Community

Jan 19, 2013 -- 10:30AM, Jenks wrote:

I, again, posit the question of why we have to choose between one or the other? Yes you can make the argument of only having enough money to invest in one or the other, but if money is the issue then you probably won't drop over 100 bucks on new books anyway.

Assuming money is not an issue, and it is just "D&DN will have to be better than PF or I won't play it". I ask you, why? Right now I'm playing PF, 4e, and 2 games of nWoD, and I have no issue doing so. My groups don't start a game by going "Well is WoD more fun than PF? No? Then I guess we'll just HAVE to play PF." No, they choose what system they want to play and what feels right for the campaign :P

tldr: It's not one or the other, you can play PF, 4e, AND Next. 

You are in a fortunate position, one I was in about 15 years ago.  I had 3 D&D Campaigns running, and an alternity campaign.  It was AWESOME.

Now the issue is not money it is time.  I have enough players that would play in 4 D&D games if I were to run them, but I do not have the time to invest in that anymore, and though I have the player volume getting them together for game every weekend is doable but can be difficult.  I often have to skip weeks due to life schedules.

So the issue for me and my players adopting it is, whether or not we feel it is a better use of our time than PF.  Even if I like it, my players may not.  I may easily have a player pool to replace my PF players, but my social group is a bit more important to me than a rules system.  Bottom line, If I like Next and they don't I won't be switching.  They are not interested in the playtest so I am already relegated to running it in the game store.

I'm a 4e fan, and I really really really wanted a new edition that streamlined and simplified the game while maintaining 4e's extremely solid basic design.

Instead I'm getting what looks like a bizarre mashup of unrelated designs. I'm trying to keep an open mind, and am definitely interested in a game that has faster combats, better skill rules, and more flexible adventure design possibilities. I am not sure if Next is going to deliver on these promises in a way that isn't dealbreaking to me though.

If they want to win me over, the number one thing would be to have robust options for non-daily oriented spellcasting. Ideally there would be no class built around daily powers (like the wizard in every edition except 4e), however if I can play the game with all important options intact while doing away with daily classes then I will be a lot happier.

It is also important to me that it is possible to play any martial character archetype in a way that can compete with spellcasters in power, utility, and variety. If they want to have a super simple fighter, fine, but I would need some way to have an armor wearing melee specialist who has powerful abilities, some manner of resource management, etc. Rogues should not feel overshadowed by wizards, and importantly fighters should never feel overshadowed either. Out of combat balance is as important to me as combat balance. Fighters should not be gimped in any situation that's not a fight.