A word of caution to playtesters and WOTC.

I've run a few low level games now, participated in a few as a player, and talked to every gamer I've run into concerning D&D Next.

In general I've found that about 75-80% of the negative feedback regarding D&DNext has nothing to do with the game itself or the mechanics. By far most of the the people who don't like D&D Next haven't even tried it and their reasoning can be broken down into two camps. The majority simply feel that we don't need another Fantasy RPG system at all... they're happy with whatever they're playing now... they feel they can always go back to earlier editions of D&D if they want a more simple system... or they're done with Fantasy and want to play SciFi/Horror type games.  

The other group who won't try the system are Down On WoTC... either because they're mad that 4th Ed. was 'dropped' or on general principles... they just "hate The MAN"... and WoTC is the big bad company that's only out for profits.

The ones who HAVE tried the system and don't like it just prefer the OTHER big Fantasy System that looks an awful lot like 3.5... and will remain nameless.


If you're looking at feedback from game test sessions... factor in the prejudgices of the players before making any decisions about rule modifications.


(I wish I could spell)  
There's a lot of dislike sadly on facebook often when WotC make a post, from the second type of folk you mention. It's a shame because those kind of people have just got stuck on their high horse and aren't even interested in making an informed decision, but sadly they seem to be very vocal. I would be surprised if many of those types even play RPGs anymore.

Also bear in mind that people generally have more to say when they are unhappy with something. The vast majority of people are probably quite happy and have nothing to say!

I think there are a lot of people that are just happy with their favourite system they have at the moment. Hopefully 5e will have enough flavour to excite them, and if they perhaps were players of the older editions, demonstrate that D&D is still going strong.
I"m not part of the hundred percent? I'm truly a unique special snowflake the likes of which you have never found? Amazing! [/sarcasm]

Of course I don't know your sample size, it could be 5 people, but I'm certain that I have both run and played DDN and I don't like 3.5/your nameless other system (unless its 13th Age instead of Pathfinder in which case, consider my mind blown ).

Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that DDN itself could be a good game I just have issues with their class, spell and monster balance right now (I'm not fond of the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic but it is a simple means of adjudicating bonuses).

I need to remember to write that post.  
Well i know i have a small sample. my players 6. we have one 4th ed veteran, a few who toyed with 4th, one who toyed with 3rd and skipped fourth, one who played huge campaigns in second, and complete noobies.

And they like, the 4th like the quicker combat but find that the lost of grid based rules can cause fights (the concept of diameter not being a radius took some explaining), the 3.5 mention how much better cantrip are now and how the casting is so much better because it means you can prepare a spell just in case. the 2nd edition play loves the mortality (he has died twice in one night) and how you have to think and it is not just combat based. My wife who played 4th briefly likes the fact she can have a character who primarily just hits things.

it is literally impossible to please everyone. but i think they are doing a great job. as long as they can get the power level right, that would be great.

The other group who won't try the system are Down On WoTC... either because they're mad that 4th Ed. was 'dropped' or on general principles... they just "hate The MAN"... and WoTC is the big bad company that's only out for profits.

(I wish I could spell)  


Thats WHAT company should do. I`m working as a regional operations manager for e-commerce company in my country. We and all other companies are working for profits too. There`s nothing to blame, most of you see that as a FUN but this is a JOB for WotC  
Also bear in mind that people generally have more to say when they are unhappy with something. The vast majority of people are probably quite happy and have nothing to say!

So then what happens when the people who are unhappy say so, loudly and often, and get ignored for eighteen months straight? Simple: they stop caring and leave. 

We KNOW this is true. This is exactly what they did five years ago with 4e's release, and look how that turned out. 

I think there are a lot of people that are just happy with their favourite system they have at the moment. Hopefully 5e will have enough flavour to excite them, and if they perhaps were players of the older editions, demonstrate that D&D is still going strong.

...And that, right there, is why Next's goal of "unify the editions!" is doomed to failure.

The people who are happy with their current game are going to STAY with their current game, because Next isn't good enough at whatever it is they like about their current game to make them switch.

In the end, all Next is actually going to accomplish is to add yet another fracture to the playerbase. It's not going to solve the edition war--it's going to make it worse. 

WotC might have been able to head this off if they'd realized this a year ago. I'm convinced it's too late now.



Thats WHAT company should do. I`m working as a regional operations manager for e-commerce company in my country. We and all other companies are working for profits too. There`s nothing to blame, most of you see that as a FUN but this is a JOB for WotC  


Two flaws:

1) The ones who are being ignored are the ones who are CURRENTLY keeping those designers' paychecks coming. Ignoring your current customer base in the HOPE that your next product will reach a different one is not only stupid, it's bad PR.

2) We don't felling care. They say "we want to unify ALL the editions of D&D!" and then they pretend like one of those editions--the one we happen to like--doesn't exist, even though it's the edition that's currently in print. It's incredibly insulting. 

Both of these--combined with the fact that this same kind of behavior got them in trouble last time and they don't seem to have learned from that al all--reflects very poorly on the company.

Would you spend money in support of a company who was ignoring your wants and needs, insulting you, and desmonstrating that they will most likely continue to do this in the future?

I sure is frak won't.  
Would you spend money in support of a company who was ignoring your wants and needs, insulting you, and desmonstrating that they will most likely continue to do this in the future?

I sure is frak won't.  



What they are doing is what they think is the correct course of action. The fact that you have turned that around to place youself at the center of their decision is amazing. Just because you don't agree with what they are doing doesn't mean they are doing it to piss you off. There are plenty of people who like what's going on with the new edition. 

Also, this is by far the most play tested and feedback driven edition of an RPG that will ever have been published, so to say they are ignoring on the very forums that they are using to illicit feedback from you makes a revealing statement about your argument.

I am one of the 3.5 players (Small experience with pre-3.5 and a little with 4th, a lot with other RPG's) and I must say I love the core system that they're coming up with for DDN (Combat seems very fluid). There are many things that need to get balanced out and other things that I hope will be expanded upon in releases after the core books (like expanded combat rules involving things like flanking, ranged/magical attacks within reach of enemies, more in-depth movement rules, etc.) but based on what I've been reading from WotC in their blogs/posts it, at this time, sounds like many of the things I'm hoping get addressed probably will.

I love that they're involving whoever wants to be in the playtest. I'm sure there are MANY peoples concerns and comments that have not been addressed yet but if I was in WotC's shoes I would just look at a few, to several, of the things that are receiving the majority of the criticism, at each stage of packet releases, and attack those issues until it appears that there is a happy balance and then move on to the next issues that receive a majority of the attention... some issues that are major concerns for some people probably won't get addressed until near the end, so is life.

My group has now probably done... 15-20 sessions, each of 4-6 hours, of the DDN playtesting. Things, for the most part, keep improving (except I'm not sure I like criticals at the moment... but this item has bounced all over the board so far and I won't even attempt to predict where it ends up). I'm really looking forward to the final product but at the same time I hope they don't rush it.

Also bear in mind that people generally have more to say when they are unhappy with something. The vast majority of people are probably quite happy and have nothing to say!



True story. I'm one of those generally-happy-with-what-they're-seeing folks.  It's not a perfect game, but then again it's still in playtest mode.  Not seeing a reason to start any riots yet. 

What they are doing is what they think is the correct course of action. The fact that you have turned that around to place youself at the center of their decision is amazing. Just because you don't agree with what they are doing doesn't mean they are doing it to piss you off. There are plenty of people who like what's going on with the new edition.

You misconstrue my meaning. It's not about me; it's about people like me, who think 4e is the best version of D&D, and who are insulted and offended that our favorite version of D&D is being swept under the rug, while still in print, so the company who made it can quietly pretend it never existed, as they appear to be doing. 

Yes, of course they're doing what they think is best. Yes, of course they're not going it just to piss me off. That doesn't mean I don't find their behaviour incredibly insulting anyway. 

Also, this is by far the most play tested and feedback driven edition of an RPG that will ever have been published, so to say they are ignoring on the very forums that they are using to illicit feedback from you makes a revealing statement about your argument.

They absolutely are ignoring a portion of that feedback. It may not be a large portion, and they may be ignoring it for very good reasons, but they are ignoring it. Make no mistake about that.

If you don't believe me, go find one thing in the current playtest packet that is distinctly drawn from 4e, or clearly intended as a bone to 4e fans. Just one thing. 

If you can point one out to me, then I'll thank you greatly for it, because I've been in this playtest for eighteen months (yes, I was part of the internal playtest) and I've yet to find any.

(Also, you probably mean "elicit". "Illicit" means illegal or forbidden. Stupid English and it's stupid heterograhps...)


If you can point one out to me, then I'll thank you greatly for it, because I've been in this playtest for eighteen months (yes, I was part of the internal playtest) and I've yet to find any.



It seems to me that you are violating the edition wars rule. Still, I'll bite.

Fighter: Expertise Die are basically a way to give daily powers to fighters.
Monk: Ki is a daily power.
Cleric and Paladin: Channel Divinity is a daily power. 
Wizards and others with cantrips: at-will cantrips.

 See, the main problem with 4th is that combat took too long, due to the players having so freaking many at-will/encounter/daily things for them to choose from. 5th Ed just reduced the number of times those can be used; fewer choices means faster decision-making and faster combat. And wizards (and clerics) got unlimited cantrips, something they didn't have in the other editions.

If you can point one out to me, then I'll thank you greatly for it, because I've been in this playtest for eighteen months (yes, I was part of the internal playtest) and I've yet to find any.



It seems to me that you are violating the edition wars rule. Still, I'll bite.

Fighter: Expertise Die are basically a way to give daily powers to fighters.
Monk: Ki is a daily power.
Cleric and Paladin: Channel Divinity is a daily power. 
Wizards and others with cantrips: at-will cantrips.

 See, the main problem with 4th is that combat took too long, due to the players having so freaking many at-will/encounter/daily things for them to choose from. 5th Ed just reduced the number of times those can be used; fewer choices means faster decision-making and faster combat. And wizards (and clerics) got unlimited cantrips, something they didn't have in the other editions.


Fighter: Expertise Die are a encounter power.
Monk: Ki isn't new to 4e.
Cleric: Channel Divinity weren't daily in 4e.
Wizards and others with cantrips: didn't start in 4e. There were cantrip powers back in 2e and warlocks had damaging at-will in 3.Xe.

Combat took to long because they removed save or die mechanics. Try playing 3.X/PF without letting your casters prepare any any save or die mechanics and see how long combat goes for. 

If anything it was the character builder which keep people from having to really learn the system to generate a character that slows down combat. When half the people at the table don't even really know what their character can do cause they spent 15 minutes whipping it up in the builder, that is what slowed down combat.

I play regularly in games where I take less then a minute on my turn while others are taking 5 minutes or more on theirs. If everyone spent a minute on my turn with a party of 6 thats 6 minutes + DM turns so it would easily be 10 minutes a round. So with the removal of save or die your looking at around 3-5 rounds. That is why 4e combat is so slow because fights get decide by casters, whereas prior editions fights got ended by casters.


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

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)


Fighter: Expertise Die are a encounter power.


okay, so you agree that it was in 4e. we found it!


Monk: Ki isn't new to 4e.


The monastic tradition paths are new, as are the Ki abilities. At least, they are not in the 3.5 Player's handbook, pages 39-42. They could be are in the complete monk or some other book.


Cleric: Channel Divinity weren't daily in 4e.


CD is a very powerful option that isn't in the 3.5 PHB, pages 30-33. It's seems 4th-edition-y to me.


Wizards and others with cantrips: didn't start in 4e. There were cantrip powers back in 2e and warlocks had damaging at-will in 3.Xe 



Warlock is not a standard player class in 3.x. 
Wizards in 3.5 got 3 or 4 cantrips a day (PHB 3.5 p55). They were not at-will like they are now.

Fighter: Expertise Die are a encounter power.


okay, so you agree that it was in 4e. we found it!


I would say yes we agree. The problem being they are closer to essential class powers. I don't have a issue with essentials, but any "tossed bones" that come in the form of a essentials mechanic doesn't count. Essentials was itself an attempt to backpedal away from 4e initial design.


Monk: Ki isn't new to 4e.


The monastic tradition paths are new, as are the Ki abilities. At least, they are not in the 3.5 Player's handbook, pages 39-42. They could be are in the complete monk or some other book.


In 4e, monastic traditions included flurry of blows (multi-attack) & defensive bonuses; A ki focus is a implement that was more of a place holder for applying +x to monk powers. The terms are fluff changes monk features that already existed. The ki ability in 5e is far closer to 3.x ability like the barbarian rage mechanic.

Cleric: Channel Divinity weren't daily in 4e.


CD is a very powerful option that isn't in the 3.5 PHB, pages 30-33. It's seems 4th-edition-y to me.


Some of them were quite powerful. Of course it seems similiar to 4th it also seems 3rd-edition-y; Its nothing more than fluff to make a variant of 0 level spontaneous casting sound special.


Wizards and others with cantrips: didn't start in 4e. There were cantrip powers back in 2e and warlocks had damaging at-will in 3.Xe 



Warlock is not a standard player class in 3.x. 
Wizards in 3.5 got 3 or 4 cantrips a day (PHB 3.5 p55). They were not at-will like they are now.


You brought up Monks and they are in the PHB3. The 3.x Warlocks is just as "standard" as 4e Monks.
I'll cede the point on wizards cantrip. I thought they got cast once, but lasted the whole day.


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

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

The main thing they've taken from 4e is monster generation, making it different than PC generation which I think is a huge improvment over 3e. But let me ask you, what mechains from 4e do you think were great that should make it into 5e?
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
The main thing they've taken from 4e is monster generation, making it different than PC generation which I think is a huge improvment over 3e. But let me ask you, what mechains from 4e do you think were great that should make it into 5e?



The main one would be surge per day mechanics. When healing was limited for both magic and non magic sources then an adventure could be balance regardless of healing sources, because there was a hard limit on how much healing could be done. When the difference between having a healer and not was handful of d6s per day you have a more controlled system which worked for a larger variety of party compositions.

Edit:Grammar. 

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

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

The main thing they've taken from 4e is monster generation, making it different than PC generation which I think is a huge improvment over 3e.

In all fairness to 4e, and to support the truth that a very small number of the ideas currently present in D&D Next actually originate in 4e, you can't say that monster generation came from 4e.

It is more accurate to simply say they have (currently) got it working the way that monster generation worked in every edition except 3e.

Now me... I don't really mind the ways in which 4e isn't present in Next, but that's because my personal preferrences tend to run precisely counter to everything that 4e is good at (i.e. all of its accomplishments are things which spoil my fun - though I at least have the sense to acknowledge its just a taste difference and not a genuinely bad game).

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.


The main one would be surge per day mechanics. When healing was limited for both magic and non magic sources then an adventure could be balance regardless of healing sources, because there was a hard limit on how much healing could be done. When the difference between having a healer and not was handful of d6s per day you have a more controlled system which worked for a larger variety of party compositions.



I understand that this is your prefered playstyle, and I'm sincerely sorry that it isn't going to be part of the core game. That being said, there are a lot of people who don't like healing surges at all (I would be one of them). So I don't think healing surges will make it into 5e, but I think it would be a great thing to add to the game via an add on module (and yes I know it isn't fair that your favorite part of the game has to be an add on and I'm sorry for that).

Is there anything else from 4e that you would like to see integrated into 5e. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.

The main one would be surge per day mechanics. When healing was limited for both magic and non magic sources then an adventure could be balance regardless of healing sources, because there was a hard limit on how much healing could be done. When the difference between having a healer and not was handful of d6s per day you have a more controlled system which worked for a larger variety of party compositions.



I understand that this is your prefered playstyle, and I'm sincerely sorry that it isn't going to be part of the core game. That being said, there are a lot of people who don't like healing surges at all (I would be one of them). So I don't think healing surges will make it into 5e, but I think it would be a great thing to add to the game via an add on module (and yes I know it isn't fair that your favorite part of the game has to be an add on and I'm sorry for that).

Is there anything else from 4e that you would like to see integrated into 5e. 


There the thing everything I liked specifically about 4e isn't going to be in the base game. However, I don't think its a problem to have to add features on via module. If too many books are need for my style of play that would be a issue. The real problem I have is crappy aternatives that block being fixed via module. Like what they are doing with Warlord and Wardens. I don't see how those classes are going to get fixed with a module because they are going to be subclasses. Are there really going to be splat book options for a subclass? I just don't see it. 

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

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)


The main one would be surge per day mechanics. When healing was limited for both magic and non magic sources then an adventure could be balance regardless of healing sources, because there was a hard limit on how much healing could be done. When the difference between having a healer and not was handful of d6s per day you have a more controlled system which worked for a larger variety of party compositions.



I understand that this is your prefered playstyle, and I'm sincerely sorry that it isn't going to be part of the core game. That being said, there are a lot of people who don't like healing surges at all (I would be one of them). So I don't think healing surges will make it into 5e, but I think it would be a great thing to add to the game via an add on module (and yes I know it isn't fair that your favorite part of the game has to be an add on and I'm sorry for that).

Is there anything else from 4e that you would like to see integrated into 5e. 


There the thing everything I liked specifically about 4e isn't going to be in the base game. However, I don't think its a problem to have to add features on via module. If too many books are need for my style of play that would be a issue. The real problem I have is crappy aternatives that block being fixed via module. Like what they are doing with Warlord and Wardens. I don't see how those classes are going to get fixed with a module because they are going to be subclasses. Are there really going to be splat book options for a subclass? I just don't see it. 



I think that warlords and wardens (I don't know what a warden is) are probably going to be in a splatbook called "the classes from 4e we didn't put in the player's handbook". Ok maybe not that, but that will be the gist of the book. So they'll be their own class they just won't be avalible at the initial release.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.

The main one would be surge per day mechanics. When healing was limited for both magic and non magic sources then an adventure could be balance regardless of healing sources, because there was a hard limit on how much healing could be done. When the difference between having a healer and not was handful of d6s per day you have a more controlled system which worked for a larger variety of party compositions.



I understand that this is your prefered playstyle, and I'm sincerely sorry that it isn't going to be part of the core game. That being said, there are a lot of people who don't like healing surges at all (I would be one of them). So I don't think healing surges will make it into 5e, but I think it would be a great thing to add to the game via an add on module (and yes I know it isn't fair that your favorite part of the game has to be an add on and I'm sorry for that).

Is there anything else from 4e that you would like to see integrated into 5e. 


There the thing everything I liked specifically about 4e isn't going to be in the base game. However, I don't think its a problem to have to add features on via module. If too many books are need for my style of play that would be a issue. The real problem I have is crappy aternatives that block being fixed via module. Like what they are doing with Warlord and Wardens. I don't see how those classes are going to get fixed with a module because they are going to be subclasses. Are there really going to be splat book options for a subclass? I just don't see it. 



I think that warlords and wardens (I don't know what a warden is) are probably going to be in a splatbook called "the classes from 4e we didn't put in the player's handbook". Ok maybe not that, but that will be the gist of the book. So they'll be their own class they just won't be avalible at the initial release.


I don't know how they would be able to make them their own class when They have already said its a subclasses. Warden has been defined as a neutral paladin in 5e and Warlord as a subclass of fighter. That seems to me to block the possibility for them to be anything similiar to the 4e version. The warden seems to be in a worst position then the warlord. Its possible I might like a different style warlord (definitely not if it is anything similar to 3e marshal.) They pretty much killed the flavor and the mechanics for warden. It is making it into 5e in name only unless they make some dramatic change to it.

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

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

3e had a book of about 25 different arcane spellcaster classes, so I'm fairly certain that the developers can find room for the warlord as a class that buffs its party and heals through the powers of inspiration.
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Sign In to post comments