Community

tl;dr for those of you pressed for time:


   Why is Vancian magic so important for D&D and D&D Next?

It's always been there, and it's part of the "core" D&D experience, and people like playing Wizards that are complicated, and it's not a Wizard if it's not complicated.

   Mike, Rob, and Monte have all mentioned the difficulties encountered while hammering out the Fighter class. Could you share some of the possible paths and solutions you've explored for the fighter? 

The Fighter must be a simple-to-build, simple-to-play class and must cover all possible "martial paragon" archetypes, and it must do both well at the same time, AND it must support more complex options for players who prefer that, AND it must achieve all of this without being tied to any of the subsystems it relied on in the past, because those subsystems might not even exist.

   If there's something that 4E got really right, I think it's the organization and simplicity of the monster stat blocks. Is that something you'd like to continue in the next iteration of D&D?

Yeah, 4e made a lot of sense, but we also have to provide options for building monsters like they were PCs, and options for people who like templates. Monster creation has to be a "kitchen sink" thing where we have four or five different ways of building them that all have to make sense and work together.



My opinion:

   is so far from right that it isn't even wrong, and offers, in my opinion, fairly conclusive evidence that whoever wrote this answer doesn't understand the problems with Vancian casting at all. I really don't want to start making blanket declaratives like "if Vancian casting is in DDN, I won't play it", but I'm beginning to be of exactly that opinion. Vancian casting has never, not once, contributed to a game I've played OR run in any constructive way whatsoever. Furthermore, it cannot be balanced properly against classes that don't have it. 

   is being intentionally obtuse to the obvious solution to the problem: break Fighters up into multiple classes. The arcane spellcaster, as they said, can be explored by means of a number of differenct classes, so why can't the martial paragon? Why does one class have to do the job of four or five?

   is a pointless question. Was anyone really asking this? Attempting to integrate the rules from every previous edition is just going to create an ineffective, ugly, unplayable mess. A better idea (in fact, a better idea about this new edition period) is to throw everything out and start from scratch.

M4ki's DDN Metrics adjustment: Confidence in Design: -1 (total -5)  

We want to be all things to all players (well, except those silly 4e players, stuff them).  This is fundamentally more-or-less impossible, but by damn if we aren't going to try anyway.

This edition is going to be an unplayable mess if this continues.

Seriously.  When you have to say 'yes, 4e did something really really well (and I've never seen anyone argue that 4e's monster design wasn't among the best things that came out of the game as a whole), but to pull in older players we're going to intentionally do it badly, and waste our time and money writing ways to go about about doing it badly' that is a TERRIBLE design decision, and as someone who's supposed to be a professional designer, making intentionally terrible decisions should get you fired.

If someone designing a car said 'hey, in order to get all those 60s and 70s classic car drivers on board, we need to go back to no airbags, no crumple zones, no seatbelts, and leaded fuel'...  But when it's a game?  Suuuure.

This was the most disappointing Ro3 yet.

Question for the designers:  Do you want to make this new edition the best game that it can be, or you do you want to continue to try to pander to everyone and please no one? 

If Vancian isn't balanced I'm not going to allow it in my games.  No discussion.  The half of my old group that left D&D for Pathfinder will quite possibly decide not to play in my games.  I'm left with a game that I have to carefully scrutinize for balance issues because the designers didn't do their job, and it still isn't pleasing everyone, nor is it bringing a fractured group back together. 

Yes, this is hypothetical and is entirely dependent on the notion that Vancian will be an option, and one which the designers will try to make balanced but will likely fail.  The sub-system is too different, and access to spells and/or "power creep" in future supplements have too much potential to thrown the game out of whack.  For example, if a powerful Wizard daily is published in 4E then Wizards get 1 better power per day.  If a powerful Vancian spell is published, then Wizards use all of their high level slots to prepare the same spell, breaking whatever dubious "balance" was already in place.

Vancian can be done differently than it has been done in the past to make it more palatable, but then past-edition grognards will just complain that Vancian was changed.  You cannot please all camps when some people value balance, and others like Vancian specifically because it is unbalanced.  So far it seems like the designers are leaning toward supporting those who prefer a "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" type of game, and if this ends up being the case then a lot of people will jump ship (myself included).  If you cater to a more balanced approach, those who prefer all-powerful casters will likely jump ship. 

Consider very carefully whose side you ultimately decide to support, and when you start the playtests don't try to justify ignoring commentary, as it appears you're doing in this Ro3.

That is all.