Yes I do rememebr that but no one was was that upset over 3.5 in 2007, or at least very few were.
I do remember the occasional thread about a 2nd ed ruling and someone not liking 3rd ed but there were not that many of them. The big thread back in 2001/2002 was The war which was an arguement over who would win a hypothetical genicidal war between the Elves and Dwarves and I think it was one of the 1st threads to break 1000 posts.
The forums had less rancor and bitterness.
We're at least getitng a playtest this time around, may as well make the most of it.
How is it false? Tell me, what is 4th ed module is like, dude? If they said 9/10 dentists play D&D Next, would you believe it?
Even if they release 5ed and it has no modules for any past editions, it is only False advertising if they don't ammend such a change by release time.
The standards for 'truth' in advertising are pretty lax. The classic example is the word "best." If you advertise your product as "the best you can buy," the actual claim you're making is that it's not any worse than anything else.
For instance, if you say, "our new & improved Fighter is Best At Fighting...."
Do you believe that this is an attempt at false advertising?
Like I said, it's a classic example of a perfectly legitimate advertising claim. It's not false, at all. You just have to understand what a claim of 'best' implies.
I think it's likely that die-hard fans of 4th will not feel like any 5ed modules will accomodate their playstyle. But acting like Mearl's tying Casual and friends to the train tracks... it's a laugh.
I think the idiom we usuallyl hear is 'under the bus,' 4e's been thrown under the bus - y'know, sacrificed for expediency. Tied to the railroad tracks implies jeopardy, like there's a chance you might be saved. Maybe 3.5 was tied to the railroad tracks by WotC, until Paizo came along and saved it. That kinda thing.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
in reguards to the tactical modual, if they are serious about it (and at this point that is up for debate) they have to have it far along by this point, it effects how every class works on a basic level, if they make the classes then make that mod it will at best work erraticly.
--- the thing I dont get about how they are makeing 5th (besides why they picked the stupidest name for the game ever) is why are are targeting AD&D players.
the first people they should target would be new players, with them they would never grow their player base. the second group would be 4th players, they are most likly to upgrade systems, and they dont have a clone, like pathfinder, waiting for them. it also is the most modern system and would fit well with new players. the third would be 3.5/pathfinder which should be a distant third becuase you would have to beat pathfinder, something they can't easily do while keeping group 2 happy. the last group is of the people who like editions before 3rd, these people by far the least likely to look at the new game let alone switch to it.
I like 4e more then any other edition, what I want for 5e is to learn from it and grow, to not make the mistakes of the past and make something that will draw more players in while keeping what they have. however they dont seam to want to do this, they are trying to draw in the smallest most irrivent group while pissing the most important ones off. they are acting like they dont want money, they dont know what they are doing, or they are soft in the head.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes.
Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
the thing I dont get about how they are makeing 5th (besides why they picked the stupidest name for the game ever) is why are are targeting AD&D players.
D&D was a fad in the 80s. AD&D was the flagship product at that time. There are simply a lot of people who have played AD&D. If you can get enough of them to come back to the game - or at least buy a few books for old time's sake, you can make a lot of money. Though, of course 'lot' is relative. What a kickstsarter making a retro-clone thinks of as a lot of money is very different from what Hasbro thinks of as a lot of money. Still, it's a good reason to target the one-time AD&Der.
the first people they should target would be new players, with them they would never grow their player base.
4e tried that. Essentials tried to target /both/ lapsed and new players. 5e is going to focus on past players, current & lapsed. They're not going to keep trying exactly the same strategy.
the second group would be 4th players, they are most likly to upgrade systems, and they dont have a clone, like pathfinder, waiting for them.
That's the thing. No alternative means no need to accomodate them.
I like 4e more then any other edition, what I want for 5e is to learn from it and grow, to not make the mistakes of the past and make something that will draw more players in while keeping what they have. however they dont seam to want to do this,
That'd be nice, but it may not be the best strategy right now. It might work as a long-term strategy, but so might retiring D&D for a decade.
--- the thing I dont get about how they are makeing 5th (besides why they picked the stupidest name for the game ever) is why are are targeting AD&D players.
I like 4e more then any other edition, what I want for 5e is to learn from it and grow, to not make the mistakes of the past and make something that will draw more players in while keeping what they have. however they dont seam to want to do this, they are trying to draw in the smallest most irrivent group while pissing the most important ones off.
So richly agree- D&D Next should be called by what it is- 5th edition.
They would be pissing off fewer 4th edition fans if they wouldn't have cancelled it 2-3 prior to D&D-Lite being released. The grognards are a small slice of the pie and are not the future of the game- young kids are and AD&D can't compete nowadays (thank god for that- AD&D was the WORST rules system ever).
I'll attempt to serve as the breath of fresh in in this thread now that I've spent the better part of an hour reading through all of it.
I've seen it said that Wizards are alienating 4E fans. Allow me to say that 4E is the first D&D I've ever played. After years of going to games at friends houses and just hanging out and watching them (3 of them took improv lessons so they are hilarious to watch), I finally grew a set (because I'm incredibly shy and reserved) and decided to play.
Not only do I like 4th Edition for its wonderful tactical combat, but I'm very much enjoying the 5th Edition playtest as well. I feel like characters in 4E are too cookie cut for my taste. I'm a person who has trouble creating an exciting character role playing wise. In terms of combat tactics I excell. I feel like 5th Edition is allowing me to create the characters I want to create because they offer new and exciting techniques and great flavor to accomplish that. But, I feel like combat isn't nearly as exciting as it was in 4th Edition, but likewise I feel the combat in 5th Edition isn't as exciting as 4th edition, but the Roleplaying is better and character customization is insanely well done (I'm rather new, so seeing everything written out for me as it is in the playtest packet helps a ton).
My point is: Sure, I'm dissapointed that the impressive tactical combat of 4th Edition is going by the wayside, but I'm excited for the changes that 5th Edition brings.
So you see, it IS possible for someone who was introducted to D&D through 4th Edition to enjoy 5th Edition and not feel entirely alienated. In fact, I feel rather excited.
It seems to me that the people who hate 4e are completely misunderstanding the arguments of those who liked 4e and feel 5e is a step backwards. I hear two responses all the time that just don't make any sense unless you completely misunderstand what we're saying. The first is that we should just keep playing 4e and leave your edition alone. The second is that it's just a playtest, so stop complaining that they haven't gotten it right yet. Neither of these arguments in any way address our points, much less solve anything.
We don't want Next to be a 4e clone. "Why don't you just keep playing 4e" is not a valid response. I haven't seen a single person say they want healing surges back (though plenty of people, myself included, have said that they want something that accomplished what surges did, none of them are demanding the precise mechanical implementation of surges. Which, by the way, is pretty much what we have, just fewer of them, and worse, and given a retro name). I haven't seen a single person say they insist that AEDU comes back in its 4e implementation (though plenty of people have said that they want at-will, encounter, and daily resources, there are many other ways of doing that than 4e's AEDU). I haven't seen a single person say they want all classes to have the same power structure, or rigid class roles, or all monsters of a level to have the same AC and attack bonus, or to go back to assumed magical enhancement bonuses (although I've repeatedly seen requests for very different things being misinterpreted as requests for these things).
The truth is, 4e was a deeply flawed system. It was my favorite D&D so far, and I think other systems were even more deeply flawed, but it was flawed. I can and have gone on for pages about everything that's wrong with 4e: an utter disregard for in-game explanations for its mechanics, encounter sameness, a knife-edged balance between encounters that are too easy and those that are TPKs, an inability to have short encounters that don't feel like a waste of time, a system that encourages players to look to their character sheets before their imaginations, so many out of turn actions that combat drags, math patched with feats instead of just fixed... I could go on and I could explain to you what about the system is creating each of these problems and even give you some good ideas about how to fix most of them.
So believe me when I say I don't want a 4e clone. What I want is a system that supports my playstyle. This does not mean giving me specific mechanics that I liked from 4e. It isn't even a request for more 4e influence on the game. I could care less if not one single 4e mechanic made it into Next; what I want is for it to realize some of the goals that those mechanics were trying (and often failing) to implement. What I want is for the core to be built in such a way that mechanics that allow it to support my playstyle can be tacked on without rewriting the entire rulebook. And I don't think it's an unreasonable request for an edition who's stated goal is to "unite the fanbase." This does not mean foisting my playstyle on anyone else. I'm not going to say the designers are stupid or purposefully trying to deceive us. But so far I've seen no indication that they even understand what I and others like me want, and without understanding it I don't see much hope that we're going to get it. I'm not asking for more 4e influences on Next. I'll freely admit that they've borrowed a lot from 4e. They've just borrowed mechanics from without understanding what goals they were accomplishing, and so they aren't accomplishing the goals that are the only part I care about. They borrowed surges from 4e, but thought the point was to reduce the importance of clerics and failed to understand that the real effect of surges (albeit one not perfectly realized) was to make HP an encounter resource, and so HD don't achieve that end much less fix the problems with surges (experiment 2, RAW, does achieve that end, but I rather doubt it means what RAW says and even if it does it doesn't fix the problems with surges). They borrowed at-wills from 4e, but they failed to understand that the real point of at-wills was to provide meaningful choices every round, so maneuvers fail to do that. Taking damage? Parry is the only non-trap option. Big guy in front of you? Deadly strike is the only non-trap option. Surrounded by mooks? WWA is the only non-trap option. Almost every round of a given combat, the smart fighter does exactly the same thing, and that thing is an automatic response to one or two common stimuli rather than an organic exercise in strategy. I fully expect that if and when this "tactical module" comes out, they will continue to misunderstand what it was about 4e that made it tactical and try to placate us with rules for a grid and flanking (as if we needed their help for that), and so they will fail to achieve the goal of truly tactical combat. It's this failure to understand my position that is making me feel alienated, not the fact that there was this one more pet mechanic of mine that I really wish they'd add.
Which is why the second argument makes even less sense. Yes, it's just a playtest. Yes, there is a possibility that when the game finally comes out, our concerns will be addressed. But those are in fact good reasons for us to keep voicing our concerns, not good reasons for us to shut up. It does not change the fact that the forums are a legitimate place to make arguments that the things they are doing now are not working as well as other people think. I believe one well reasoned post is worth a thousand "I enjoyed playing anyway, so it must not be a problem." This does not mean anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, it does not mean I think they are stupid, and it does not mean that even if the dev's fix my concern I will ignore their new edition because I've already given up on it. Honestly, it is because it's only a playtest that I even bother. What it means is, "I know the rules are still in flux, I know this one might not make it into the final draft, and I'm casting my vote that it shouldn't make it in and here's why." I post because there's some slim chance that someone will read it, realize that there's a way to make the game better, and do so while there's still a chance. Blind faith that the devs will get it right in the end because a group of playtesters who couldn't agree on what to order for lunch will lead them true will kill Next far more certainly than forum rage.
It seems to me that the people who hate 4e are completely misunderstanding the arguments of those who liked 4e and feel 5e is a step backwards. I hear two responses all the time that just don't make any sense unless you completely misunderstand what we're saying. The first is that we should just keep playing 4e and leave your edition alone. The second is that it's just a playtest, so stop complaining that they haven't gotten it right yet. Neither of these arguments in any way address our points, much less solve anything.
We don't want Next to be a 4e clone. "Why don't you just keep playing 4e" is not a valid response. I haven't seen a single person say they want healing surges back (though plenty of people, myself included, have said that they want something that accomplished what surges did, none of them are demanding the precise mechanical implementation of surges. Which, by the way, is pretty much what we have, just fewer of them, and worse, and given a retro name). I haven't seen a single person say they insist that AEDU comes back in its 4e implementation (though plenty of people have said that they want at-will, encounter, and daily resources, there are many other ways of doing that than 4e's AEDU). I haven't seen a single person say they want all classes to have the same power structure, or rigid class roles, or all monsters of a level to have the same AC and attack bonus, or to go back to assumed magical enhancement bonuses (although I've repeatedly seen requests for very different things being misinterpreted as requests for these things).
The truth is, 4e was a deeply flawed system. It was my favorite D&D so far, and I think other systems were even more deeply flawed, but it was flawed. I can and have gone on for pages about everything that's wrong with 4e: an utter disregard for in-game explanations for its mechanics, encounter sameness, a knife-edged balance between encounters that are too easy and those that are TPKs, an inability to have short encounters that don't feel like a waste of time, a system that encourages players to look to their character sheets before their imaginations, so many out of turn actions that combat drags, math patched with feats instead of just fixed... I could go on and I could explain to you what about the system is creating each of these problems and even give you some good ideas about how to fix most of them.
So believe me when I say I don't want a 4e clone. What I want is a system that supports my playstyle. This does not mean giving me specific mechanics that I liked from 4e. It isn't even a request for more 4e influence on the game. I could care less if not one single 4e mechanic made it into Next; what I want is for it to realize some of the goals that those mechanics were trying (and often failing) to implement. What I want is for the core to be built in such a way that mechanics that allow it to support my playstyle can be tacked on without rewriting the entire rulebook. And I don't think it's an unreasonable request for an edition who's stated goal is to "unite the fanbase." This does not mean foisting my playstyle on anyone else. I'm not going to say the designers are stupid or purposefully trying to deceive us. But so far I've seen no indication that they even understand what I and others like me want, and without understanding it I don't see much hope that we're going to get it. I'm not asking for more 4e influences on Next. I'll freely admit that they've borrowed a lot from 4e. They've just borrowed mechanics from without understanding what goals they were accomplishing, and so they aren't accomplishing the goals that are the only part I care about. They borrowed surges from 4e, but thought the point was to reduce the importance of clerics and failed to understand that the real effect of surges (albeit one not perfectly realized) was to make HP an encounter resource, and so HD don't achieve that end much less fix the problems with surges (experiment 2, RAW, does achieve that end, but I rather doubt it means what RAW says and even if it does it doesn't fix the problems with surges). They borrowed at-wills from 4e, but they failed to understand that the real point of at-wills was to provide meaningful choices every round, so maneuvers fail to do that. Taking damage? Parry is the only non-trap option. Big guy in front of you? Deadly strike is the only non-trap option. Surrounded by mooks? WWA is the only non-trap option. Almost every round of a given combat, the smart fighter does exactly the same thing, and that thing is an automatic response to one or two common stimuli rather than an organic exercise in strategy. I fully expect that if and when this "tactical module" comes out, they will continue to misunderstand what it was about 4e that made it tactical and try to placate us with rules for a grid and flanking (as if we needed their help for that), and so they will fail to achieve the goal of truly tactical combat. It's this failure to understand my position that is making me feel alienated, not the fact that there was this one more pet mechanic of mine that I really wish they'd add.
Which is why the second argument makes even less sense. Yes, it's just a playtest. Yes, there is a possibility that when the game finally comes out, our concerns will be addressed. But those are in fact good reasons for us to keep voicing our concerns, not good reasons for us to shut up. It does not change the fact that the forums are a legitimate place to make arguments that the things they are doing now are not working as well as other people think. I believe one well reasoned post is worth a thousand "I enjoyed playing anyway, so it must not be a problem." This does not mean anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, it does not mean I think they are stupid, and it does not mean that even if the dev's fix my concern I will ignore their new edition because I've already given up on it. Honestly, it is because it's only a playtest that I even bother. What it means is, "I know the rules are still in flux, I know this one might not make it into the final draft, and I'm casting my vote that it shouldn't make it in and here's why." I post because there's some slim chance that someone will read it, realize that there's a way to make the game better, and do so while there's still a chance. Blind faith that the devs will get it right in the end because a group of playtesters who couldn't agree on what to order for lunch will lead them true will kill Next far more certainly than forum rage.
Well said. The main thing I'd add is a distaste for bringing back the past(pre-4E), and being open to trying things that are completely new and novel.
zago here is an explaination for you. Check the join dates of alot of the posters here. Most of the more vocal ones are from around 2008 give or take a year They are basically continuing the tradiitons of the 4vengers group a while ago which was basically a forum police that chased anyone away who did not think 4th ed was the greatest thing ever.
Here's an alternate explanation. Some people who joined the forums while 3ed was the newest version of D&D left because 3ed was no longer the version WotC (and its forums) were headlining.
Between 2008 and 2011, the General D&D forum specifically stated that conversation was about the current edition of D&D (4ed), yet some people felt it was their god-given right (nay, DUTY!) to step into a forum for 4ed and tell everyone how bad it was. No constructive criticism, just "it sucks!" and "when will we get 5ed?"
So, when you tell me what a terrible thing it was that trolls got called out for trolling, I wonder how selective your memory is for forum decorum. Maybe it seemed more civil in your time because, back then, it was your POV that was doing the curbstomping of opposing views.
I don't recall the same reaction to a 3.5 splat book back in the day and some of them were actually garbage.
You don't recall people getting mad over the 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM? Because that was a big thing. What happened to Essentials paled in comparison to the furor over 3.5.
Either way, I haven't heard hardly anyone be anti-4th. I just see a lot of people excited about next, and a lot of other people being mad that it's not 4th.
It's sometimes hard to tell if some people are here just to subvert the experience for others out of malicious spite because of the the abrupt end to their game, or if they are legitametly trying to assist in the design of the new game. Most of the time it seems like sabotage and not a sincere desire to participate in the community. Not saying they don't have thee right to come here and set up their signs, but the pretense that they are here to help is absurd.
