D&DN is not for me... and that's OK

Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I've been thinking about it some more recently, and I've come to realize that 4E suits my storytelling needs just fine. I don't need a new edition, but others might. There are plenty of people who wanted something that 4E couldn't easily offer, and maybe D&DN is for them. It would, after all, be pretty selfish for me to believe that EVERY edition of D&D should be tailored to my specific preferences, when there's already a version that almost is.

Here's the news that sparked this train of thought:

No Warlord? No Novacat. The warlord is easily, far and away my favorite class in any edition of D&D (to the point where I've ALMOST not played anything else), and they've axed it in a design move that I could never agree with. It is primarily for this reason that I'm confident that D&DN will not speak to me. That said, I know a lot of people had a problem with the warlord, and what it represented with relation to hit points. So now I have my edition with a warlord, and they will have theirs without it.

All of the other issues I have with the system boil down to a similar line of reasoning: Some game element or design philosophy present in 4E is reversed in D&DN, so it makes the game less appealing to me, but more appealing to others. So now I withdraw from attempting to persuade the designers to make the game as I want it, because clearly, this is not a game for me. It is, however, still D&D at its core, and the implications of that fact allow us as a community to embrace it, whether it's our game or not. There will be stories, quirks, flaws, and triumphs just as there has been in any version of the game, and these are the things that unite us, not the mechanics.

TLDR: I'm happy with 4E, and D&DN doesn't detract from that happiness. If a new edition of D&D can bring new players into the community, or bring back old players, then it's objectively a good thing, even if I never play it.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
What happened to uniting all players? What happened to modules and options? Seriously, what happeend?


They haven't yet tried.  No, really, they have not yet tried to unite the editions and provide modules and options to do so in a playtest packet. 



I suppose (which is why I'm still here), but I'm not holding my breath.


Considering that we're over a year into the development and it's still in a very early stage, I'd recommend breathing in the interim.

But seriously, people need to understand just how early they let us peek behind the curtain.  I'm quite sure that almost everyone posting in this thread doesn't fully appreciate just how big of a deal it was that we were involved at the stage we were, how different this is from basically any other game design process of even remotely the same scale.  Really, this is an endeavor that is not playing by the normal rules, and judging it on those rules will necessarily have it come up short.



I know your pretty hot and heavy on the notion of this thing here we have called playtesting. We get it. Point made. Rest easy Internet warrior, rest easy.

However, if they release a version of D&D Next that is radically different than what we poor slepps are play testing then I imagine there could be an uproar over that (not to mention a PR debacle).

So, there is this really cool concept that we can use here.  It's known as deductive reasoning.  It's amazing and it's shinny.  We can actually dare venture our head out of the hole and conjecture the direction that DDN is heading.  

So brace yourself for this- for it is truly amazing- if we can conjecture on the direction of DDN, we sure as hell don't need a parrot screeching- it's a playtest, it's a playtest. We know it is a playtest, we know.

To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



Sure, if you completely disregard all of the advances in 4th edition (you know, ignore an edition in its entirety), I guess you could see DDN as progression.  






4th is not ignored. There at will spells, encounter based abilities, HD like healing surge, and
who knows what can come back from 4e?






Agreed- there are elements of 4th in DDN.  The true concern, as far as 3.5/4.0 fans should be paying attention to, is just how far down the rabbit hole of the past Mearls and Co are delving down.  I'd safely say that they are focusing a little too much on AD&D and not enough on the FUTURE.

Plus the term D&D Next reeks of corporate slickness. god forbid we call it 5E

AD&D lasted 23 years, 4th ed was in print for 4 years. There may be reasons why one lasted so long and one died whimpering. They have to sell an edition of D&D that will appeal as an edition of D&D. The 3rd ed spot is taken, 4th ed was passed on so if they can  replicate elements AD&Ds of playstyle to a modern audience that may appeal to Pathfinder players as a game they can play alongside PF sure why not.

 If they made 4.5 peopel will go NEXT. 2nd ed reprints just landed the other day and the 1st ed ones sold out and the PDFs crashed RPGnow.com. We all know everyhting before 2008 was terrible and I have wasted 20 years of my life playing  BECMI, AD&D and 3.X and denying the true glory. I just hope Gygax will forgive me.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Just because something has been around for 23 years doesn't make it better. Your just politely forgetting about the fact that TSR almost went under at the end of those wonderful 23 years span (can someone say stagnant).

@Zardanar- if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.



Devil: Pit Fiend
Large Fiend (Devil)

not an archdevil.

in my estimation asmo would be an arch devil but he isn't.  technically ther is not yet a kind of devil asmo cannot summon.  Technically asmo can summon himself... 




forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archdevil

The lord of the first layer has the lowest rank of the nine archdevils, while the lord of the ninth layer has the highest rank. While the demons of the Abyss answer only to their own basic instincts, every single devil, at least in theory, answers to the Lord of the Ninth, Asmodeus.

Edit: 

Bel is a former pit fiend of great power who controls Avernus.

This proves that pit fiends are archdevils. That means this summon ability can
only work on devils that are lower then pit fiends. 







No it doesn't it proves that that's how it might have worked back in the day.  In this current system asmodeous summons pit fiends because there is no archdevil distinction and he can just keep summoning pit fiends every time he recharges that power.  In this current system nothing says that the pit fiend is an archdevil.  Hence Asmodeous can summon them.  

Heck even your wikia article would reinforce the idea that if you aren't a named unique devil in the book (a good DM might take the effort of naming every single monster so the in the book distinction is the important one) you aren't an arch devil.  Pit fiends might be impressive but they don't have names they are a rank and file order of devils.  Not to say that one couldn't gain power such as Bel but the regular old pit fiends...not arch devils just really big devils.

"Bel is a former pit fiend "  former being the important word there.  Bel is now an arch devil and not just a normal Pit Fiend.

However none of that changes that in the current system Asmodeous's first turn includes summoning a pit fiend to help him rail on whoever his enemy is.  Maybe an ice devil for second summon because it is immune to most damaging magic.
Just because something has been around for 23 years doesn't make it better. Your just politely forgetting about the fact that TSR almost went under at the end of those wonderful 23 years span (can someone say stagnant). @Zardanar- if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.




 Nopes but I suspect that crowd is bigger than what most people seem to be aware of. Also he 3rd ed crowd doesn't seem to hate AD&D. They may prefer 3rd ed but they can't really make a 3.55 as Paizo seem to have cornered that market. If D&DN playstyle is vaguely similar to AD&D or at least not that complicated compared to 3rd and 4th and they pick up the casual D&D players they probably will do well right there.

 DO you have a logical explaination why they seem to be going in a 2nd/3rd ed direction? Why are they not making 4.5? 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Yes, I do in fact have a logical explanation:  the game isn't done yet.

Other styles will come later.  They've said this, repeatedly.  The latest packet is not their most recent best attempt at a final design. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There is an old Chinese saying:

"
If there are no clouds there will be no rain."
 
 Meaning that most results are foreshadowed by some cause. This playtest is the cloud, but not the kind that produces the weather I want. I'm not going to trust that this game is going to become more balanced and well-thought out until there's actually evidence of that trend.
2e was a great game and lasted 23 years.  The thing is, those 23 years were a lot different than the 4 years 4e found itself around for.  2e didn't have to compete with Call of Duty or even on demand TV and movies.  It's just not a fair comparison - and I say this as someone who prefers 2e and 3.x over 4e.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]



Really? After they repeatedly have said that the core/basic is almost done and all that's left is a little tweaking of the classes?

They've got parts of it set in stone now. How is it still 'early'? I'm not seeing it. The most fundamental things about the game thwart the 4E play style. How do they expect us to get on board with this thing?


They always said they wanted a simple, robust core to build off of. This game would be a good introduction to roleplaying games for a novice.

Start small, iron out the kinks and build from there.



... and leave out a good section of your potential customers because their play style can't be replicated with the 'simple, robust' core...



I thought it was acceptable to purchase several books in order to accomodate playstyle.  Seems like a plausable strategy regarding the 'potential customer.'

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

I've come to the decision a few months back that Next probably isn't going to be for me, either.

My perfect edition would be a melding of Basic/Expert D&D with AD&D 2e, with cherry-picked mechanics from 3rd and 4th to modernize it. As someone that prefers a clean set of rules that are easy to use and modify on the fly, I'm finding that Next is already too convoluted and complex for my needs. I'm mainly a "beer and pretzels" gamer that enjoys simple self-contained retro dungeon romps without too many rules or options to weigh down the pacing and fun of the game. 

So, I will most likely continue using my own homebrewed version of D&D. It's just a shame Next is already starting out too complex for classic D&D fans and not complex enough for 3rd edition fans, and too laterally different for fans of the other editions. Seems like by trying to make everyone happy, they've made everyone angry.


D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.



Not just "middle-aged" people play pre-3rd Ed.
 
And what do you define "middle-aged" as? 

And of course Asmodeus can summon Pit Fiends, he just can't summon Dis, and Mephistopheles, etc.
if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.



Not just "middle-aged" people play pre-3rd Ed.
 
And what do you define "middle-aged" as? 

And of course Asmodeus can summon Pit Fiends, he just can't summon Dis, and Mephistopheles, etc.



The US Census lists middle age as ranging from 35 to 54


Really? After they repeatedly have said that the core/basic is almost done and all that's left is a little tweaking of the classes?

They've got parts of it set in stone now. How is it still 'early'? I'm not seeing it. The most fundamental things about the game thwart the 4E play style. How do they expect us to get on board with this thing?


They always said they wanted a simple, robust core to build off of. This game would be a good introduction to roleplaying games for a novice.

Start small, iron out the kinks and build from there.



... and leave out a good section of your potential customers because their play style can't be replicated with the 'simple, robust' core...



I thought it was acceptable to purchase several books in order to accomodate playstyle.  Seems like a plausable strategy regarding the 'potential customer.'




Well history has proven that it isen't.
Later books in 4th edition adressed probems that people had with the initial release.

but this failed to win over players as playes had made up their mind based on the initial release.
if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.



Not just "middle-aged" people play pre-3rd Ed.
 
And what do you define "middle-aged" as? 

And of course Asmodeus can summon Pit Fiends, he just can't summon Dis, and Mephistopheles, etc.

That's funny,
My 13 year old son isn't quite middle aged. Not only does he play and love AD&D he D.M.'s it also. It's his favorite version of the game. We play P.F. together and he has also played Basic before. Not like he doesn't have options to choose from. I own every edition now except 4e. which is because I didn't know it exsisted before I joined the Next community last year and found out they killed it. Retro gaming is the "in" thing, haven't you heard? The rise of D.C.C. this last year should point to that fact. I see it as presumptious to think AD&D'ers are all 40 somethings. Go to D.F. and speak to Felorn a prominent poster, he's 16 years old. 
  Man, the hottest selling wotc product right now is the 2nd edition reprints and pdf's of the prior editions on D&D classics.com. The 1st ed. books sold out. Nobody plays this old stuff though. Laughing
if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.



Not just "middle-aged" people play pre-3rd Ed.
 
And what do you define "middle-aged" as? 

And of course Asmodeus can summon Pit Fiends, he just can't summon Dis, and Mephistopheles, etc.

That's funny,
My 13 year old son isn't quite middle aged. Not only does he play and love AD&D he D.M.'s it also. It's his favorite version of the game. We play P.F. together and he has also played Basic before. Not like he doesn't have options to choose from. I own every edition now except 4e. which is because I didn't know it exsisted before I joined the Next community last year and found out they killed it. Retro gaming is the "in" thing, haven't you heard? The rise of D.C.C. this last year should point to that fact. I see it as presumptious to think AD&D'ers are all 40 somethings. Go to D.F. and speak to Felorn a prominent poster, he's 16 years old. 
  Man, the hottest selling wotc product right now is the 2nd edition reprints and pdf's of the prior editions on D&D classics.com. The 1st ed. books sold out. Nobody plays this old stuff though. Laughing




...see...you and I can talk...

My 12-year old nephew thinks 4th Ed blows chunks (I don't, but he does).

  Man, the hottest selling wotc product right now is the 2nd edition reprints and pdf's of the prior editions on D&D classics.com.

Not surprisingly given that they are the only things WotC is selling right now
The 1st ed. books sold out.

I wonder how many were printed

There is an old Chinese saying:

"
If there are no clouds there will be no rain."
 
 Meaning that most results are foreshadowed by some cause. This playtest is the cloud, but not the kind that produces the weather I want. I'm not going to trust that this game is going to become more balanced and well-thought out until there's actually evidence of that trend.



Im in pessimist mode too.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I really don't think it is. For this new edition to be successful, I think it has to be able to appeal to a broad swath of customers, not just the retro crowd, not just the 4e crowd, not the in-between, but it must have elegant and interesting gameplay for a variety of gameplay styles.

If it does not have that, people will just keep playing the edition they like - or even go play a different game that appeals to their playstyle (i.e. retro-clones, 13th Age, PF, etc).

Unfortunately, I think WotC thinks they can do that with a single ruleset with some other rules polka-dotted in, and I don't see that working. 2e with 4e window dressing makes nobody happy; 4e with 2e window dressing doesn't either.

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."

AD&D lasted 23 years, 4th ed was in print for 4 years. There may be reasons why one lasted so long and one died whimpering. They have to sell an edition of D&D that will appeal as an edition of D&D. The 3rd ed spot is taken, 4th ed was passed on so if they can  replicate elements AD&Ds of playstyle to a modern audience that may appeal to Pathfinder players as a game they can play alongside PF sure why not.

 If they made 4.5 peopel will go NEXT. 2nd ed reprints just landed the other day and the 1st ed ones sold out and the PDFs crashed RPGnow.com. We all know everyhting before 2008 was terrible and I have wasted 20 years of my life playing  BECMI, AD&D and 3.X and denying the true glory. I just hope Gygax will forgive me.



Yeah the reason that 4E lasted 4 years was that Hasbro slapped a never before seen unrealistic sales goal on it that no single edition of D&D every reached. That's the sole reason 4E only went 4 years. In fact they created 4E because they knew 3E couldn't reach that goal...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.
Just because something has been around for 23 years doesn't make it better. Your just politely forgetting about the fact that TSR almost went under at the end of those wonderful 23 years span (can someone say stagnant). @Zardanar- if your implying the future of D&D is on a small, middle aged, dwindling group of AD&D holdouts, instead of a HUGE 3.5/4.0 fan base, well, that's worthy of laughing at.



Wait are you seriously trying to tell me chiseled stone tablets aren't better than pencil and paper because I could start a whole thread on why they are better...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.
There is an old Chinese saying:

"
If there are no clouds there will be no rain."
 
 Meaning that most results are foreshadowed by some cause. This playtest is the cloud, but not the kind that produces the weather I want. I'm not going to trust that this game is going to become more balanced and well-thought out until there's actually evidence of that trend.



+1 and do you have a link to your work. You seem to be a thoughtful designer. I'd like to see some of your designs...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.
Yeah I took part in a playtest last night. Didn't go well. The guy who DM'd is usually a good DM but everyone was so bored that we just switched to board gaming halfway through. It's becoming apparant that D&D Next just isn't scratching that D&D itch, you know?

Stop the H4TE

Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I really don't think it is. For this new edition to be successful, I think it has to be able to appeal to a broad swath of customers, not just the retro crowd, not just the 4e crowd, not the in-between, but it must have elegant and interesting gameplay for a variety of gameplay styles.

If it does not have that, people will just keep playing the edition they like - or even go play a different game that appeals to their playstyle (i.e. retro-clones, 13th Age, PF, etc).

Unfortunately, I think WotC thinks they can do that with a single ruleset with some other rules polka-dotted in, and I don't see that working. 2e with 4e window dressing makes nobody happy; 4e with 2e window dressing doesn't either.



This is a very important point which I think could be easily missed.

What Next is now doesn't seem to be very appealing to any of the major groups of fans.

Not the AD&D and 2nd Edition fans (who have all the retroclones available as well as recent reprints), not the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans (who have the wildly popular and well supported Pathfinder in any case) and not the 4th Edition fans (who have only just had their edition end and likely haven't done playing out all that content yet in any case).

Neither does the edition seem to be particularly appealing to new players, certainly not the ones I've been running it by.

True modularity is needed, was promised but is not being delivered.   


Really? After they repeatedly have said that the core/basic is almost done and all that's left is a little tweaking of the classes?

They've got parts of it set in stone now. How is it still 'early'? I'm not seeing it. The most fundamental things about the game thwart the 4E play style. How do they expect us to get on board with this thing?


They always said they wanted a simple, robust core to build off of. This game would be a good introduction to roleplaying games for a novice.

Start small, iron out the kinks and build from there.



... and leave out a good section of your potential customers because their play style can't be replicated with the 'simple, robust' core...



I thought it was acceptable to purchase several books in order to accomodate playstyle.  Seems like a plausable strategy regarding the 'potential customer.'




Nope, if it was up to me the core 4E books would have had all the playable races and classes from all editions core books in them, but it wasn't and they had to cut things that weren't ready...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.
While I too am dubious, I won't judge the game until it's finished.   I really believe that if they made the true 4e diehards happy they'd have to throw everyone else overboard.   I say that because the phrases they use in praising or rejecting are rooted in the design philosophy of 4e.   Mechanically they can include lots of 4e stuff and they have but thats not good enough.   They must have their philosophical objectives met.   Sadly those very objectives will drive off everyone else.  

I think they are designing the core of the game to be tradition 1e philosophy mostly with a nod to some modernisms.   Modernisms I don't really favor but many do I suppose.   One example would be high starting hit points for PCs.   I think it makes sense as a strategy.  Pathfinder does 3.5e well but even those that love Pathfinder would very likely try a really good 2e philosophy game.   There is a lot of crossover between 2e and 3e.   People right now are playing both Pathfinder and some retroclone. So targeting this crossover group is pretty smart.   D&D will get it's baseline which is about 80% of what 4e sold.   They are counting on the new strategy to exceed the 20% they got with 4e.

Who knows if they are right.   If the game is easily playable in a 2e or 3e style then I'll likely buy it.  If it's really hard to separate out the 4e stuff, I probably won't.   Because even if it's doable why put that much effort into it when other less stressful options are available.   Including just write it myself at some point.

 
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught.

From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO.

What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.



+1
"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.
While I too am dubious, I won't judge the game until it's finished.   I really believe that if they made the true 4e diehards happy they'd have to throw everyone else overboard.   I say that because the phrases they use in praising or rejecting are rooted in the design philosophy of 4e.   Mechanically they can include lots of 4e stuff and they have but thats not good enough.   They must have their philosophical objectives met.   Sadly those very objectives will drive off everyone else.  

I think they are designing the core of the game to be tradition 1e philosophy mostly with a nod to some modernisms.   Modernisms I don't really favor but many do I suppose.   One example would be high starting hit points for PCs.   I think it makes sense as a strategy.  Pathfinder does 3.5e well but even those that love Pathfinder would very likely try a really good 2e philosophy game.   There is a lot of crossover between 2e and 3e.   People right now are playing both Pathfinder and some retroclone. So targeting this crossover group is pretty smart.   D&D will get it's baseline which is about 80% of what 4e sold.   They are counting on the new strategy to exceed the 20% they got with 4e.

Who knows if they are right.   If the game is easily playable in a 2e or 3e style then I'll likely buy it.  If it's really hard to separate out the 4e stuff, I probably won't.   Because even if it's doable why put that much effort into it when other less stressful options are available.   Including just write it myself at some point.

 



God himself only knows what 4th Edition design material you are seeing, because I'm seeing a lot of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 modernist bull that my group and I rejected and very little else.

The break between 3.5 and 4th must have been one hell of a nasty mess, for you all to still be on about it now.

Because from what I see in Next everything from an entire edition is gone, yet it still isn't playable for those of us who prefer what came before 3rd Edition either.     

All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.



Isn't this the sort of thing hardcore 4E supporters deride fans of previous editions for doing?
If a person claims they don't like 4E because it didn't have the "soul" of (whatever edition they happen to be holding on high at the moment), they are sat upon with "that's not helpful...be specific...give examples...not good enough...", and other such things. Why the double-standard?

Please note: I am not elevating any one edition over another. I play and DM them all. I just can't help but see a blatant double-standard in this regard.

"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.



I think you are right.  It's easy to mechanically be inclusive.   It's awfully hard to be philosophically inclusive.   And thats what we all fight about.  All of our arguments are mostly philosophical.

Here are some popular 4e philosophical assumptions that I reject...
1.  Casters dominate Martials prior to 4e especially 3e.
2.  The 5 minute workday was a big issue
3.  Permanently bad things happening to characters like level drain is bad.  (3e started the move away from this though so 4e doesn't take all the blame).
4.  Martial characters need powers to make them fun to play. 

Thats just a few.  I reject all of those assertions.  I might concede #1 for the Rogue but never the Fighter.   4e people accept them all as absolute gospel.   The very foundation of their game.   It is why 4e was accepted and rejected with such passion.  4e fixed a problem that wasn't there for a lot of people and the fix required all sorts of changes that made the game horrible for those people.


Edit:  I think 1e,2e,and 3e have a lot more in common philosophically regardless of how many mechanical elements they share.
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.



I think you are right.  It's easy to mechanically be inclusive.   It's awfully hard to be philosophically inclusive.   And thats what we all fight about.  All of our arguments are mostly philosophical.

Here are some popular 4e philosophical assumptions that I reject...
1.  Casters dominate Martials prior to 4e especially 3e.
2.  The 5 minute workday was a big issue
3.  Permanently bad things happening to characters like level drain is bad.  (3e started the move away from this though so 4e doesn't take all the blame).
4.  Martial characters need powers to make them fun to play. 

Thats just a few.  I reject all of those assertions.  I might concede #1 for the Rogue but never the Fighter.   4e people accept them all as absolute gospel.   The very foundation of their game.   It is why 4e was accepted and rejected with such passion.  4e fixed a problem that wasn't there for a lot of people and the fix required all sorts of changes that made the game horrible for those people.


Edit:  I think 1e,2e,and 3e have a lot more in common philosophically regardless of how many mechanical elements they share.



Not only do I (and my group of AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards who rejected 3rd Edition) agree with the first 3 of the "assumptions" which you are talking about here,

But more importantly it is objectively untrue that 3rd Edition was philosophically similar to AD&D.

That modernist mess of superhero magical marvels was a powergamers wet dream that we wanted no part of when it released and still reject today.   
Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I really don't think it is. For this new edition to be successful, I think it has to be able to appeal to a broad swath of customers, not just the retro crowd, not just the 4e crowd, not the in-between, but it must have elegant and interesting gameplay for a variety of gameplay styles.

If it does not have that, people will just keep playing the edition they like - or even go play a different game that appeals to their playstyle (i.e. retro-clones, 13th Age, PF, etc).

Unfortunately, I think WotC thinks they can do that with a single ruleset with some other rules polka-dotted in, and I don't see that working. 2e with 4e window dressing makes nobody happy; 4e with 2e window dressing doesn't either.



If they can layer on Players' options books ala 2e's addition of the 2.5 option books, it should be successful. Then the conflict you will have is finding a group that uses your playstyle.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.

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

Not only do I (and my group of AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards who rejected 3rd Edition) agree with the first 3 of the "assumptions" which you are talking about here,


Interesting then that you don't play 4e which fixed those "problems".   You might agree but is it really a major issue if you are still playing 2e.



But more importantly it is objectively untrue that 3rd Edition was philosophically similar to AD&D.

That modernist mess of superhero magical marvels was a powergamers wet dream that we wanted no part of when it released and still reject today.   



I said "had more in common with" which I still think is true.   I will agree though that 3e added tons of options and became an optimizer's dream.   No argument there.  But if I removed feats and skills from 3e, I'd have a pretty simple game with little to no optimization.   The mistake WOTC made was not offering that option to begin with when they released 3e.   There is hardly that quick a fix for 4e to turn it into a game that plays like 1e.   




All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.



Isn't this the sort of thing hardcore 4E supporters deride fans of previous editions for doing?
If a person claims they don't like 4E because it didn't have the "soul" of (whatever edition they happen to be holding on high at the moment), they are sat upon with "that's not helpful...be specific...give examples...not good enough...", and other such things. Why the double-standard?

Please note: I am not elevating any one edition over another. I play and DM them all. I just can't help but see a blatant double-standard in this regard.




No, because we've explained it over and over. In fact in this very thread I'm sure you can find me describing it several times. Just do a quick look and you'll see. Its one thing to generalize when describing your favorite edition, its a whole other thing to use insulting language to generalize an edition you don't like. If you want me to repeat the description that I post in every 5th post feel free. I'll describe it again for you in case you missed it the last 46 times...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.
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.



"Man who fly upside down, have crack up" -Ancient Chinese saying

I am having a tough time grokking an edition having a soul.  Wherever I have gone to play, it has always been the players that breathed the life into the event.  And that is regardless of edition or system, DMing or playing.

I don't think 5E will capture everyone, but I think it will have appeal to players that have played all editions.      I think some players will have to flip along their own longitudinal axis or they will eventually bail.  Not a lot you can do about gravity.




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

What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.



"Man who fly upside down, have crack up" -Ancient Chinese saying

I am having a tough time grokking an edition having a soul.  Wherever I have gone to play, it has always been the players that breathed the life into the event.  And that is regardless of edition or system, DMing or playing.

I don't think 5E will capture everyone, but I think it will have appeal to players that have played all editions.      I think some players will have to flip along their own longitudinal axis or they will eventually bail.  Not a lot you can do about gravity.







If you don't like the word 'soul' then we could go with 'underlying theme'. The underlying theme of 4E was balance, varied options, limited healing throughout the day, and heroic tactical combat...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.
What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.



"Man who fly upside down, have crack up" -Ancient Chinese saying

I am having a tough time grokking an edition having a soul.  Wherever I have gone to play, it has always been the players that breathed the life into the event.  And that is regardless of edition or system, DMing or playing.

I don't think 5E will capture everyone, but I think it will have appeal to players that have played all editions.      I think some players will have to flip along their own longitudinal axis or they will eventually bail.  Not a lot you can do about gravity.







If you don't like the word 'soul' then we could go with 'underlying theme'. The underlying theme of 4E was balance, varied options, limited healing throughout the day, and heroic tactical combat...



I would be truly amazed if those things didn't show up in some form or another in 5E.

EDIT:  When it ships that is...

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

What's kinda sad is that they can include all of the 4e style mechanics they want, but without the philosophy and intent of 4e, it's all for naught. From what I gather, and speaking for myself as well, few 4e fans are actually clamoring for 4e mechanics transposed into 5e. All we want is some nod towards the philosophy of 4e in 5e, which is sorely lacking IMO. What's tragic is by filling 5e with 4e-esque mechanics, they drive off earlier edition fans, and without 4e's soul, they don't get 4e fans on board either.


+1

Its actually more aggrivated because the attempts to sell mechanics that are not 4e as 4e, eg. hit dice, encounter building.

The good thing is they are taking alot of the good things that makes the DMs life easier.I kind of wonder if 5e might be the first edition that flips the issue from a lack of DMs to a lack of players.



"Man who fly upside down, have crack up" -Ancient Chinese saying

I am having a tough time grokking an edition having a soul.  Wherever I have gone to play, it has always been the players that breathed the life into the event.  And that is regardless of edition or system, DMing or playing.

I don't think 5E will capture everyone, but I think it will have appeal to players that have played all editions.      I think some players will have to flip along their own longitudinal axis or they will eventually bail.  Not a lot you can do about gravity.







If you don't like the word 'soul' then we could go with 'underlying theme'. The underlying theme of 4E was balance, varied options, limited healing throughout the day, and heroic tactical combat...



I would be truly amazed if those things didn't show up in some form or another in 5E.

EDIT:  When it ships that is...



They aren't building toward it and there are no signs of it, and WotC has shown they can't be trusted to come through on their promises. So I'm not holding my breath. If I see something I might have some hope, but right now... nope sorry...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.