here is my suggestion: Allow the basic classes to be fully customizable, or throw out the class sytem, cuse it's really broken anyway. 




That is by no means a universal law of RPGs.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Comparing a new system to the breadth of options available to a 3.5e/Pathfinder game is just silly. It's a playtest, and there aren't a lot of options yet. The core mechanics are still being tweaked, and many could be thrown out next week.

I agree that if this were the final product, I'd be disappointed too. However, I like the direction they are taking in some areas, so I hope they have a chance to realize that.



You know its not the comparison of rule to rule that irks me.  I am doing everything I can to compare D&D next to Every game I have played. Not just the fantasy ones.  It simply feels as though the dev team is trying very hard to not offend anyone and to avoid making things to complicated for anyone.  This makes things feel incredibly bland to me.

The previous editions all had their flaws, but they felt like they were really trying for something.  Maybe they shot the moon trying to potentailly represent any fantasy scenario, but I applaud the attempt, and would rather play a game made with that mentality than one that is concerned with jealous players who might bicker amongst each other about "Having to play the Healer: unless they get to do essentially the "Same DPS".  

That MMO language has insidiously crept in to PnP games and, more disturbingly, so has the mentality.  

What is the goal of D&D Next?  What coherent mission statement can you derive from the materials so far produced?  

If this game did not have the D&D name attached, what do you think would draw someone to it?

Why does this game need to be made?  And most importantly, what is being added?  A few streamlined rules?  I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of 4e, but at least it was trying to be something.  D&D Next is just D&D mish-mosh, and probably a better miniatures game than a roleplaying game.
I have quit playing RPG's entirely.
I couldn't be any more uninterested in D&D  (or what passes for it) than I already am.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."- John Stuart Mill “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”― William F. Buckley "The straw in your man is amazing."- Maxperson Original Hipster of the House of Trolls: I was hipster before hipster was cool Resident Hater Mini Hate Machine

The previous editions all had their flaws, but they felt like they were really trying for something.  Maybe they shot the moon trying to potentailly represent any fantasy scenario, but I applaud the attempt, and would rather play a game made with that mentality than one that is concerned with jealous players who might bicker amongst each other about "Having to play the Healer: unless they get to do essentially the "Same DPS".  


Yeah I hate what they've done with the cleric in modern editions of D&D, trying to turn him into some kind of super character because nobody want sto paly the healer. How about just balancing the game so healing isn't so necessary? Instead we get laser tossing clerics that deal as much damage as wizards.

If this game did not have the D&D name attached, what do you think would draw someone to it?



The problem with D&DN is that's all it is. It's entirely riding the D&D label. Pretty much the design goal seems to be solely to prevent people from saying "That's not D&D" the way they did with 4E. Though unlike 4E, there doesn't seem to be any real desire to create a good game, only one that is recognizeable as D&D.

About the onyl real stated design goal/feature of D&DN is the customizeability. More so than other editions it's supposed to have a bunch of rules modules you can swap in and out. And pretty much D&DN will live or die based on its modules.
You know, there are a lot of pages here on how boring Next is so far.

I've been bored with it too.

But there is a logical fallacy to compare complete games to developing games.

So I've been explaining in my feedback what bores me and why. And then waiting to see what changes.

So far, the advantage to Next is how easy it is to play. I've got 8 year olds who are loving it. I've got grognards who feel it pretty well captures what D&D is supposed to feel like. The boring complaints in my group are coming from 4vengers (like myself) who enjoy MMOs and DPS builds and maps and minis.

But, despite my complaints - I've got current gen, old gen, and next gen gamers at the table playing the game. It's not perfect, but that's what WOTC set out to have happen. It's happening.

I still have complaints and I still want a bunch of fixes. But for my group, this works. Not as good yet as our preferred editions - but it works for kids, parents, and our older grognard buddies.

So I don't think next is missing the point at all.
IWhat is missing are the options.... I know that many people start to feel bogged down too many of them.... but they are necessary.  D&D next leaves very little in the way of character customization.  I know that these things are difficult to hammer out, but all WOTC seems to have done is remove options entirely rather than fix them. 


I agree and do find the class design lacking in this respect. It seems to follow the 4e philosophy where you make once choice at first level and that determines all your options. It's simple but unsatisfying and takes the thrill away from levelling up. While there are still feats in the game, you get too few for it to really customize your character. And at higher levels advancement seems to stop.

I don't see this easily changing out of the playtest, unless they plan to do another bit of 4e design and have builds radically alter classes so different builds are almost different classes. Especially since we won't have seen them and thus they won't have been playtested, thus defeating the point of having 80,000 people stress test your game. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

You know, there are a lot of pages here on how boring Next is so far. I've been bored with it too. But there is a logical fallacy to compare complete games to developing games. So I've been explaining in my feedback what bores me and why. And then waiting to see what changes. So far, the advantage to Next is how easy it is to play. I've got 8 year olds who are loving it. I've got grognards who feel it pretty well captures what D&D is supposed to feel like. The boring complaints in my group are coming from 4vengers (like myself) who enjoy MMOs and DPS builds and maps and minis. But, despite my complaints - I've got current gen, old gen, and next gen gamers at the table playing the game. It's not perfect, but that's what WOTC set out to have happen. It's happening. I still have complaints and I still want a bunch of fixes. But for my group, this works. Not as good yet as our preferred editions - but it works for kids, parents, and our older grognard buddies. So I don't think next is missing the point at all.



To your point that there is a logical fallacy.... i disagree.

From the first packet you can see the direction that the game is heading, and that is more than enough to talk about the big-picture conccepts at work here.  Note that I haven't gone into great detail about specific classes or abilities (which I could easily do in complete games).  Sure, the barbarian's rage is too powerful... sneak attack plus two weapon strike is a painfully obvious powergame move.  These are all just blemishes though.  They are minor details that can be tweaked easily along the way.

But you don't step back from sidelining non-combat skills.  You don't retreat from balancing classes around damage output.  This game is unfinished, yes....but you can see the foundation.  And from that foundation you can get a good idea of what they are building.  At the very least, you can see where their proirities lie.  

And as a last thought on this.  What is the mechanic that will define D&D next?  From 2nd ed. to 3rd we saw Feats as the major keynote game mechanic introduced into the game.  3rd, 3.5 and even still 3.75 are all about feats. (Thaco to BAB and the new save systems were really just good fixes to the old clunky systems, but very much the same).  

What is D&D Next about?  

I would love to know.


So the complaint is that there isn't enough flexibility in character creation? Compared to 3e? I don't see how, given that 5e has the same number of feats per character (through level 10), the same multiclassing system, and at least as many and as interesting class specific features for every class.

The complaint is that classes have similar (or at least calibrated) damage? If each of the classes plays differently in combat and feels iconic, why would you possibly be upset that their damage matches up to a degree? (And the fact that this bugs you so much suggests that maybe they're right to dedicate a lot of work into finding the right balance of damage for each class!)

If the problem is that there aren't a bunch of unique classes and odd feats, well, no kidding. They're testing out the core stuff here. If you want to see a flavorful class, look at the sorcerer and warlock they previewed a while back.
So the complaint is that there isn't enough flexibility in character creation? Compared to 3e? I don't see how, given that 5e has the same number of feats per character (through level 10), the same multiclassing system, and at least as many and as interesting class specific features for every class. The complaint is that classes have similar (or at least calibrated) damage? If each of the classes plays differently in combat and feels iconic, why would you possibly be upset that their damage matches up to a degree? (And the fact that this bugs you so much suggests that maybe they're right to dedicate a lot of work into finding the right balance of damage for each class!) If the problem is that there aren't a bunch of unique classes and odd feats, well, no kidding. They're testing out the core stuff here. If you want to see a flavorful class, look at the sorcerer and warlock they previewed a while back.



Yep, totally the same number of feats.... through level 10.  And after?  And are they as divergent or character defining?  
People made this argument to me when 4e threw feats onto the sidelines.  That was their choice, but don't go arguing that because I get the same number that they are somehow anywhere near as relevant.

Just as many class features?  Which playtest are you reading?  I would like a copy.

Moreover, it isn't really about quantity as much as it is about quality and choice.  I want to make meaningful choices for my character every level not just at level 1.  The class features are not interesting.  Not in the slightest.  What was effectively copied from 3.5  is still there, and the other half is just missing.  

As far as damage goes, I could care less.  That was my point.  This game is being developed to quell arguments that shouldn't really exist.  "Because if each class plays differently and  feels iconic" why should anyone care?  You pick a class, you pick a role to play.  You make choices for what your strengths and weaknesses are.  Sometimes that means you deal less raw damage in combat.  Sometimes that means you are better off the battlefield than on it.  Sometimes, a particular encounter just isn't in your favor, and you struggle to contribute.  Sometimes an encounter plays to your strengths and you shine.  

Boiling everything down into non-contestable equivalent numbers should not be a priority.  I would rather see wildly unbalanced classes at this stage than dull homogenized damage dice placeholders.  

Even inside combat there is less choice.  Maneuvers that were once just part of the combat paradigm... actions available to anyone, are now relegated to special abilities that need to be purchased.  

"The Commander of the Shining Shield Knights rallies his men and cries:  CHAAARRRRGE!!!"....to which half of his troops reply...."I didn't take that feat sir." 

 
I would say that on average Next feats are far more powerful, interesting and character-defining than 3e feats.

I don't know what classes features YOU are talking about - the way I count it, the fighter went from zero to about a half dozen (maneuvers plus parry), the barbarian's rage went from math homework to interesting and tactics-defining, and the monk got more variety in his choice of maneuvers and Ki powers. Even cleric domains got more interesting.
What is missing are the options.... I know that many people start to feel bogged down too many of them.... but they are necessary. D&D next leaves very little in the way of character customization. I know that these things are difficult to hammer out, but all WOTC seems to have done is remove options entirely rather than fix them.

Sooo...you want a plethora of options during the playtest? If it were me, I'd be happy they weren't just doing a few premade characters for 1st - 3rd level.

Which is basically what I plan on doing.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Amen, OP.
   My biggest complaint, and it's not just DnD that does this, is the way RPGs are designed. The class system is so generic that no matter what character you make up, it's the same as the last one you made up. For instance, fighters are always melee tanks. The rogue is only one who can bypass mechanical traps and pick locks. The wizard is useless when they somehow forget their spells. And priests are, for some reason, field medics.
  Add barbarians, the idea is Conan, but not all barbarians storm into battle half dressed wielding a sword as long as they are tall. Barbarism, historicly, refered to anyone who was not Roman. So a barbarian could just as easily be a fighter, rogue, cast spells both divine and arcane.
   Add monks. Historicly monks are basicly priests. The dress in robes and chant all day. My full-plate wearing dwarven fighter could also be a monk. That just adds a flair to roleplaying, it's not a cause to add an entire class. 
  So here is my suggestion: Allow the basic classes to be fully customizable, or throw out the class sytem, cuse it's really broken anyway. 




One of the best posts on these forums.  It's too bad that D&D designers are married to the concept of classes and the d20. It's really constraining them from being able to make the best RPG possible.

Class system is beyond anachronistic at this point. 
Comparing a new system to the breadth of options available to a 3.5e/Pathfinder game is just silly. It's a playtest, and there aren't a lot of options yet. The core mechanics are still being tweaked, and many could be thrown out next week.

I agree that if this were the final product, I'd be disappointed too. However, I like the direction they are taking in some areas, so I hope they have a chance to realize that.



You know its not the comparison of rule to rule that irks me.  I am doing everything I can to compare D&D next to Every game I have played. Not just the fantasy ones.  It simply feels as though the dev team is trying very hard to not offend anyone and to avoid making things to complicated for anyone.  This makes things feel incredibly bland to me.

The previous editions all had their flaws, but they felt like they were really trying for something.  Maybe they shot the moon trying to potentailly represent any fantasy scenario, but I applaud the attempt, and would rather play a game made with that mentality than one that is concerned with jealous players who might bicker amongst each other about "Having to play the Healer: unless they get to do essentially the "Same DPS".  

That MMO language has insidiously crept in to PnP games and, more disturbingly, so has the mentality.  

What is the goal of D&D Next?  What coherent mission statement can you derive from the materials so far produced?  

If this game did not have the D&D name attached, what do you think would draw someone to it?

Why does this game need to be made?  And most importantly, what is being added?  A few streamlined rules?  I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of 4e, but at least it was trying to be something.  D&D Next is just D&D mish-mosh, and probably a better miniatures game than a roleplaying game.




People say MMO as it is an epithet of sorts.  However, it's a lazy and inaccurate conclusion that doesn't really mean anything. Expound on your point and try not to be so cliche.
I would say that on average Next feats are far more powerful, interesting and character-defining than 3e feats. I don't know what classes features YOU are talking about - the way I count it, the fighter went from zero to about a half dozen (maneuvers plus parry), the barbarian's rage went from math homework to interesting and tactics-defining, and the monk got more variety in his choice of maneuvers and Ki powers. Even cleric domains got more interesting.




And how many did the fighter, barbarian, and monk have in 4th?
In 4th those classes did indeed have more abilities. I entirely understand the POV of 4e fans who think 5e oversimplified, and there's real room for debate about how much detail and complexity adds to the game there; but I reall don't understand anyone comparing 3e to 5e and saying the new edition doesn't have enough flexibility or well-defined class abilities.

One of the best posts on these forums.  It's too bad that D&D designers are married to the concept of classes and the d20. It's really constraining them from being able to make the best RPG possible.

Class system is beyond anachronistic at this point. 



Class systems aren't really bad. While they're inherently less customizeable, they're also a hell of a lot easier to use for newbies. Point based systems are open, but also rather overwhelming for people new to RPGs, because they require a bunch of math for your character. Point based systems also need to have a bunch of constraints to prevent imbalanced/overspecialized characters, to prevent someone from say putting all thier bonuses into spellcsating and having no defenses at all.

A class system on the other hand is relatively easy. Pick your stats, Pick your race, Pick your class, get some basic equipment, and then you're good to go.

Of course, when they get to 3E/4E level of choices of feats and powers, then they might as well go classless, because the amount of choices aren't necessarily smaller than a classless system.
Yeh, put me down for "nothing wrong with class-based systems" as well. I've tinkered with classless and class-based systems for a long time. Give me classes any time - so much easier for me to deal with.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.


People say MMO as it is an epithet of sorts.  However, it's a lazy and inaccurate conclusion that doesn't really mean anything. Expound on your point and try not to be so cliche.



Yet I hear it and know exactly what he's talking about.




In 4th those classes did indeed have more abilities. I entirely understand the POV of 4e fans who think 5e oversimplified, and there's real room for debate about how much detail and complexity adds to the game there; but I reall don't understand anyone comparing 3e to 5e and saying the new edition doesn't have enough flexibility or well-defined class abilities.


 


It comes down to three things. The integrity of the abilities, multiclassing and magic items.


Quality over quantity, the ill concepts you can pull off with 3e multiclassing  and while I love that magic items in Next are not about plus this or plus that we lost all the character customization that it brought.  So far it hasn’t been replaced with a more Gurps style leveling system where you can raise AC, damage, hp, accuracy, individual weapon skills, without having to rely on magic items.  


People say MMO as it is an epithet of sorts.  However, it's a lazy and inaccurate conclusion that doesn't really mean anything. Expound on your point and try not to be so cliche.



Yet I hear it and know exactly what he's talking about.




In 4th those classes did indeed have more abilities. I entirely understand the POV of 4e fans who think 5e oversimplified, and there's real room for debate about how much detail and complexity adds to the game there; but I reall don't understand anyone comparing 3e to 5e and saying the new edition doesn't have enough flexibility or well-defined class abilities.


 


It comes down to three things. The integrity of the abilities, multiclassing and magic items.


Quality over quantity, the ill concepts you can pull off with 3e multiclassing  and while I love that magic items in Next are not about plus this or plus that we lost all the character customization that it brought.  So far it hasn’t been replaced with a more Gurps style leveling system where you can raise AC, damage, hp, accuracy, individual weapon skills, without having to rely on magic items.  




That's nice that you share a code. However, I like MMO's and millions more do as well. Millions more like and pay for a single MMO then play all PnP combined. Think about it. So when it's used as a derogatory statement it's quite silly. So instead of insulting other gamers by using the type of game they enjoy derisively how about some specific feedback that isn't inflammatory?  

Now about the classless vs class system.  It's easy enough to package some archetypes as sample builds that are identical to classes. With regards to balance, these games will never be balanced enough to satisfy those who want perfect balance. 
It seems strange when people complain that the small subset content and options of experimental designs being thrown out for playtesting are seen as an indication that the final design will have limited options. They are still testing and CHANGING the core, the are focussing the playtest on a limited subest of content, it cannot yet be fairly compared to other games, all we can compare is the concepts being tested to other related concepts.
Amen, OP.
   My biggest complaint, and it's not just DnD that does this, is the way RPGs are designed. The class system is so generic that no matter what character you make up, it's the same as the last one you made up. For instance, fighters are always melee tanks. The rogue is only one who can bypass mechanical traps and pick locks. The wizard is useless when they somehow forget their spells. And priests are, for some reason, field medics.
  Add barbarians, the idea is Conan, but not all barbarians storm into battle half dressed wielding a sword as long as they are tall. Barbarism, historicly, refered to anyone who was not Roman. So a barbarian could just as easily be a fighter, rogue, cast spells both divine and arcane.
   Add monks. Historicly monks are basicly priests. The dress in robes and chant all day. My full-plate wearing dwarven fighter could also be a monk. That just adds a flair to roleplaying, it's not a cause to add an entire class. 
  So here is my suggestion: Allow the basic classes to be fully customizable, or throw out the class sytem, cuse it's really broken anyway. 



he couldnt you cant be agile in 100 lbs of full plate
to thow out the class system is foolish and make the game not dnd at all. the whole point of a class is it is a frame which you build your character around. if you want to be a full plate wearing monk why not just allow every race to be everything and have every power. then my wizard in full plate with shield can one handed cast all his spells with little need to worry about attacks interrupting spells. there are alot of classless games so go buy and play them.
D&D probably isn't ready to go classless, but there is no reason why both classed and classless character creation can't co-exist in the same system.

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.

D&D probably isn't ready to go classless, but there is no reason why both classed and classless character creation can't co-exist in the same system.



Works for me.
5e will have 3e style multiclassing. It's supposed to be in the next packet. And I don't understand the point on magic items - there still ARE +3 weapons and armor and such; they're just much rarer. As for the quality of abilities - again, just about every class ability and feat I see in 5e is higher quality and more interesting than its 3e equivalent, where it has changed at all.
to thow out the class system is foolish and make the game not dnd at all. the whole point of a class is it is a frame which you build your character around. if you want to be a full plate wearing monk why not just allow every race to be everything and have every power. then my wizard in full plate with shield can one handed cast all his spells with little need to worry about attacks interrupting spells. there are alot of classless games so go buy and play them.



That's your opinion, man. Nice strawman about everyone having and doing everything. Classless would work just fine and it can be argued that a broke class system that results in endless and pointless bickering is more foolish then starting from scratch and making a rational game instead of shoehorning whack mechanics onto a class system to placate those who eschew rational game design.
to thow out the class system is foolish and make the game not dnd at all. the whole point of a class is it is a frame which you build your character around. if you want to be a full plate wearing monk why not just allow every race to be everything and have every power. then my wizard in full plate with shield can one handed cast all his spells with little need to worry about attacks interrupting spells. there are alot of classless games so go buy and play them.



That's your opinion, man. Nice strawman about everyone, having and doing everything. Classless would work just fine and it can be argued that a broke class system that results in endless and pointless bickering is more foolish then starting from scratch and making a rational game instead of shoehorning whack mechanics onto a class system to placate those who eschew rational game design.



the game in this edition will not be classless so whos the strawman you know that so to speak classless at this point is a waste. there are dozens of classless game systems and to compete with them is to go out of business and the death of dnd. wotc has issues competeing with pathfinder a clone of their own stuff
so to speak classless at this point is a waste.


Not so.  I certainly want to see classless generation coexist, as an option, with classed generation.

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.

so to speak classless at this point is a waste.


Not so.  I certainly want to see classless generation coexist, as an option, with classed generation.




if it exisisted it would have been included or mentioned in the packets as part of the class and race information
so to speak classless at this point is a waste.


Not so.  I certainly want to see classless generation coexist, as an option, with classed generation.



if it exisisted it would have been included or mentioned in the packets as part of the class and race information


IDK about that.  I could see it as one of the options similar to those on the list of options they want to get done.  A recent article had a list of them that included things like firearms rules, switching abilities from being based on the adventure day to being based on the encounter, etc.

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.

I don't think a classless system is in the cards given that they'll have 3e multiclassing that basically allows you to mix and match from all the classes anyway.

I have not bought a single Pathfinder product. I have zero interest in Pathfinder. DDN, on the other hand, while it is still very far from being complete, has piqued my interest. It has the potential to become a game I will love. 

Those are my 2 cents.  

I don't think a classless system is in the cards given that they'll have 3e multiclassing that basically allows you to mix and match from all the classes anyway.


3e actually had both classed and classless.  The classless version was offered in a 3rd party product, but it did happen.

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.

Sign In to post comments