# After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?



## Reynard (Jan 30, 2012)

So the seminars are transcribed and some playtester response is floating around. How are you feeling about D&Dnext/5E?

I'm solidly in the "meh" camp. I was super excited when I imagined the intent was to actually rewind the clock in some ways, but it appears that they are going to try and invent mechanics to try and get the same feel as previous mechanics, which seems sort of silly. I'll certainly be keeping up and still intend to playtest in whatever fashion they make available, but I am not particularly excited by yet another new D&D.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm trying to figure out how you got that from the seminars. I definitely got an old school vibe from comments, tweets and seminars.


----------



## LordArchaon (Jan 30, 2012)

The latest seminar did slide in the first doubts about the mechanics, but all in all, I think I figured out the whole design philosophy and quality, and I'm appreciating it very, very much.
The greatest attraction for tinkerers as myself is the modularity and the openness, compared to the stricter (though beautiful IMO) 4e. Maybe I won't like the specific crunch of the very basic core of Next, but I'm sure it will be a blast to DM and play once it will get a bit more advanced.
Also, I'm intrigued by the new "DMing philosophy" it brings. It looks like it will bring more freedom to the table, for most things!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 30, 2012)

Too soon to tell.  At this point I think I'm cautiously optimistic, but we know so little and there is a great deal left to resolve.

Frankly, whatever the new edition looks like, it will take some time to evaluate.  3E and 4E both felt odd to me at first.  With 3E I went from "this is odd" to "this is OK" to "this is great!" over time.  With 4E I went from "this is odd" to "this is fun" to "this is dull" in a similar arc.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 30, 2012)

< double post >


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm a skeptic in general, but I liked what I read in the transcripts more often than not.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm excited. I was excited when 4E was on it's way out, but part of that was because I was getting a gaming group together for the first time in a while. The group was not heavy RPG readers and the simplicity of 4E seemed ideal. But the combat grind got us (all wargamers too) and so we went CoC and then Dragon Age. The DA game and it's old school vibe was going great when RL put a stop to the game. I have realised that there is a lot of old school yearnings in me so this edition which looks forward as well as back really is floating my boat.

Even though I won't be gaming it unless thing drastically change


----------



## gloomhound (Jan 30, 2012)

Nothing I read coming out of D&D XP has done anything to cool my ardor. In a matter of fact it has had the opposite effect. I look forward wholeheartedly to the next D&D.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm feeling about the same now as before DDXP: interested enough to pay attention, but not particulary excited.

The messaging out of the con was (understandably) short on development specifics and focused on "aspirational" intent.  I don't give that content too much weight; too much can affect the design and throw off theresult.  All it tells me is what, given an ideal world with infinite resuorces and compliant audience, the developers hope to make.

Once the playtest becomes truly open and I can peruse the current ruleset, I may be able to draw a better conclusion.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jan 30, 2012)

Relieved to know some solid snippets on it, pleased with what I've seen, and looking forward to playing it. Not letting myself get too excited yet, though. There's about a year and a half to go, and you can't burn up all the excitement at once.


----------



## DonAdam (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm feeling like someone needs to break their NDA!

Seriously. Not one all weekend?


----------



## SteveC (Jan 30, 2012)

I voted ugh. I was initially pretty positive, but it seems like a lot of what they're discussing seems to be a return to ideas that were changed in 4E for a real reason.

I think this is a good reason for people who didn't like 4E to be excited: it seems like the things I'm really positive about in 4E are going away, and we're going back to the way things used to be.

I'm still very excited about the modularity concept, and I hope that I can make 5E the game I want to play. But, the concepts of greater lethality, the return of spellslots, the removal of the AEDU system, the return of saving throws, and the likely return of less interesting combat environments are nothing I'm looking for.

It's still too early to see, but I heard nothing about the game that sounds anything like 4E. (Did you like any of the changes you made? Anything?) That may make a lot of people happy, but it leaves me as a sad panda.

I'd like to invite Monte Cook to play in one of my game sessions of 4E. I could explain a few of the rules he has a problem with if he ever gets back to Wisconsin. And I'd love to talk about the good old days of Rolemaster...


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 30, 2012)

DonAdam said:


> I'm feeling like someone needs to break their NDA!
> 
> Seriously. Not one all weekend?




Please do not encourage people to violate contracts made in good faith.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 30, 2012)

I read that D&D 5e is switching to the silver standard.

I've been waiting for that for... 17 years now.

Oh yeah, I'm all in now.  I don't care if there is a rule that I have to fly down to Seattle and kiss the 5e design team on the mouth to level up.   

We got the silver standard!  WOOT!

(Maybe we need a thread for Deal-makers).


----------



## BobTheNob (Jan 30, 2012)

I think 4e did some things right and introduced some interesting takes on how to do things. Loved durations, liked AEDU (sort of)

In hindsight however, I just cant call the system an overall success. Our group is 7 people : 2 hardcore and 5 casual. 4e looked great on paper, but once played
it kinda left the casual gamer in the cold. Well, it did for us anyway. Maybe I could have done things differently, but 4e just didnt seem to suite the simple play my group was looking for.

Most of the time the game stayed afloat because I, as DM, put so much effort into breaching the gap for the players.


----------



## quindia (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm really looking forward to seeing more...


----------



## WarlockLord (Jan 30, 2012)

I thought the mechanics from the last seminar were terrible and stupid.  So you spend 5 minutes arguing with the DM that you should be able to use your Intelligence on every saving throw ever because you're a wizard, and unnamed  wizard magic has your back, while he's in the corner explaining the to the PCs that the orc strongmen use strength because they bathed in the Great Strength Fire...just like all his other high strength monsters.  You still get punished for playing an orc wizard.  You can seriously trade damage out for "I win" effects which bolster your social abilities too.  There is both an attack roll and defense roll, so if you hate long combats, go cry in the corner.  And the fact that you need to pick combat OR social skills OR exploration is terrible.  And I suspect the fighter is still the useless gimp he was in every non 4e edition. 

I hope to be proven wrong.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 30, 2012)

SteveC said:


> I voted ugh. I was initially pretty positive, but it seems like a lot of what they're discussing seems to be a return to ideas that were changed in 4E for a real reason....It's still too early to see, but I heard nothing about the game that sounds anything like 4E. (Did you like any of the changes you made? Anything?) That may make a lot of people happy, but it leaves me as a sad panda.




This is pretty much my view.

Admittedly it is based upon the rather vague information that was presented (Or is it just me? I was expecting a slightly clearer picture)

But yes this looks to be 3rd mechanics with some 4th ed options. But If I have use feats to have at will or second wind, then I am not sure that is edition is going to work me.

Sure 4th ed races and classes are going to be there. But For me the big issues for me will be about whether there is a high level of mobility in fights (something I like about 4th ed), whether alignment will be core, whether the cosmology of 4th ed will be supported.

Too early to tell really, but it looks much more like a regression than a synthesis.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 30, 2012)

I despise this sort of waiting. With the passion of a thousand fiery suns.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 30, 2012)

I like it so far.

Whether fair or not, bear in mind that 4e was the first time D&D lost significant market share to a game that was literally its predecessor with a new name. So obviously they are going to walk back from that. And from what I read, the 4e-ness will be likely restored in the "tactical module" they've referred to.

I don't like the silver standard, though. Yes, historically most coins were based around silver, not gold, but most editions have used it.

I mean, when you find a treasure chest, it's much exciting to find it full of golden doubloons, rather than silver reales.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 30, 2012)

SteveC said:


> I voted ugh. I was initially pretty positive, but it seems like a lot of what they're discussing seems to be a return to ideas that were changed in 4E for a real reason.
> 
> .... But, the concepts of greater lethality, the return of spellslots, the removal of the AEDU system, the return of saving throws, and the likely return of less interesting combat environments are nothing I'm looking for.
> 
> It's still too early to see, but I heard nothing about the game that sounds anything like 4E. (Did you like any of the changes you made? Anything?) That may make a lot of people happy, but it leaves me as a sad panda.



Not to put too fine a point on it, but is this a surprise? The AEDU power system alone is a non-starter for a large portion of the gaming community. Given the stated goal of 5e to appeal to D&D players past, present, and future, they'd be crazy to build off of divisive concepts like that. It seems to me that their at-will feats for mages are an attempt to appeal to the 4e crowd, and there are plenty of other such attempts in there. It looks like there will be plenty of options for 4e flavor, but that they'll take the core assumptions of the game back to what they were in other editions.

Frankly, it's a lot easier to build a 4e character off of the 3e spine than vice versa (Bo9S, reserve feats, etc.). As to the larger systemic changes, if you're counting on a D&D without spell slots or saving throws or where characters have triple hit points at level 1, I suspect you'll be disappointed. Hopefully when all is said and done you'll be able to create the play experience you want with the 5e rules; I think you may be pleasantly surprised, but only time will tell.



			
				Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Please do not encourage people to violate contracts made in good faith.



News about information that is ostensibly supposed to be confidential is often spread this way. Happens all the time in sports, entertainment, and politics. Sometimes it's advantageous for the body that's keeping the secret as it generates buzz. Frankly I don't see the incentive for WotC to keep their rules secret now that 5e has been announced.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 30, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> I mean, when you find a treasure chest, it's much exciting to find it full of golden doubloons, rather than silver reales.




Yeah, but if you are always finding gold, what's to look forward to?  

In my games, players get the excitement that should come from finding golden doubloons when they find platinum pieces or gemstones.

If you want the players to react to gold as if it is valuable, you have to add some rarity and scarcity.   (Ditto for magic items).


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 30, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> Most of the time the game stayed afloat because I, as DM, put so much effort into breaching the gap for the players.




The DM always has the sell the system in a sense, but despite my liking of 4th ed, I agree that 4th ed did make this gap hard to sell for many people. Modularity and an acceptance of a wider range of play styles is something good to aim for (despite my misgivings about DDN)


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 30, 2012)

Raith5 said:


> Too early to tell really, but it looks much more like a regression that a synthesis.



This is now my biggest worry with D&D Next.


----------



## am181d (Jan 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> News about information that is ostensibly supposed to be confidential is often spread this way. Happens all the time in sports, entertainment, and politics. Sometimes it's advantageous for the body that's keeping the secret as it generates buzz. Frankly I don't see the incentive for WotC to keep their rules secret now that 5e has been announced.




I think the safe money is that 5e will debut at Gen Con next year. That's over a year away. In the meantime, they're saying they'll be doing some kind of massive playtest. So three good reasons are: (a) they want to control the roll-out of new concepts so that they're presented in the right context; (b) they don't want players to get pre-conceived notions about the rules before the playtests; and (c) they want to make sure they've got enough held back that they'll have enough to talk about through launch.


----------



## The Human Target (Jan 30, 2012)

Its way too early to get a good read on it, even after DDXP (which gave us a lot of ideas but very little actual meat.)

But I'm feeling meh right now.

A lot of people thought 4E threw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm starting to feel like 5E will drown the baby in the rush to put the dirty water back in the tub.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 30, 2012)

am181d said:


> I think the safe money is that 5e will debut at Gen Con next year. That's over a year away. In the meantime, they're saying they'll be doing some kind of massive playtest. So three good reasons are: (a) they want to control the roll-out of new concepts so that they're presented in the right context; (b) they don't want players to get pre-conceived notions about the rules before the playtests; and (c) they want to make sure they've got enough held back that they'll have enough to talk about through launch.




Yep.

As I've mentioned before, broken NDAs can have very negative effects on how a game is received. PR control is important - that's why they DO it. One major thing is that many major games, while being designed, had a bunch of experimental features that were discarded or changed. The anticipation for or dread of these features will drive consumer expectations, and people will either be disappointed that a feature is not included or is changed, or will treat the beta as the release and not purchase the game because of a feature that never actually showed up.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jan 30, 2012)

The 1e side of me is really encouraged,  the 4e side...

No Coffee! - YouTube


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 30, 2012)

The Human Target said:


> I'm starting to feel like 5E will drown the baby in the rush to put the dirty water back in the tub.




As [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] says this is great analogy. I just hope we clearly remember the problems of pre 4th edition D&D when we are constructing this edition. We need to be critical of 4th ed and previous editions to develop an interesting game that suits a wide range of play styles. Nostalgia alone will not develop a game worth playing.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it, but is this a surprise? The AEDU power system alone is a non-starter for a large portion of the gaming community. Given the stated goal of 5e to appeal to D&D players past, present, and future, they'd be crazy to build off of divisive concepts like that. It seems to me that their at-will feats for mages are an attempt to appeal to the 4e crowd, and there are plenty of other such attempts in there. It looks like there will be plenty of options for 4e flavor, but that they'll take the core assumptions of the game back to what they were in other editions.
> 
> Frankly, it's a lot easier to build a 4e character off of the 3e spine than vice versa (Bo9S, reserve feats, etc.). As to the larger systemic changes, if you're counting on a D&D without spell slots or saving throws or where characters have triple hit points at level 1, I suspect you'll be disappointed. Hopefully when all is said and done you'll be able to create the play experience you want with the 5e rules; I think you may be pleasantly surprised, but only time will tell.
> 
> News about information that is ostensibly supposed to be confidential is often spread this way. Happens all the time in sports, entertainment, and politics. Sometimes it's advantageous for the body that's keeping the secret as it generates buzz. Frankly I don't see the incentive for WotC to keep their rules secret now that 5e has been announced.



I think you completely misunderstand the kind of game I'd like to play and have thrown it more than a little hyperbole. The thing is, the issues 4E was designed to address were real issues... the developers didn't just make changes at random.

I'm not interested in playing Fantasy Vietnam. I'm not interested in classes that can only be their archetype a few times a day. I'm not interested in 15 minutes of fun in five hours of play. I'm not interested in dedicated healbots. The list goes on and on... 

But the important thing is: if nothing is learned in this edition, you'll get to hear all these complaints all over again, because we'll be going back to a system that had some fundamental design issues. I hope that doesn't happen, but I'd say you'll know a lot more about these complaints since they'll be just as loud in the next edition. As they were back a few years ago.

I HOPE they can address these issues, I have FAITH in most of the design team, and I'd LOVE to keep playing D&D and to see it thrive. If having it thrive means it's a game I have no interest in playing, that will make me sad, but there are a lot of great games out there. I can move on and happy gaming to everyone.

What I am going to do, however, is playtest, and report my results regularly. Will they be listened to? Will anybody care? Hopefully yes!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 30, 2012)

Started a poll like this over at RPGNet, be interesting to see how the results compare


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 30, 2012)

I've seen a few ideas I like (or have already been incorporating on my own in my 4E designs...), but I also see a lot of stuff that I don't like. There's a very strong chance that 5E will simply not be for me, but there's a half a chance that they'll release setting-neutral books, which may draw my interest anyway. A major issue for me is that this is all PR about an unfinished game from some folks who have a long history of ineffective communication. As such, I won't draw any real conclusions from anything that isn't in ink in the book store. So, a solid meh. I'll do my best to fight for the ideas I think will be good for the game, whether or not I play it, regardless.


----------



## Destil (Jan 30, 2012)

The thing that worries me now is feats. Feats are going to fix every and any problem and be used to do everything, from what we're seeing.

The vast number and quality of feats in both 3E and 4E was a serious problem for me, and a system dedicated to churning even more of them out worries me...


----------



## Keeblrkid (Jan 30, 2012)

How? How did you get any of that? They didn't say any of those things. Not one of those things.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 30, 2012)

The Human Target said:


> I'm starting to feel like 5E will drown the baby in the rush to put the dirty water back in the tub.




I am seeing a lot of feat taxes just for my characters to buy back the Fourth edition Powers which they will lose.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm at an optimistic meh.

It was disconcerting to learn that they are planning to offer multiple options for most things, but then they decide to shoot for 3E-style multiclassing. Where is the AD&D or 4E Hybrid style support. I noticed a few other points where all-inclusiveness is oddly ignored for design decisions they seem already set on. I'm still optimistic that playtesting can change their attitude towards this.


----------



## Pour (Jan 30, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> I am seeing a lot of feat taxes just for my characters to buy back the Fourth edition Powers which they will lose.




I voted meh cause I don't want to be a total hater, but I feel no real connection to 5e as its presented or described just now. I understand it's alpha, but even the core absolutism, if you will, feel more like what I was thinking would be modular options. Vancian core? Nine alignments core? Great Wheel core? I'll put in my honest reactions during the playtesting period, but as a 4ther, I feel my voice will be the least regarded from the get go. The direction seems, as someone put, regressive and disconnected from the design principles and strengths of 4e. It feels like the next phase of 3e, informed by editions earlier still. To me that's the road to the same problems which burned me out with those previous iterations of D&D.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 30, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> I am seeing a lot of feat taxes just for my characters to buy back the Fourth edition Powers which they will lose.



Even if that's true, keep in mind that many if not most 1-3 edition characters could not be adequately represented by the 4e rules at all. Certainly none of the characters I've ever made. Needing to add in a few extra bonus feats isn't that big of a deal by comparison.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 30, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Even if that's true, keep in mind that many if not most 1-3 edition characters could not be adequately represented by the 4e rules at all. Certainly none of the characters I've ever made. Needing to add in a few extra bonus feats isn't that big of a deal by comparison.




While I do worry about feat taxes to play the PC I want, this is a really fair point.

I guess my counterpoint is that my appreciation of 4th ed is a mainly pragmatic one: it learnt from and addressed the core problems with 3rd ed and its predecessors. 

So I hope this issue is not emblematic of a game that has the problems I faced with D&D in the past: the possibility of short adventuring days, static fights, uninteresting fighters, too powerful wizards, a narrow sweet spot/stuffed high level play, long DM prep time, etc.

If 5th ed avoids these problems - I will pay the feat with pleasure!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 30, 2012)

Add me to the list of people with seriously mixed feelings on this matter...

A bit too much of the game seems to be a somewhat over-zealous pursuit of fitting in everything from older editions, regardless of how well it will actually serve the game as a whole. It feels like nostalgia is getting more credit that the fundamentals of game design. Lots of comments, like references to rolling 3d6 being the default or bringing back the Great Wheel, almost gives the impression that the designers want everyone to play the game _the designer's way_, rather than actually embracing what other kinds of players want from the game. It is enough to make me a bit worried.

All that said, there is still a lot in there that makes me hopeful. They are doing some new stuff with the skill system and themes that seems interesting. I'm glad they finally moved over to the silver standard. Talk about removing the assumption magic items makes me hope against hope that they will actually remove +X items from the game. There are a lot of little things in there that really do sound good and fun.

Overall, they've got a long way to go to convince me to buy the game, but I am curious enough that I _really_ want to join the playtesting and see if they will listen to my feedback.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 30, 2012)

I was a "cautious yay" up until the last seminar. After that, definitively in the "ick" camp.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 30, 2012)

Potentially Good
Priest separate from Cleric
Racial Ability score Penalties
Mortal Limits on Ability Scores
Nobody starts with Plate Armor
Silver Standard
Themes
Weapon Groups
Weapon Damage Types
Ability scores as Saves

Bad 
Rolling Ability scores as the default
Going back to the Great Wheel
3e multi-classing if there are no restrictions (e.g., access to a trainer, training time)

Potential Deal Breaker
Too much importance on ability scores
Skills


----------



## gyor (Jan 30, 2012)

Thier maybe a alternet build that allows you to trade spell slots/dailies for atwills and maybe encounters of some sort. It'd be as simple as trading some slots for feats. We really don't know how customizable beyond spell selection wizards will be. In fact maybe just as in 3x the wizard gets bonus feats that can be spent for at will or other wizard feats like metamagic or who knows what else.

 Also sorcesors and warlocks maybe more inherantly designed with 4e players in mind. Same with Warlords and Assassins and even Barbarians.

The only things I didn't like was the idea no plate mail at the start, it ain't a paladin without,plate, and I dislike negative racial mods, but I feel confedant that these ideas will be universally hated enough to dump.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 30, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> Lots of comments, like references to rolling 3d6 being the default or bringing back the Great Wheel, almost gives the impression that the designers want everyone to play the game _the designer's way_, rather than actually embracing what other kinds of players want from the game. It is enough to make me a bit worried.



This. The latest seminar leaves me incredibly skeptical of their self-professed "inclusiveness" of all editions and play styles, and is starting to feel more about what these particular designers want rather than what D&D Gamers Universal want.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm looking forward to it, so far. I especially like that they are thinking of going to the silver standard, but given their desire to go for the 'feel' of D&D, I'm doubtful that it'll really fly.    Of course there will be things about it that I won't like, but what else is new?

But then, the odds are that I won't get to play it anyway, so I can afford to be optimistic.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm more confused than anything. So far, I am having trouble piecing together the overall design plan for the game. None of the elements they have described seem to be pointing in quite the same direction as the rest. i know that this is typical of trying to get an idea about a game based on small tidbits without context, but it is frustrating.

I don't think I will have a solid opinion of D&D Next until I see a more complete version of the rules. As it is, some things are encouraging, some things are troubling, and I can't tell which tidbits are indicative of the final product.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 30, 2012)

Hmmh, i actually would like to see the playtest rules... it would  be very helpful to make educated guesses how it will play.

I believe the confusion about what the designers want is that they try to include everything, but need to distill a core. The playtest will help to doublecheck that they made the right decisions what belongs where...
right now they are doing what they think it is best obviously... they are full time designers. They are paid to do such stuff... They can´t start in march with:
"Ok folks: design our game!"
THAT would be terrible.

Cautiously optimistic here. Things they discussed hint to me that they are on a good track. Attack and defense rolls is nothing i look forward to too much... hope this will change.
I am not sure about silver standard... some things should cost gold and be unaffordable for most people. But meals and drinks and Inn stays and animals should generally be reduced somewhat in cost.

Magic items should not be priced at all!


----------



## Ratinyourwalls (Jan 30, 2012)

There are one or two things I'm interested in. The rest don't pique my interest at best or actively repulse me at worst. I chose "meh"


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Jan 30, 2012)

_With apologies to the Pointer Sisters..._



Tonight's the night we're gonna make it happen
Tonight we'll put all other things aside
Get your dice and show me your edition
We're going' for those playtests in the night
I want to read you, play you
Create characters with you
I want to try your rules out
I just can't get enough
And if you give me dice
I'll make some rolls



I'm so excited and I just can't hide it
I'm about to lose control and I think I like it
I'm so excited and I just can't hide it
And I know, I know, I know, I know
I know I want you


----------



## Primal (Jan 30, 2012)

Ed_Laprade said:


> I'm looking forward to it, so far. I especially like that they are thinking of going to the silver standard, but given their desire to go for the 'feel' of D&D, I'm doubtful that it'll really fly.    Of course there will be things about it that I won't like, but what else is new?




I'm also interested in seeing how they make silver standard work (and whatever they're going to do, I hope they'll get rid of astral diamonds and tone down the economy). Someone (can't remember who) suggested a couple of years ago on these boards that D&D economy should be based on Tiers instead of PCs finding (and keeping track of) ever larger numbers of SP and GP; for example, a Heroic character can buy most mundane equipment, while a Paragon PC could buy castles and equip followers. I really liked that suggestion, and hope WoTC would use a similar model instead...


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jan 30, 2012)

No Skills as part of the core? Seriously? We're regressing the game back to the 70s? If there's anything I don't want DnD to go back to, it's the era where the game was so basic and incomplete that the DM had to wing everything.

I have to pay feats just to get any at-will spells for my wizard?

Speaking of feats, it's sounding like they're using feats as a cop-out way of taxing players to get many of the basic features we've come to take for granted.

And what's this about 5d6 fireballs, and having to pay higher level spell slots to do more damage (think 3e psionics, ugh). Not even an Int bonus or implement bonus to the damage?

And we're still going to have rituals and they're still going to cost money, like in 4e? ....

I'm trying to remain cautiously optimistic, even neutral, and I realise nothing is set in stone yet and there's still alot we don't know, but what I'm hearing has me turning pessimistic very quickly.


----------



## Ferrous (Jan 30, 2012)

I voted yay but I do have some cause for concern. The ability to leverage an ability score into play as a save or what ever due to role-playing is open to abuse. I also think that great list of available classes are both clunky and don't address many viable archetypes whilst adding complexity and cost. It is poor design.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jan 30, 2012)

Ferrous said:


> I voted yay but I do have some cause for concern. The ability to leverage an ability score into play as a save or what ever due to role-playing is open to abuse.




Yeah, I'm worried about this as well. It seems to me like this will lead to endless arguing and whining at the DM. It could also encourage min-maxing, since players could convince the DM to let them use their main stats on rolls that should require them to use their dump stat. 

They should make a clear and absolute ruling on what each ability score can be used for, for both the sake of clarity and the sanity of DM's everywhere.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 30, 2012)

If I was let's say 30% in with 5e before the seminars, now I'm more like 70% in.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 30, 2012)

Unity, as I understand it, implied there would be compromise on all 3 sides (4e, 3e, AD&D). I get that.

But while I remain optimistic, it does feel like the designers are scrapping just about everything from the last 12 years of progress except for the concept of feats and multi-classing.

Still, I know we're all blind men and an elephant at this point so I'm reserving judgment until the playtest.


----------



## Charleois (Jan 30, 2012)

Feeling like I may as well stick with 4e. I will play 5e in someone else's game, but I probably won't buy anything. Mind you, I will subscribe until they shut down the 4e CB.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jan 30, 2012)

I think advertising this edition as a unity edition that is supposed to be the miracle edition that is for everyone was a mistake. I think it will make people focus more on what they're losing compared to their favorite past edition rather than what is being gained. 5e should stand or fall on its own merits, as its own game. Whether it borrows from past editions or not, I think that touting it as a "unity" edition only encourages more edition wars and brings back alot of baggage from the past.


----------



## MortalPlague (Jan 30, 2012)

Reading the D&DXP reports made me giddy with excitement.  Reading this thread made me sad.

The _silver standard_ is something I've _long_ hoped for in D&D.  In every previous edition, copper pieces were worthless right from the start.  Who bothered to count copper pieces past level two?  Silver pieces too!  Gold pieces became pretty much worthless in bunches less than a hundred by fifth level.  With silver as the default, copper stays relevant for a while, silver is important for longer, and gold is something to be _sought_.  Gold is something to _fight_ for.

I'm playing in a game currently where we shifted down to a silver economy (also changed values; 100 copper to a silver, 100 silver to a gold).  Our characters just acquired their first gold pieces at 4th level, and it was a moment to be cherished.

I'm also very excited about the prospect of themes flavoring classes.  They mentioned that a class like Avenger might come about by a Paladin taking the 'Avenger theme'.  But what's to stop a wizard from taking that theme?  Perhaps this wizard has been hired on by the church to hunt down heretics?  Perhaps a rogue takes the theme, and he's a specially trained assassin for the church?  Using themes to flavor classes would be a great way to open up all kinds of character options.

Finally, I think they're really onto something with their skill system.  It seems so simple; instead of calling for a 'thievery' or 'sleight of hand' check, you'd ask for a DEX check.  Great, simplicity itself.  Perhaps one of the characters is a rogue?  On his sheet, there's a note: +2 when picking pockets.  Or perhaps +2 when stealing.  I love the idea that it can be something flexible; something broad, or something narrow.  To me, this seems like simplicity itself.

As a DM, I could also reward players using that system.  For instance, if a fighter helps out the local blacksmith with forging a sword, I could give the fighter a bonus on future checks involving blacksmithing.  Or if a wizard spends time poring through a tome about ancient languages, he could earn a bonus to checks to decipher ancient languages.  The potential to be flexible is extremely enticing.

So put me down as a hearty, excited 'yay'.


----------



## delericho (Jan 30, 2012)

DDXP seems to have done a really good job of un-selling me on the new edition. I'm trying really hard to keep an open mind, but... They need to get that playtest up and going ASAP!

I think part of the problem is that I have a number of pretty strong ideas for how D&D should look. And what made me enthusiastic about 5e was less the new edition itself, but rather that it reopened all of those discussions, which was cool and exciting. But as they start locking things down, it becomes apparent that they've gone in different directions, some of which will inevitably not match up.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 30, 2012)

They had me at 'electrum piece'.

And can we stop drowning babies? It was bad enough during the last Edition War when childhoods were raped, but this is a figure of speech that could be easily replaced with something more tasteful. 

Like "molested my weasel" or something.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jan 30, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> The _silver standard_ is something I've _long_ hoped for in D&D.




I like this as well. The news that magic items are no longer going to be an assumed part of the game's math also makes me pleased.



MortalPlague said:


> I'm also very excited about the prospect of themes flavoring classes.




I am very interested to see how this turns out as well. I am hoping it is like 2nd edition kits, but better. I hope that  the warlord is one of these rather than a class.



MortalPlague said:


> Finally, I think they're really onto something with their skill system.  It seems so simple; instead of calling for a 'thievery' or 'sleight of hand' check, you'd ask for a DEX check.  Great, simplicity itself.  Perhaps one of the characters is a rogue?  On his sheet, there's a note: +2 when picking pockets.  Or perhaps +2 when stealing.  I love the idea that it can be something flexible; something broad, or something narrow.  To me, this seems like simplicity itself.




On one hand, I like that ability scores are going to be more meaningful, and levels alot less. I've wanted to see that change for a long, long time. On the other hand, this is just too basic for me. I'm fine with having this as an option for people who want to keep their games simple, but it's far too simplistic for my tastes.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 30, 2012)

MortalPlague said:


> On his sheet, there's a note: +2 when picking pockets.  Or perhaps +2 when stealing.  I love the idea that it can be something flexible; something broad, or something narrow.  To me, this seems like simplicity itself.



Except that at 20th level, the list may look like this:

+2 when stealing
+2 when hiding
+2 when in urban areas
+2 when escaping bonds
+2 when climbing masonry walls
+2 to all checks when the target is unaware
+2 against bugbears
+2 against poison
+2 against shadow magic
+2 with dagger of ultimate doom
+2 if the moon is full (favor of the Moon Goddess)

Add to that beneficial magic boosts, bardic songs, circumstance modifiers... the bajillion little bonuses are impossible to add up in actual play.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm still excited as the playtesting comments have been pretty positive. Although some of the seminar stuff has been a little off for me.

4e will still be around and possibly supported so that's my backup. I'm pretty positive about the whole thing. Still excited. 

"How will it end??"


----------



## Number48 (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm a little dizzy from turning around so much. Before XP, I was really gung-ho. Couldn't be more excited. Then after the first seminar I was so disappointed it threw me into a bad funk, I felt devastated. Now, after getting much more information from the latest seminar, I am back to feeling cautiously optimistic.

Themes? Well, I was voting for a breakdown to combat class + noncombat class + theme, so this could definitely be the right way forward. I just want the theme to be of the same importance as race and class.

My biggest concern was that 5E be a new edition. The first seminar left the impression that we were putting new tires on and a new stereo into 1E. That isn't worth a couple hundred bucks to me. But the new concepts with theme and open-ended skills have me intrigued. Very excited by a possibility of a D&D where your character needs all 6 ability scores no matter race, class and theme. That makes racial ability bonuses and whatnot not so limiting in regards to choices.

They really got to get a handle on these skills and saves, though. Open-ended and suited to the story is great, but ridiculously open-ended and subject to abuse is awful. I've played with people (none currently) that would be able to twist everything in such a way as to almost always use one ability score, which goes straight back to the problem of dump stats and makes it worse. I don't think they have it in there yet, but maybe they can suggest that skills and saves are usually associated with X, but a character with a good story/roleplaying reason can use Y, but can't change the roll more than, say, 3 times a session.

Open-ended skills that still require a roll but the DM can give _advantage_ to good roleplaying? Good concept but dangerous ground. We can't marginalize shy people, or even the "spouse" player. In my game there are 3 married couples and another guy and 2 of the players are only kinda there. I would hate to penalize their actions. Still, handled the right way and I'm all behind it.


----------



## Number48 (Jan 30, 2012)

Sammael said:


> Except that at 20th level, the list may look like this:
> 
> +2 when stealing
> +2 when hiding
> ...




Yes, but they addressed that. You simply wouldn't roll. If you are that good at something compared to the relative difficulty, you simply succeed. I think that's a WONDERFUL innovation for people who want to specialize in something other than murder. After all, if I'm the top thief in the world at 20th level, I should expect to not to have to roll unless doing something truly outrageous which would be impossible to attempt a roll for a lesser thief.


----------



## Aegeri (Jan 30, 2012)

Can't say I am that happy with what I am reading about 5E in the slightest. Just hope it doesn't turn out to be a bunch of stuff cobbled together, without a solid design direction out of a need to "please" everyone. Definitely unhappy about how Wizards has handled 4E over the past few years and how this is going. Probably not going to buy anything from Wizards again unless this is exceptional.


----------



## avin (Jan 30, 2012)

Keefe the Thief said:


> And can we stop drowning babies? (...) this is a figure of speech that could be easily replaced with something more tasteful.
> 
> Like "molested my weasel" or something.




Poor mammal...


----------



## Sammael (Jan 30, 2012)

Number48 said:


> Yes, but they addressed that. You simply wouldn't roll. If you are that good at something compared to the relative difficulty, you simply succeed. I think that's a WONDERFUL innovation for people who want to specialize in something other than murder. After all, if I'm the top thief in the world at 20th level, I should expect to not to have to roll unless doing something truly outrageous which would be impossible to attempt a roll for a lesser thief.



Preamble: I don't mind skipping rolls - both in combat and out of combat - when it makes sense.

However... who decides what's outrageous? You? The DM? The whole party? 

What if you're not a level 20 thief, but a level 10 thief/level 10 wizard? Should you be able to do the same outrageous stuff as the level 20 thief? Half as outrageous?

Without a more solid skill system, the whole thing is way too arbitrary for my taste. The apprentice/journeyman/expert/master system proposed in L&L a few months ago made a whole lot more sense.


----------



## Yora (Jan 30, 2012)

Some unexpected things, like six saving throws, and some potentially unfortunate, like vancian casting for wizards and clerics (but if we get other variants for them, that's fine), but overall, it's looking quite good.


----------



## Number48 (Jan 30, 2012)

Sammael said:


> Preamble: I don't mind skipping rolls - both in combat and out of combat - when it makes sense.
> 
> However... who decides what's outrageous? You? The DM? The whole party?
> 
> ...




Yeah, that IS pretty much the system, I think. They didn't out and out say it, but it seems heavily implied.


----------



## avin (Jan 30, 2012)

We know that the basic system will be skill-less.

We don't know if there will be an advanced game option with skills, or not.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 30, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> I thought the mechanics from the last seminar were terrible and stupid.  So you spend 5 minutes arguing with the DM that you should be able to use your Intelligence on every saving throw ever because you're a wizard, and unnamed  wizard magic has your back, while he's in the corner explaining the to the PCs that the orc strongmen use strength because they bathed in the Great Strength Fire...just like all his other high strength monsters.  You still get punished for playing an orc wizard.  You can seriously trade damage out for "I win" effects which bolster your social abilities too.  There is both an attack roll and defense roll, so if you hate long combats, go cry in the corner.  And the fact that you need to pick combat OR social skills OR exploration is terrible.  And I suspect the fighter is still the useless gimp he was in every non 4e edition.
> 
> I hope to be proven wrong.




I played the new D&D at D&D Experience. I'll admit, I was very skeptical but hopeful. Have 4E edition warriors sit down with 3E until I die grognards? Bring back some 1E guys and some kid brand new to RPGs? And we all play together, roleplayers and number crunchers whatever system edition we favor? Yeah right.

I won't talk about the mechanics at all, but I will say our DM smiled through most of the game and at one point he pretended to hand me the gold card out of his wallet based on some BS my character was slinging around. He'd played everything from 1E forward and he was pleased.

On the other hand, a twelve year old (with his Dad) mostly stuck to what his character sheet had. He did better than I did the whole game from a mechinal standpoint. Monte mentioned advantage in the seminar and as he mentioned a player can gain that. But the young guy didn't use that rule (that Monted discussed in the seminar) and he did great.

Monte quote:
What we've done now is we have this thing called "advantage" that a DM can hand out if the players set themselves up with a good description.


We never slowed down, we never argued, and the DM seemed relaxed and energized. We did need to stay engaged and pay attention since the game rolled along quickly based on the design of the adventure. I could see a DM being able to easily moderate the pace.

I've played every edition since AD&D including 4E. Even in rough playtest form, this version was the best. The fact was that I was able to play it with strangers, one from another country and another a kid, and we were all on the same team with some of us yelling out in character and others focusing on what the character could do. And we had a 4E guy that had played all the way to 30th level in his home campaign and another guy who left D&D because of 4E and they worked together well. That was priceless. You can't sell that kind of synergy. Well, you could, if I could pre-order D&D N.

I'd say, wait for the playtest docs before making a decision. Even in rough form, I'm convinced the playtest docs will let everyone make an informed decision. The playtest convinced me hands down that I can't wait to get a game going.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 30, 2012)

Sammael said:


> Except that at 20th level, the list may look like this:
> 
> +2 when stealing
> +2 when hiding
> ...



That would suck. There's a lot I love about 4e, but endless fiddly little modifiers to remember are not one of them.

Frankly, though, I think they're aware of this problem and I think they'll avoid it.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 30, 2012)

Sammael said:


> However... who decides what's outrageous? The DM?



Yes.  Isn't that his job?  To be judge, arbiter, and referee?  Does not the DM generally tell you when you have to roll for a skill?

You know, I've long scoffed at the "old school/new school" classifications, but somebody is going to have to explain to me if concept of DM has radically changed since the 80s.  It's the same thing with the ability score as saves -- people say its ripe for abuse.  Well, that's the DM's job, to adjudicate whether a particular interpretation is viable, based on the groups playstyle.  What is kosher for one group may be "abuse" to another.  But that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 30, 2012)

I posted this on rpg.net about the playtest and I think it matters quite a bit for this discussion as well.

I think what amazed me the most in the playtest is that they really did manage to pull in something from all editions, thus making it truly D&D All Editions but also make it a new, modern game that was actually fun to play. My character was the most 4E like but I saw all the editions in what was represented around the table and in the adventure itself. And with that, some of the new ideas mentioned by Wizards in the seminar.

I didn't expect new mechanics (as reported by Wizards in the seminar) and I didn't expect to like them if they showed up. The new mechanics mentioned in the seminar worked at the table in my opinion and I was actually glad to see them. I was surprised that what Wizards talked about in the seminar had never been in the game before.  

The weirdest thing was, I meant to really study the sheets, memorize things, try to see how things ticked just to satisfy my curiousity. But I ended up having so much fun I didn't care so much about all the individual rules. That surprised me, I expected a playtest to be a bit dull and unpolished. Instead, I got swept up and lost track of a few hours in a hobby I enjoy. I can't remember the last time that happened to me! 

That's why I think when the playtest docs come up people will be able to make an informed decision.


----------



## Bobbum Man (Jan 30, 2012)

Kravell said:


> I won't talk about the mechanics at all, but I will say our DM smiled through most of the game and at one point he pretended to hand me the gold card out of his wallet based on some BS my character was slinging around. He'd played everything from 1E forward and he was pleased.




NOBODY broke the NDA all weekend...and it's not like WotC has any way to really enforce it.

What the hell did they threaten you people with???


----------



## Yora (Jan 30, 2012)

avin said:


> We know that the basic system will be skill-less.
> 
> We don't know if there will be an advanced game option with skills, or not.



Yet based on their approach to use modular add-on rules, that is pretty much a given.


----------



## avin (Jan 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> What the hell did they threaten you people with???




I heard Wotc is sending pizzas until NDA is over.


----------



## Thalionalfirin (Jan 30, 2012)

Kravell said:


> I played the new D&D at D&D Experience. I'll admit, I was very skeptical but hopeful. Have 4E edition warriors sit down with 3E until I die grognards? Bring back some 1E guys and some kid brand new to RPGs? And we all play together, roleplayers and number crunchers whatever system edition we favor? Yeah right.
> 
> I won't talk about the mechanics at all, but I will say our DM smiled through most of the game and at one point he pretended to hand me the gold card out of his wallet based on some BS my character was slinging around. He'd played everything from 1E forward and he was pleased.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the great feedback!

Quick question... you said you liked this the best of all the editions you've played.  Previously, what was your favorite edition?


----------



## Thalionalfirin (Jan 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> NOBODY broke the NDA all weekend...and it's not like WotC has any way to really enforce it.
> 
> What the hell did they threaten you people with???





Sacrifice to the elder dice gods. probably.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> NOBODY broke the NDA all weekend...and it's not like WotC has any way to really enforce it.
> 
> What the hell did they threaten you people with???




They treated us like equals. Gentlemen and gentlewomen agreements work best with mutual respect on both sides I think.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 30, 2012)

Thalionalfirin said:


> Thanks for the great feedback!
> 
> Quick question... you said you liked this the best of all the editions you've played.  Previously, what was your favorite edition?




Well, until last Wed I would have said 3.0 (I had more fun with it than 3.5 even though 3.5 had a better design). Then I ran AD&D 1E again and that was a blast. But my 4E heroic level Lovecraft campaign was pretty great too. 

So, as of today it would be: D&D N, AD&D 1E, D&D 3.0, and then D&D 4E.


----------



## Mokona (Jan 30, 2012)

The stated program with *D&D* Next is to allow a robust discussion and player/DM input on the game design. The NDA from *D&D* Experience slightly implies that they aren't really as serious as they should be about crowdsourcing.

Defense rolls are a bad idea and go against 38 years of *D&D*'s success:
Keep It Simple, Stupid (K.I.S.S)

It takes a long time for players to generate feedback. Depending on when they want to release the rules, *Wizards of the Coast* needed to release the rules to the public already.

To quote a previous post, "I hate the 'waiting' with the passion of a million fiery suns".

The truth is that sales of 4e will suffer because 5e is on its way. That cannot be stopped. _Ghostwalk_ was right before v.3.5 released and it was the worst selling 3rd edition hardback ever released. I think it was a bad supplement but I don't think it was that bad. If there is any attempt to protect 4e sales by controlling the release of the 5e playtest it will fail and, additionally, bad feelings will build up.

I love *Wizard of the Coast*. I want to help them succeed, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and I will call out any decisions they make that I think will hurt them in the long run.

*D&D* 4th edition made *Dungeons & Dragons* a lot better. I'd like to keep, at a conceptual level, all of the improvements while fixing some of the problems. Feywild? Good. Uber-complex combat? Bad. At-will? Good. Epic? Bad. &c.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 30, 2012)

Mokona said:


> The truth is that sales of 4e will suffer because 5e is on its way. That cannot be stopped. _Ghostwalk_ was right before v.3.5 released and it was the worst selling 3rd edition hardback ever released. I think it was a bad supplement but I don't think it was that bad. If there is any attempt to protect 4e sales by controlling the release of the 5e playtest it will fail and, additionally, bad feelings will build up.
> 
> I love *Wizard of the Coast*. I want to help them succeed, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and I will call out any decisions they make that I think will hurt them in the long run.
> 
> ...




D&D Experience looked to be about half the size from the one I went to a couple years back. The hall looked about half size (the dividing wall was up and the time before it was open). Goodman Games was no longer there. The venders selling 4E had it on sale (1/2 price at one table). It could have been a real bummer for D&D players.

But the playtest gave the convention life it otherwise would have been hurting for. While 4E players enjoyed themselves at about two dozen tables, D&D N playtesters gathered around a dozen tables. It gave the convention a boost and brought some non-4E D&D gamers back to the game.

I think Wizards managed everything well. And rolling D&D Experience into Gen Con next year makes sense. Save Wizards a lot of money and really open things up to a bigger audience.


----------



## enrious (Jan 30, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Please do not encourage people to violate contracts made in good faith.




There's a fundamental flaw in your premise.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 30, 2012)

I put down "meh," but I'm an optimistic "meh."

Right now we're getting a lot of talk about the "feel" of the game.  Well, talk like that is useless.  There's something called the "mind projection fallacy" that everyone should be familiar with.  Its when you perceive your own feelings about something as if they were actually traits of the thing itself, instead of your own traits in relation to the thing.  For example, you might feel that beets "are gross," as if "are gross" was a trait of beets... but in reality "perceives beets as gross" is a trait of YOU, and the beet just has actual objective traits like chemical composition.

Well, I want less about how it "feels," which is just an attempt at influencing my emotions, and more about what the next edition IS.

What few meaty things I've heard have been a mixed bag.  There are some matters of game design where there are objective answers, and I'm not sure they've gotten the few we've heard about correct.  For example, rolling your stats is good design in a game with throwaway characters (it would be fine in Paranoia, for example), or in any game where rolling low stats gives you compensation in some other area of your character (you have crap stats, here's a ton of fancy equipment, or something similar).  But if neither of those are the case, and if the game is designed so that you hopefully run the same character for several years of gaming, then rolling for stats is just objectively bad game design.  There's a reason that no one I knew rolled for stats back in 3e- they "rolled" for stats, where "rolled" in quotation marks means rolling over and over until you and the DM agree that the outcome is fair.

Still, other things have been positive.  They claim that you no longer will just have a face character with a sky high bluff skill who does all the talking, and will instead send the person who's thematically appropriate for the job.  Well, that would be awesome if it works.  And apparently saving throws are more granular, which is probably for the best, although I hope that they're still 4e style duration checks and not earlier edition style defensive rolls.  Finally, we've got a constant insistence that things will be modular, and customizable.  Again, this is AWESOME if it works. But if it doesn't work it will just spread out the focus of the game until its an incoherent mess.  There's a lot to be said for doing a few things very well, instead of a great many things in a mediocre fashion.

I guess what I really want to hear right now is this: What are the BIG IDEAS of 5e?  In 3e it was the standardization of math, the OGL, and the idea that character levels could work like legos you could mix and match.  In 4e it was the mainstreaming of a tactical combat style that had been growing in popularity in 3e, an effort at stopping rulebooks from being 80% spellcaster materials, and an effort at standardizing mechanics while maintaining flavor through the use of style guides instead of mechanical subsystems.  Regardless of what you think of these goals, the games had them, and I think that's admirable.  Necessary, even.  So what are the big goals of 5e?  I guess I'll have to wait and see.

Honestly, I'm probably focusing too much on minor issues, and I'm probably doing it because so little meat has actually been released.  Instead, we're just seeing a bunch of marketing material aimed at people who didn't like 4e because it didn't "feel" right to them.  Which is fair.  Everyone gets marketed to.  But I DID like 4e, so all this talk about the "feel" of the game seems just as amorphous and vague and self-oriented as it did half a decade ago.  I want meat.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 30, 2012)

So far, I'm in the "meh" camp. I didn't read anything that jumped out to me, but I certainly didn't read anything to make me groan. Still in a holding pattern.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm pretty firmly in the "meh" column right now.  Partly that's because 4E still feels fresh to me.  I've got a lot of 4E left to play, and I'm not interested in changing things up right now.   Maybe I'll feel differently in a year or so when the next iteration drops. 

But I'm leery of six "saving throws".  I'm not keen on a skill system that boils down to "make a dex check."  I don't much care for opposed rolls as the basis for a combat system.  I'd rather see feats de-emphasized instead of emphasized.  I'd just as soon see the Great Wheel remained lost in the mists of history.  And rather than letting them die in a fire, I'd like to see Skill Challenges tweaked and presented in a more playable way.

As to the modular nature of the new game.  What's WotC's business model?  If I want a more robust skill system, do I have to pay extra for the  Robust Skill System Rulebook?  If I want to use a battlemat for combat, will the rules be available at launch or will I need to wait six months for the Grid-Based Combat Rulebook?  

As to 5E being the edition that heals all wounds and brings everybody together in peace and love?  I hope so, and Im cheered that somebody's who has played the game thinks it can happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm cautiously positive so far.  I'm pleasantly surprised by how much I guessed right in the early discussions after the first announcement, and even more surprised by the distribution--the things on the list I totally missed are not the ones I would have predicted as likely!  

One thing that hasn't changed is that I'm sure the group hardest hit, and most annoyed by this editon will be those that want an "official" version, that think everyone will then play the same game, that dream of having more players to pick from if we could all, somehow, enforce a way.  This may very well be the "unity" edition, but if so, it will be because play at individual tables will be more diverse than ever before.

It also appears that Monte's inclination to put more power and responsibility back into the hands of the DM (somewhat of a reaction to 3E and later), is in full force.  This also adds to diversity at the table from a common, flexible edition.  

That parts gets a big thumbs up from me.  Every edition destroys some illusions about D&D.  This illusion is long past its shelf date.


----------



## Number48 (Jan 30, 2012)

The thing that makes me really nervous about playtests is the fact that I intend to have a campaign that lasts years and playtests are very small game. What seems like innovation at a playtest can quickly become old hat in the long run. I understand that WotC employees are going to be running campaigns, but is it a large enough sample size?

I hold out hope, though. Some of the comments really have me puzzled, BTW. Many people want the Great Wheel to go away. How hard is that? It scarcely seems worth mentioning. Don't want it? Okay, don't. Done. No harder than saying there's no elves in your game.

I'm also _really_ starting to feel that this board and the Wizards board has an almost unacceptable bias towards 4E. I'm sure that most people like me, when they tried 4E and it just wasn't right, also started leaving the online forums for D&D. I'm really thinking that people who play Pathfinder and the general gamer who isn't passionate enough to be online everyday discussing are probably going to either love or at least accept 5E.


----------



## Bobbum Man (Jan 30, 2012)

Kravell said:


> They treated us like equals. Gentlemen and gentlewomen agreements work best with mutual respect on both sides I think.




I suppose that makes sense, since those of us taking part uin the playtest will have a hand in development of the game alongside the designers.

I would ask this one, nonspecific question though...during the playtest, were the mechanics front and center, or did they fade into the background during the action. That is to say, was the gameplay more decriptive or more metagame-y, in your estimation?


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> I suppose that makes sense, since those of us taking part uin the playtest will have a hand in development of the game alongside the designers.
> 
> I would ask this one, nonspecific question though...during the playtest, were the mechanics front and center, or did they fade into the background during the action. That is to say, was the gameplay more decriptive or more metagame-y, in your estimation?




Completely personal opinion is that you could turn focusing on your character sheet on and off during the game. If you wanted to do something cool you could either describe it or you could hunt for something to match it on your sheet. If you couldn't find it, you could still describe it and the DM could help you. This bit of rules legerdemain was what most impressed me and has to be experienced to be believed.

The DM couldn't show us his rules but he seemed confident in responding and it seemed consistant (standard procedure seemed to exist to show the DM how to handle a player saying, "I want to do X, what do I do?").

Put another way, 4E tried to provide this advice to the DM with that table of difficulty classes and scaling damages by level. Ironically, this info was on a clunky table and perhaps not surprisingly many DMs didn't use it or even know about it. Seminar on skills touched on the new version of the 4E rule I believe.

The way the DM ran it this time seemed like that classic 4E idea distilled from a clunky table into elegant modern mechanics. However, all personal opinion on my part as the DM did not let us see the rules he used (he respected his NDA as well).


----------



## paladinm (Jan 30, 2012)

I think from what I've read, I'm encouraged about going back to a more old-school "feel" (which kind of started in Essentials).  While I like having a common XP/advancement chart, I do feel that the level/power pegging in 4e was overkill.  I think that it's good that they're reworking feats, and that there will hopefully be less of them.  I also like the idea of "themes" as opposed to separate classes for most things.  IMHO, classes should involve actual powers/abilities, not "purpose".  Avenger is a good theme for divine classes; Warlord could be a good theme for fighters.

A thought about the "Great Wheel".. I approve of the nine alignment system of v.1-3x, but I don't see that this has to dictate cosmology.  In all the mythologies, there were deities of differing alignment that coexisted in the same "realm".  Asgard included Loki.  Olympus included Ares.  I would like to see the nine alignments restored, but leave cosmology up to the game setting.


----------



## gyor (Jan 30, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> This. The latest seminar leaves me incredibly skeptical of their self-professed "inclusiveness" of all editions and play styles, and is starting to feel more about what these particular designers want rather than what D&D Gamers Universal want.




They're just floating some ideas around like the great wheel, which really has been the default cosmology for most of the editions, with 4e being the outlier again.

In fact 4e is so different from previous editions that its the hardest to include in the mix, but I do believe they're trying.


----------



## Starglyte (Jan 30, 2012)

Meh, but slightly positive. Going to wait for some transcripts from playtesting or the open playtest itself. Still got a whole year before even we will see the game sold, so no rush.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 30, 2012)

gyor said:


> They're just floating some ideas around like the great wheel, which really has been the default cosmology for most of the editions, with 4e being the outlier again.




If you count 2E and 3E as "most", maybe.  The great wheel was so tacked on and under construction in 1E, that it was hardly the "default" then.  And it certainly wasn't in Basic or earlier.  This is one way in which 4E returned to the roots of the game--the Great Wheel was something that *could* work, but was not assumed.  You were expected to make up some of the cosmology yourself and/or adapt it to your purposes.  The problem with the Great Wheel as the default is the same problem as 2E alignments--too many little fingers in too many spots to easily change.  (And those two being that kind of problem are not unrelated, either.)


----------



## gyor (Jan 30, 2012)

4e had its own assumed cosmology with the shadowfell, elemental chaos, Astral Sea, and feywild. I'm bettering the do keep elements of the 4e's cosmology, such as the feywild and shadowfell, maybe even the elemental chaos, making a blend of the great wheel and the 4everse.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 30, 2012)

So far, I'm in the yay! camp. I like most of what I've read and I agree with what seem to be the guiding principles behind this edition. I'm not sure that they can pull off everything that they are promising, but I'm optimistic.

One thing that I haven't appreciated is the idea that a character must make trade-offs between combat capabilities and non-combat capabilities. I would prefer a paradigm in which you can, in general, have characters that are equally viable for all three "pillars" (combat, exploration, social interaction).

Another potential issue is that of multi-classing. 3e style is very flexible, but extremely hard to balance. I would also like to have some option for AD&D style or 4e hybridization.


----------



## Osgood (Jan 30, 2012)

My group and I made the trip to DDXP for the play test.  We were all pretty excited to see what was in the works.  We were even more excited when our DM was Monte Cook.  

Sadly, even with an awesome DM, when we left the enthusiasm for D&D Next had bottomed out.  While there were a few things some of us liked, our overall impression was very negative.  

Obliviously this is a very early draft of the game.  It was also the base version with no modules added on.  I hope things will change by the time this gets released, but the core of the game didn't do it for me.  Speaking as a fan of 4E who also loved each edition of D&D more than the previous one, as it stands now D&D Next was not a game I would really want to play again.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 30, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> NOBODY broke the NDA all weekend...and it's not like WotC has any way to really enforce it.
> 
> What the hell did they threaten you people with???




Maybe they actually did say they come to your house and burn all your old books....


----------



## Agamon (Jan 30, 2012)

Kravell said:


> Completely personal opinion is that you could turn focusing on your character sheet on and off during the game. If you wanted to do something cool you could either describe it or you could hunt for something to match it on your sheet. If you couldn't find it, you could still describe it and the DM could help you. This bit of rules legerdemain was what most impressed me and has to be experienced to be believed.
> 
> The DM couldn't show us his rules but he seemed confident in responding and it seemed consistant (standard procedure seemed to exist to show the DM how to handle a player saying, "I want to do X, what do I do?").
> 
> ...




This is the best news so far, IMO.  This idea in 4e was awesome, the execution, no so much.  Can't wait to check this out in the coming months....


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 30, 2012)

SteveC said:


> I think this is a good reason for people who didn't like 4E to be excited: it seems like the things I'm really positive about in 4E are going away, and we're going back to the way things used to be.




I ran 4e for a long time, long enough to get tired of it and never want to go back.  But i wouldn't want to go back to 3.5 either, i'd like to see the game evolve into something new.  So yes, i'm excited. But...i get this vibe too, i don't think DnD Next is going to appeal to 4e lovers nearly as much as other groups. That said, give it a year and some crunchy supplements, and it probably will resemble 4e very closely for those that want to recreate tactical grid combat.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 30, 2012)

gyor said:


> They're just floating some ideas around like the great wheel, which really has been the default cosmology for most of the editions, with 4e being the outlier again.




Question in seminar: What would you like to see from older editions of D&D?

Rob: The Great Wheel would be cool

Internet: Oh noes, the great wheel is going to be core in 5e!!!

Me: Zuh?


----------



## avin (Jan 30, 2012)

Number48 said:


> I'm also _really_ starting to feel that this board and the Wizards board has an almost unacceptable bias towards 4E.




What? I find the opposite and have no dog on this race 



gyor said:


> In fact 4e is so different from previous editions that its the hardest to include in the mix, but I do believe they're trying.




In fact, it's a pretty easy mix. I've done it in my 4E Planescape games.

- Faerie (Feywild) and Shadoe as paralel? No problem on Great Wheel.
- Elemental Chaos changed to a place where all Elemental Planes intersect.
- Ethereal Plane back.
- Astral Plane doesn't have dominions, but roads to other planes.
- A few adjusts and it's done.

If Wizards wants to contact me (charge free) I'll send my notes 



gyor said:


> making a blend of the great wheel and the 4everse.




Probably.

But, please, they need to stop with 4E's idea of World Creation where everything is explained as Gods vs Primordials and everything exists because of it. 4E killed divine mystery.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 30, 2012)

Number48 said:


> I'm also _really_ starting to feel that this board and the Wizards board has an almost unacceptable bias towards 4E. I'm sure that most people like me, when they tried 4E and it just wasn't right, also started leaving the online forums for D&D. I'm really thinking that people who play Pathfinder and the general gamer who isn't passionate enough to be online everyday discussing are probably going to either love or at least accept 5E.



I get the exact opposite vibes from this board.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 30, 2012)

Meh. If I wanted to do what I'm seeing, I'd just pick up C&C or something else heralded as "old school". Which I don't.

Yes, I'm aware that there will be modules to change it, but let's put it this way: if you have to put a whole lot of fixings on a hamburger just to make it taste good, then that's not really a good burger.

I like some of their stated design goals, but not a whole lot of what I'm seeing. So while I'll wait and see, I'm restocking my bunker for the Next Great Edition War.


----------



## Mengu (Jan 30, 2012)

I'll start with the caveat, my words will be harsh, but I understand they are in the early stages of development, and many things can change.

My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves (or in my case, a cardboard box in the crawl space). Its pages are a bit yellower from age, and I might have some difficulty finding my bundle of house rules, but it is the same game. When I played this "next" iteration, it felt like I was playing AD&D with a bunch of house rules, and since those house rules are coming from the house of WoTC, we're just calling them rules. I don't really see the point.

I love many aspects of 4e. I think it was a step or three in the right direction. Maybe they lost a few flavor aspects, high level play got a bit out of hand, character presentation is poor, and mapless play lost its appeal, but those are things that could be addressed in a new edition. I've run a number of 4e session where there was combat, but I used a large scale map rather loosely, and it works fine. I don't feel a map is absolutely necessary to make 4e work. I've experimented with better representation of character information, I've taken precautions in my home games so some of the high level play options don't get out of hand. I like the "DM education" concepts they are preaching for the next edition, reigning in attack/defense bonuses, and a few other aspects. But those things could also be done on the 4e framework.

I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems like a whole lot of work to give us something we already have. Yes most of our rules were hand written and in binders, but they were exactly how we wanted them to be. And we've moved on (well... admittedly, some of us haven't).

I played a dwarf cleric in the play test (i think I'm allowed to say that), and it felt very lackluster (after having played numerous 4e characters from level 1). My healing was pointless. I found only one combat useful spell among the 6 or 7 I had access to. Best thing I could do was swing my hammer or throw an axe, neither of which I did particularly well. I didn't feel like a dwarf, I didn't feel like a cleric, I didn't feel like an adventurer who could climb, jump, come up with solutions to puzzles, or invoke the name of his god in battle for tangible benefits. It was very bland, and very uninspiring. I had an AC, I had hit points, I could swing a weapon, and I could do damage. I guess we're calling that D&D these days. We did some mindless hack and slash, and though it was challenging at times, I quickly got bored with it. There was no story in the adventure, which was quite disappointing. A sandbox is not really appropriate for a play test. When I tried to do interesting things in combat, the options were not available to me. Aside from some interaction with terrain, it didn't look like there was any flavor to anything we could do.

It also felt a little bit like a board game, where you don't really care if your character dies, you'll just get another one from the box, and keep playing. I had a sense of the character being disposable, not a very good feeling for a role playing game.

And all the elements I hated from earlier editions seemed to crop into this edition. I don't care to collect weapons and armor from enemies we've dropped, just so we can sell them at half price and collect a few silver coins to buy ammunition. I don't care to have to take the rest of the day off after 5 minutes of adventuring. I guess I just no longer like "old skool" D&D. I felt the same way about 8 months ago when I tried Pathfinder. I've been spoiled by 4th edition, the edition of heroic games. I just want to go forward from here, not backwards. In 4th edition I feel great freedom in the DM chair to create adventures, to create a campaign, exactly the way it is in my vision.

They could easily achieve their "simple character" goal they seem to have with this edition, using any other edition. The things they are talking about for the simple characters is just a glorified pregenerated character. You can swap out components for customization. So, take a pregen character, and start retraining feats, powers, stats, etc, and voila, you have a "simple" character, and a "custom" character. 

I will wait to see more, to see how the next layer of development will work out, and I will look through the open play test documents when they are available, but I am not optimistic. When 4e was coming out, I was hyped about everything, scoured ENWorld for every new tidbit of information, and ran demos the moment they were available. For next edition, I'm not sure I even want to be involved in play test, or give any feedback, because it would not be constructive. I would just sound like a hater and be ignored.

In conclusion, before DDXP, I was mildly intrigued but skeptical, after DDXP, I'm pretty disappointed with a very tiny spark of hope that lots will change when that next layer of granularity is added to the system. I want to like the next edition, because they are adding some good ideas in. But they are taking out way more than they are adding for my taste.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 31, 2012)

Keefe the Thief said:


> And can we stop drowning babies? It was bad enough during the last Edition War when childhoods were raped, but this is a figure of speech that could be easily replaced with something more tasteful.
> 
> Like "molested my weasel" or something.



After reading all I can about 5E, the seminar, playtesters' experiences, and Monica Bellucci's taste in lingerie, my weasel is feeling slightly molested, but optimistic.


----------



## DMKastmaria (Jan 31, 2012)

I'm starting to get the idea that the folks who are going to like 5e, are the ones who can enjoy playing 1e, without thinking "it's broken," 4e, without thinking "it doesn't feel like D&D," and 3e, without thinking "it's too overwrought."

Like Bill Cavalier recently said: "Does this game have dungeons? Does this game have dragons? I want to play this game!"

Anyone too married to their current system and play style, is going to be disappointed. I would include myself in that particular demographic.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2012)

Kravell said:


> Monte quote:
> What we've done now is we have this thing called "advantage" that a DM can hand out if the players set themselves up with a good description.




Yeah, not a big fan of this type of thing.

The articulate intelligent player gets "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player doesn't.

I understand that some people will say, "Well, this might pull the shy person out of his shell", but that's not really the job of the game mechanics. I'm not too keen on game mechanics that give advantages to some individual players and not to others. I prefer a more equitable system and have a strong fairness streak in me.

I also am a fan of "let the dice fall the way they fall" and am not into Karma systems.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 31, 2012)

I find it kind of odd people are complaining about feat taxes because they want to make the game into 4E...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 31, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> Anyone too married to their current system and play style, is going to be disappointed. I would include myself in that particular demographic.




Sure, but if someone is happily married to their current system and play style, why would they want to switch, anyway, short of getting something different?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 31, 2012)

Bobbum Man said:


> What the hell did they threaten you people with???



My guess: weasel molestation. 

Since I'm currently reading through A Clash of Kings, that creates a bad, _bad_ image.


----------



## gyor (Jan 31, 2012)

So far some stuff sounds really cool, but it also sounds like they are a lot less done then I thought. I think many people had thought that it was already done and all that was left was tweaking things, that the playtest is a marketing ploy, but it sounds way more genuine and far less finished then I expected.

 Which means the playtests are really important after all. 

I will say I believe those that played, played with a vary skeltonal game, many rules and feature may have been held back, including basic core stuff. I have a feeling you were given just the bare bones, most basic stuff, I'm betting thier will be alot more customizablity in the core books.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 31, 2012)

Mengu said:


> My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves (or in my case, a cardboard box in the crawl space). Its pages are a bit yellower from age, and I might have some difficulty finding my bundle of house rules, but it is the same game. When I played this "next" iteration, it felt like I was playing AD&D with a bunch of house rules, and since those house rules are coming from the house of WoTC, we're just calling them rules. I don't really see the point....
> 
> I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems like a whole lot of work to give us something we already have. Yes most of our rules were hand written and in binders, but they were exactly how we wanted them to be. And we've moved on (well... admittedly, some of us haven't).





Interesting. This observation reinforces my view that WOTC wildly overestimates the value of a unified game/hobby. When I am playing, i dont say to myself gee this is so much fun because other people are playing this version too. It is fun because the rules and supplements/adventures enable me to have a shared experience with the people at my table where our ideas of fun coexist.

I guess WOTC overestimated the value and the ease of getting the WOW market in the case of 4th ed, now they are overestimating the value of a unified hobby.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 31, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Yeah, not a big fan of this type of thing.
> 
> The articulate intelligent player gets "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player doesn't.
> 
> ...



Frankly, regardless of how the rules are built, more assertive and more innovative players will always have huge advantages in rpgs. Balancing the fighter and the barbarian is the game designers' job, but balancing the people at the table is the individual DM's job.

In any case, the "advantage" idea isn't terribly different from most circumstance modifiers. Your Bluff check result is affected by how plausible of a lie you told. That really makes sense. The converse doesn't. I think a mechanic that rewards ambition and skill is good design (much better than punishing those who don't).


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2012)

I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.

At the risk of sounding like I am edition warring (I'm not, honest) this gives me some hope.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Frankly, regardless of how the rules are built, more assertive and more innovative players will always have huge advantages in rpgs. Balancing the fighter and the barbarian is the game designers' job, but balancing the people at the table is the individual DM's job.




Odd phrase that. "Balancing the people". I might phrase that "being equitable and consistently fair and unbiased to each player at the table".



Ahnehnois said:


> In any case, the "advantage" idea isn't terribly different from most circumstance modifiers. Your Bluff check result is affected by how plausible of a lie you told. That really makes sense. The converse doesn't. I think a mechanic that rewards ambition and skill is good design (much better than punishing those who don't).




It won't be bad if it is an immediate circumstance modifier. Course, I'm not sure how that would be different than how DMs have handled this since RPGs came out. I won't like it if it is similar to an action point (i.e. I have one of these "bonus" karma points that I can play later on).


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jan 31, 2012)

I want to hear more about Monica Belucci's lingerie, and less about molesting weasels.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 31, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Odd phrase that. "Balancing the people". I might phrase that "being equitable and consistently fair and unbiased to each player at the table".



Just trying to turn a phrase. Managing the people at the table and their interests and skilld is probably more what I'm getting at.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 31, 2012)

Rechan said:


> I like some of their stated design goals, but not a whole lot of what I'm seeing. So while I'll wait and see, I'm restocking my bunker for the Next Great Edition War.



Barring any massive new revelations from WotC, I think I'm gonna be taking another break from these boards for a while (and oh lord the Wizards boards, which are toxic right now)

I am reaching the point where I think it will be impossible to develop a game that will keep all sides happy (given the exhaustive list of mutually-exclusive deal-breakers and 'one-true-way-isms'). 

I've _tried _to be positive and constructive, but I'm having difficulty defending the *amazing* innovations that 4e brought to D&D without violating the edition detente. All reports indicate that 5e is removing  elements that made 4e a truly_ modern_ RPG in order to re-package a game that already exists on bookshelves and websites everywhere. I _own_ those games, and if I wanted to play them I would.

See y'all at the playtests or whatever.


----------



## bss (Jan 31, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> I am reaching the point where I think it will be impossible to develop a game that will keep all sides happy (given the exhaustive list of mutually-exclusive deal-breakers and 'one-true-way-isms').
> 
> ...
> 
> All reports indicate that 5e is removing  elements that made 4e a truly_ modern_ RPG in order to re-package a game that already exists on bookshelves and websites everywhere. I _own_ those games, and if I wanted to play them I would.




This sums up my overall sentiment as well. I'll admit that some parts were not entirely polished well at launch, but 4e challenged some of the prevalent D&D assumptions at the time and indeed made the game modern in rules (without impacting whatsoever anyone's ability to RP to their desires). To drop that design and replace it with so much OSR just to tempt back the old guard feels like a gigantic step backward.

Laughable are the portions that emphasize DM fiat. Funny, I thought every edition supported that. Why tear out rules to give us something we already had?

(Yes, it's just a rules preview, but if they're opening with what they thing are the big points of their design, well...)


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 31, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Yeah, not a big fan of this type of thing.
> 
> The articulate intelligent player gets "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player doesn't.
> 
> ...




I just love how it's "This thing we call" and so forth.

Page 42, 4E DMG:

"*Use the DM's Best Friend":* this simple guideline helps you adjudicate any unusual situation: An especially favorable circumstance gives a +2 bonus to a check or an attack roll (or it gives combat advantage). A particularly unfavorable circumstance gives a -2 penalty."

It probably existed in some form in previous editions, as well.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 31, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I want to hear more about Monica Belucci's lingerie, and less about molesting weasels.



Isn't molesting the weasel what most people do when they think about Monica Bellucci's lingerie?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.
> 
> At the risk of sounding like I am edition warring (I'm not, honest) this gives me some hope.




As am I, in the same context.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 31, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Isn't molesting the weasel what most people do when they think about Monica Bellucci's lingerie?



Leave [MENTION=16786]Stoat[/MENTION] out of this!


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I just love how it's "This thing we call" and so forth.
> 
> Page 42, 4E DMG:
> 
> ...




Like I said before, I'm totally ok with this type of advantage. If so, though, I'm not quite sure why Monty called it "AN ADVANTAGE" as if it were something cool and new and unique.

I suspect that it might be a Karma point or something like that, and that's where I would puke before using it.


----------



## bss (Jan 31, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Like I said before, I'm totally ok with this type of advantage. If so, though, I'm not quite sure why Monty called it "AN ADVANTAGE" as if it were something cool and new and unique.




Well, he did invent passive perception... </snark>


----------



## Melkor (Jan 31, 2012)

Very excited.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 31, 2012)

It appears that 5e will have warlords, at-will powers and (apparently) encounter powers. 

That's a few less things to worry about, and that makes me slightly more positive now compared to before DDXP.


----------



## bss (Jan 31, 2012)

One of the things that has me most concerned is what appears to be a return to the notion of classes as their own little self-contained systems. 4e absolutely _*excels*_ at setting one codified set of rules (the core language) and sticking to it everywhere. When you say "I mark the slaad" I know what that means regardless of if you're a fighter, paladin, other class with some random feat, whatever. I (as the DM) don't have to worry about a new class throwing everything tilted because it introduces five new concepts to the language of the game, and I (as a player) can more easily evaluate classes once I've learned the language.

To me, vancian magic threatens that design, and one of the quotes from DDXP has already stated that (in their example) stunning effects would be codified in the description of the spell, not the rules --- good for modularity, bad for system cohesion.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 31, 2012)

bss said:


> To me, vancian magic threatens that design, and one of the quotes from DDXP has already stated that (in their example) stunning effects would be codified in the description of the spell, not the rules --- good for modularity, bad for system cohesion.



It also has the potential to be the death of game balance.  Its virtually impossible to balance two classes together when one of them follows a uniform system of rules, and another follows whatever it happens to say in a spell text box.


----------



## bss (Jan 31, 2012)

Cadfan said:


> It also has the potential to be the death of game balance.  Its virtually impossible to balance two classes together when one of them follows a uniform system of rules, and another follows whatever it happens to say in a spell text box.




Indeed. Citing balance by comparing the damage of a fireball to other options is extremely short-sighted to me. Damage itself isn't where 3.x's magic got broken, it was where the wizard could polymorph into a fighter the same level as mine... except his fighter was also a prismatic dragon.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 31, 2012)

bss said:


> Indeed. Citing balance by comparing the damage of a fireball to other options is extremely short-sighted to me. Damage itself isn't where 3.x's magic got broken, it was where the wizard could polymorph into a fighter the same level as mine... except his fighter was also a prismatic dragon.



Yeah, or even something as simple as the ability to float, or to create a magical box.  Having a dozen or so options like that, combined with natural human creativity, tends to outstrip skill systems.

Still... I dunno, I don't want to get too negative.  If they slew the sacred cow of the +1 sword, as they've hinted they might have done, I'll forgive a lot.  It will, at least, indicate that someone at the helm knows what they're doing.


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.
> 
> At the risk of sounding like I am edition warring (I'm not, honest) this gives me some hope.




I'd agree, but I think that to a large extent this may be because (disclaimer: I wasn't there, this is just from what I've heard) the playtest was largely with the most simple way of playing the game rather than with all the modular stuff turned on; and the most simple stuff is more like earlier editions and less like 4e.

I think it's definitely too early to dismiss the new edition as unsuitable for 4e fans, and my advice to 4e fans (of which I'm one, although I also like the older editions so I like what I've heard so far) is to withhold judgement until you've seen the modular stuff that's designed to appeal to you.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> it appears that they are going to try and invent mechanics to try and get the same feel as previous mechanics, which seems sort of silly.



Well, if those mechanics are to be part of a base that can support classic, 3E _and_ 4e-style play, they're going to _have_ to be different, aren't they? Otherwise they would just support the play of the particular edition they were taken from.



Ahnehnois said:


> keep in mind that many if not most 1-3 edition characters could not be adequately represented by the 4e rules at all. Certainly none of the characters I've ever made. Needing to add in a few extra bonus feats isn't that big of a deal by comparison.



But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?

It won't be enough if the game requires feat taxes. Maybe it can be done via feats, but the design won't work if they're _taxes_.



Crazy Jerome said:


> Every edition destroys some illusions about D&D.  This illusion is long past its shelf date.



Go Crazy Jerome!


----------



## avin (Jan 31, 2012)

Mengu said:


> My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves




Same here, but I think we just heard news about the very basic version of 5E.



Mengu said:


> I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons.




They don't want to keep moving from 4E, no judging if it's good or bad here, but 4E split even more D&D and they feel the urge to try to reunite. It's a valid starting point, being a success and a failure.



Mengu said:


> In 4th edition I feel great freedom in the DM chair to create adventures, to create a campaign, exactly the way it is in my vision.




That's where experience varies. I found DMing 4E easy and relaxing. Monster Builder is what every DM dreamt about. No need to deal with unbalance was my greatest relief. 

On the other hand, I didn't find this freeedom you talk about, on the opposite, I was always constrained by rules that never made sense to my players and the lackluster rules for out of combat experience. 

The laziest part of 4E is what some people think it's genial, page 42... but it just me and I'm not owner of the truth here.

And we have to consider people's opinions. You think it's one step forward, I think it's one step in a 45 degrees angle (good, but in other direction that doesn't feel like what I think is D&D) and some people think is a step back.



bss said:


> but 4e challenged some of the prevalent D&D assumptions at the time and indeed made the game modern in rules (without impacting whatsoever anyone's ability to RP to their desires)




That's not entirely true in my opinion. 4E went on a modern direction, yes. 4E is a damn fun game, sure. But a lot of rules killed disbelief suspension for a lot of people around, so I don't think it's true to every people around that 4E didn't impact on RP.

4E is very good at combat, but lacks in out of combat games... not to mention that some less realistic rules killed immersion in my group's experience... that don't killed our fun, tho, we use 4E when we feel like having a heavy focused combat game.

TLDR, 4E impacted on RP abilities for many people.



Blacky the Blackball said:


> I think it's definitely too early to dismiss the new edition as unsuitable for 4e fans, and my advice to 4e fans (of which I'm one, although I also like the older editions so I like what I've heard so far) is to withhold judgement until you've seen the modular stuff that's designed to appeal to you.




I got this impression DDN is Essentials in reverse. First you got essentials, then 4E. 

Just hope that some of 4E innovations are available as options right at the start. 



pemerton said:


> But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?




It's another game. 

It's not 4E. If you want a 4E, stick to it. As people who want PF or 3.5.

It's another edition which aims to cater 1 to 4 playstyles... but it's a new game.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 31, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> I'm not too keen on game mechanics that give advantages to some individual players and not to others.



Any reasonably complex set of game mechanics give an advantage to players who are _good with mechanics and abstract systems_.

3e, Pathfinder, and 4e all fall into this category.  



> I prefer a more equitable system and have a strong fairness streak in me.



What's more equitable about favoring players who are good with rule systems over players who know how to talk?

This is the one thing I never understood about this position. Someone is always going to get the advantage. All we're discussing here is who it's going to be.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 31, 2012)

Mallus said:


> This is the one thing I never understood about this position. Someone is always going to get the advantage. All we're discussing here is who it's going to be.




In my opinion the best way is to reward one thing in some encounters and the other in some.

Traditionally, combat encounters have rewarded tactical thinking and system mastery, talky encounters have rewarded extrovert players who think on their feet, more exploration type encounters (traps, puzzles) have rewarded lateral thinking.

I don't see a problem to fix, but mixing the above a bit wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?
> 
> It won't be enough if the game requires feat taxes. Maybe it can be done via feats, but the design won't work if they're _taxes_.



I don't take it as assumed that all 4e players will want a wizard with at-will spells and will be unwilling to play a warlock or somesuch to get them. They're talking about multiple casting mechanics to suit different tastes. Likewise, I don't think that all 4e players require recharge mechanics on their fighter or rogue. Some 4e players may be married to these concepts, but many others won't be.

I don't like feat taxes either. If a feat is required in order to play a basic character effectively, it's a tax. If a feat is required to play the specific character one individual player wants, then that's what feats are for.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 31, 2012)

I am cautiously optimistic at the moment. They seem to be talking the talking for the most part. They certainly have me intrigued and I see more things that sound like things I would like than I would dislike. The proof will be what is in the actual release, but certainly consider me interested.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.




I'm operating under the assumption that these early tidbits from WotC are deliberately calculated to appeal to the OSR/Pathfinder folks.  My hope is that the complete game really does have something for everyone.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> If a feat is required in order to play a basic character effectively, it's a tax. If a feat is required to play the specific character one individual player wants, then that's what feats are for.



But I am wondering whether feats in D&DN will be the feats that we are used to. If they are meant to open up the 4e or 3E or whatever style modules for PC building, they may be playing a different design role from that which they play in 4e and 3E at the moment.


----------



## bss (Jan 31, 2012)

Stoat said:


> I'm operating under the assumption that these early tidbits from WotC are deliberately calculated to appeal to the OSR/Pathfinder folks.  My hope is that the complete game really does have something for everyone.




A related aspect of the complete game is how many things I need to houserule/plug/unplug/reword to hit my game style. If everything that makes 4e so awesome to me is something I need to bolt on or gut from 5e, that's different than if I just need to swap out magic and add a more concrete skill system. There's a line where the effort to customize the system (any system, not just 5e) to emulate a different one is more work than just playing the target system despite its lack of support.

While of course the first public introduction to the game would involve rules and the playing of games, it is troubling to me that the seminars included "here are the rules we like, this is what we're starting with" rather than "here's how the math of the system works and how rules plug in to it" --- the former sounds more like I am removing rules and hoping others fit, the latter is a meta-system where I could (ideally) chose chapters 2, 4, 9, 10, and 18 from a book and have my ultimate D&D.

(Incidentally, the former is also something DMs have been doing for decades, whereas the latter would actually be innovative design --- take that how you will.)


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 31, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> I don't like the silver standard, though. Yes, historically most coins were based around silver, not gold, but most editions have used it.
> 
> I mean, when you find a treasure chest, it's much exciting to find it full of golden doubloons, rather than silver reales.




I have to disagree, with silver the standard, imagine the glee when you DO find a chest of gold!


----------



## bss (Jan 31, 2012)

Nebulous said:


> I have to disagree, with silver the standard, imagine the glee when you DO find a chest of gold!




I don't get it either way. It's all fake money. They're just abstract numbers to buy other abstract things. Is it really just them choosing a flavor of currency, is that what everyone's excited about? Silver is more old-school? It's not like gold pieces didn't break down into fractions properly or something.

I'm honestly curious. When I saw that news I just raised an eyebrow and thought "so?".


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 31, 2012)

avin said:


> It's another game.
> 
> It's not 4E. If you want a 4E, stick to it. As people who want PF or 3.5.
> 
> It's another edition which aims to cater 1 to 4 playstyles... but it's a new game.




I really and truly believe that 5e will be able to fully replicate 4e...just probably not out of the gate.  It will take a few expansions.  I don't think 4e lovers want to hear that though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 31, 2012)

Nebulous said:


> I really and truly believe that 5e will be able to fully replicate 4e...just probably not out of the gate. It will take a few expansions. I don't think 4e lovers want to hear that though.




Since 4E launched, people who don't like it have been singularly unimpressive in their ability to determine what 4E "lovers" like and why.  I see nothing so far in 5E discussion to make me think that has changed.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 31, 2012)

Mallus said:


> What's more equitable about favoring players who are good with rule systems over players who know how to talk?
> 
> This is the one thing I never understood about this position. Someone is always going to get the advantage. All we're discussing here is who it's going to be.




Need to spread XP around.  If someone wants to chip in for me, I wouldn't complain.

This is strikingly like the fabled conversation between Churchill and the "lady' over what she was versus discussing the price.  Now that we've established what we all are, we can discuss the cost.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 31, 2012)

As far as I'm concerned, I can't have an opinion, because I have no clue how it's going to look. At this point, they could just be running games with a potpourri of different mechanics to see what sticks with the most people. That being said, if the game that is described is the final version of the game (which it's not, and will likely undergo radical changes before printing, but speaking hypothetically), then I would probably not move to it from 4E.

And that's the thing; see, I don't own D&D. I, unfortunately, have to share it with the lot of you louts in internetland, and sometimes I can't get everything my way.

And that's ok. In that scenario, I still got my 4E books, and maybe it's time for the Tribe of 4ron to spend a few years in the Great Grognardian Wilderness. I hope not, but worst case scenario is everybody still plays the game of their choice. So I can't very well "ick" at it, even if it's not the sort of game I would want to play.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Well, if those mechanics are to be part of a base that can support classic, 3E _and_ 4e-style play, they're going to _have_ to be different, aren't they? Otherwise they would just support the play of the particular edition they were taken from.
> 
> But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?
> 
> It won't be enough if the game requires feat taxes. Maybe it can be done via feats, but the design won't work if they're _taxes_.




Ok well, 5E won't be 4E. 

If you want to play 4E, you have 4E. 5E will be a step in a different direction because that's the entire point. It's not "how can I make this new edition into the edition I'd rather it be".

So maybe a 4E player wouldn't want to take feat taxes. I didn't want to have my saves treated like armor class. I didn't want 40+HP at first level. I didn't want powers! So I didn't play 4E much. I didn't want or expect it to just be 3E either. Instead of trying to make 4E into something 3E'ish I just didn't play much of it. When I did it was fine and I liked a number of things about it. That's good, I'm glad it's a very different kind of D&D. 

So if you don't like 5E because you can't make it into 4E... Well then I think you miss the point of a new edition.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 31, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> Ok well, 5E won't be *3E*.
> 
> If you want to play *3E*, you have *3E*. 5E will be a step in a different direction because that's the entire point. It's not "how can I make this new edition into the edition I'd rather it be".
> ...
> So if you don't like 5E because you can't make it into *3E*... Well then I think you miss the point of a new edition.



Great advice, so I changed some things around for other people reading and participating in the thread.

*Mod Note:*  You are a bit lucky that your target took this in good humor.  Please allow me to warn folks that the "fixed it for you" mode of presenting an argument is usually taken around here to be kinda rude.  In general, changing what others have said is something you probably should avoid.  ~Umbran


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 31, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Great advice, so I changed some things around for other people reading and participating in the thread.




HAhahaaha.

Leaving out some other things I said sort of warps what I said. But that is the point ultimately. I don't want 5E to look like 4E, 3E, 2E, AD&D, etc.

If 5E is going to be about the history of the game that's fine. As long as they also push into new territory design wise just like they did with 4E.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal (Jan 31, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> So you spend 5 minutes arguing with the DM that you should be able to use your Intelligence on every saving throw ever because you're a wizard, and unnamed wizard magic has your back, while he's in the corner explaining the to the PCs that the orc strongmen use strength because they bathed in the Great Strength Fire...just like all his other high strength monsters.  You still get punished for playing an orc wizard.



Since I wasn't in the playtest I don't quite follow. It seems to me like you're saying that they scaled back a lot of the rules for the core and left too much to the discretion of the DM. So in 3.5/4 you'd be able to configure your orc well enough and have enough rules to protect yourself from the discretion of the DM. In this edition you're subject to his whim, correct?

If a 3.5 modular addition fixed this would that satisfy you?

Do you have the same issues with 1E/C&C?


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 31, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> HAhahaaha.
> 
> Leaving out some other things I said sort of warps what I said. But that is the point ultimately. I don't want 5E to look like 4E, 3E, 2E, AD&D, etc.
> 
> If 5E is going to be about the history of the game that's fine. As long as they also push into new territory design wise just like they did with 4E.



Of course. The starting HP and powers comments were not that relevant, and I did not feel like replacing with more 3e-relevant tidbits.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal (Jan 31, 2012)

TwinBahamut said:


> Lots of comments, like references to rolling 3d6 being the default or bringing back the Great Wheel, almost gives the impression that the designers want everyone to play the game _the designer's way_, rather than actually embracing what other kinds of players want from the game.




How? D&D has always been intuitively flexible. In every edition of D&D, in chapter 1, the book states you can play and houserule the game however you like. As a DM I can take the 2E cosmology, ability score generating systems, and alignment system and just drop it into Pathfinder or 4E, no questions asked. I can't see any reason why they would get away from that, it seems so innate to what D&D and especially this edition is about (based on everything WOTC has claimed).

I remember a 3.5 partisan joined my 4E game and complained about how he couldn't choose any alignment he wanted and they took out the Great Wheel. I just told him to write whatever he wanted in the alignment box and told him we were going back to the Great Wheel cosmology (as the 4E MOTP suggests). I don't understand why these things are concerns at all.



KarinsDad said:


> The articulate intelligent player gets  "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player  doesn't.



I agree. It seemed like newer editions tried to overcome this by explicitly stating player abilities so players wouldn't have to argue they had them. Couldn't this be modulated into the game for those players?


My thoughts on 5E? Bring it weasel! I'm going to enjoy this


----------



## paladinm (Jan 31, 2012)

I remember when the BECMI sets came out (Especially the C, M and I).  I was waiting anxiously for each new release.  I was already well familiar with AD&D 1e, but there was something about the "newness" of C, M and I, and seeing where they deviated from AD&D, that kept me intrigued.  I'm feeling the same thing about 5e now.

If they are really wanting a modular system, perhaps they can follow the same model as BECMI, with each release expanding the range of "options".  Otherwise they will need to do an Unearthed Arcana-type volume as one of the introductory releases.

Has anyone taken a look at AD&D 3 (Yes, I said AD&D 3).  I forget who did it, but it takes 1e (and some of the original UA) and applies D20 mechanics to it.  It's Really sweet, but lacks feats, etc.  And it doesn't nerf the paladins (like C&C does).


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2012)

Aldarc said:
			
		

> Of course. The starting HP and powers comments were not that relevant, and I did not feel like replacing with more 3e-relevant tidbits.




I haven't seen anyone say they wanted 5E to be 3E, probably because those people have a fully supported current version of 3E in Pathfinder. But I have seen some folks want 5E to be 4E (in the same way lots of us wanted 4E to be 3E) which is understandable: when your favored edition is getting mothballed, a negative reaction is both understandable and justified. Personally, I think WotC should release 4E under the OGL now that it is getting replaced and let 4E fans have a "Pathfinder" of their own.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I haven't seen anyone say they wanted 5E to be 3E, probably because those people have a fully supported current version of 3E in Pathfinder. But I have seen some folks want 5E to be 4E (in the same way lots of us wanted 4E to be 3E) which is understandable: when your favored edition is getting mothballed, a negative reaction is both understandable and justified. Personally, I think WotC should release 4E under the OGL now that it is getting replaced and let 4E fans have a "Pathfinder" of their own.



At the same vein I've seen a lot of people implying they want 5e to be 1e-et al.


----------



## DMKastmaria (Jan 31, 2012)

Rechan said:


> At the same vein I've seen a lot of people implying they want 5e to be 1e-et al.




That's because everyone is pretty much happy with their edition. WotC is the only party who isn't happy. They should really, really take note of that.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 31, 2012)

bss said:


> A related aspect of the complete game is how many  things I need to houserule/plug/unplug/reword to hit my game style. If  everything that makes 4e so awesome to me is something I need to bolt on  or gut from 5e, that's different than if I just need to swap out magic  and add a more concrete skill system. There's a line where the effort to  customize the system (any system, not just 5e) to emulate a different  one is more work than just playing the target system despite its lack of  support.



Indeed. 

Additionally, for me it doesn't matter how many great modular things there are out there - if I think the core mechanics suck (see: opposing rolls, ability scores as saves), then that's a big problem.

I may end up liking some of their modular subsystems (running a kingdom, keeps and such) and just port that to 4e. 


> While of course the first public introduction to the game would involve  rules and the playing of games, it is troubling to me that the seminars  included "here are the rules we like, this is what we're starting with"  rather than "here's how the math of the system works and how rules plug  in to it" --- the former sounds more like I am removing rules and hoping  others fit, the latter is a meta-system where I could (ideally) chose  chapters 2, 4, 9, 10, and 18 from a book and have my ultimate D&D.



Just to play devil's advocate, it's wholly possible that they don't have the _basic rules_ down. Therefore, "These are stuff we want to do/add" and "Here are our design goals" is all they got. Otherwise, the playtest didn't matter - if they _did_ have all the basic rules nailed down, then feedback form the DDXP crowd woudln't have mattered.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 31, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> I'm trying to figure out how you got that from the seminars. I definitely got an old school vibe from comments, tweets and seminars.




Ditto.

Nay-sayers are going to have to work a LOT harder to turn me 'meh,' let alone negative. 

And remember ... it's a long time between the crude draft they have now and the finished version.  And YOU get to monkey with the rules!

Any way you spin it, that sounds like fun.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 31, 2012)

Whew.

Finally read all that stuff up there.

"Let 5E be 5E."

That is all.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> Ok well, 5E won't be 4E.
> 
> If you want to play 4E, you have 4E. 5E will be a step in a different direction because that's the entire point.
> 
> ...



This edition has been advertised as a "unity edition", not a "grognard" edition. Given that 4e players are WotC's current customer base, I assume that among those whom 5e is meant to unify are 4e players.

If the game requires feat _taxes_ to achieve PCs who play in something like a 4e style, I think that will be a problem. But I still think that feats are likely to work differently, as an element of PC build, from how they currently do.



Reynard said:


> I have seen some folks want 5E to be 4E (in the same way lots of us wanted 4E to be 3E) which is understandable: when your favored edition is getting mothballed, a negative reaction is both understandable and justified.



My posts weren't about 5e being 4e. Obviously it won't be. They were about it being a "unity" edition, and therefore capable of supporting 4e play at least to the same extent as it supports classic play. That won't work if the mechanics merely repeat classic D&D. Hence the need for new mechanics.



Reynard said:


> Personally, I think WotC should release 4E under the OGL now that it is getting replaced and let 4E fans have a "Pathfinder" of their own.



I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.

At the risk of looking like an idiot for reading it with a straight face, I'll just say that I don't think WotC will do this, given that the OGL (and PF as an offshoot of it) is a signficant causal factor in their current woes.


----------



## Consonant Dude (Jan 31, 2012)

I voted "meh" but that really just means I am not overly positive or negative about it. I think the big difficulty is that telling people "We're taking a little bit of every edition" can be quite confusing. What exactly are they going to take? I guess if was overly positive, I would probably expect they'll grab all my favorite features from each edition. If I was leaning toward negative, I would expect they will use things that annoy me. 

Based on the early report, it seems like a mixed bag and it's tough to wrap my head around it yet. But I am carefully optimistic. Easy of GMing, abstract positioning, lightning fast play are the things I am hoping for personally. If I can do that with the basic game, I will be very happy! I am also very curious about licensing.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure if this is a joke or not.
> 
> At the risk of looking like an idiot for reading it with a straight face, I'll just say that I don't think WotC will do this, given that the OGL (and PF as an offshoot of it) is a signficant causal factor in their current woes.




Only insofar as they attempted to abandon it via a complete reinvention of the game, showing both a disdain for and complete lack of understanding of their core audience. If they knew then what they know now, I imagine there would have been two things they would have done differently: they would have hewn closer to the traditions of the game (both mechanical and metatextual) and they would have kept a license that provided strong 3rd party support.

True20 and Mutants & Masterminds weren't threats to D&D. Pathfinder only exists because they moved too far from d20 AND they pooched the GSL. A "D&D Saga Edition" with a less restrictive GSL would have probably eliminated a need for 5E so soon.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 31, 2012)

Reynard said:


> I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.
> 
> At the risk of sounding like I am edition warring (I'm not, honest) this gives me some hope.




It just makes me sad.

Maybe it will always be true that the fan of the current fears and loathes the new.  Maybe it's just a basic, human reaction.

Not a lot of automatic change lovers out there.


----------



## DMKastmaria (Jan 31, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> It just makes me sad.
> 
> Maybe it will always be true that the fan of the current fears and loathes the new.  Maybe it's just a basic, human reaction.
> 
> Not a lot of automatic change lovers out there.




4e players have every right to be bothered by this. And every reason not to want to play a game just because "it's new." 

If the community as a whole has learned anything, it's that we don't *have *to move on, just because WotC wants us to.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 31, 2012)

A lot of 4e fans weren't entirely on board for the Essentials line.  Which has meant, at least for some of us, that we've reacted hopefully to 5e.

At the moment though, I'm not sure what to think.  The marketing material seems heavily aimed at people who like older versions of D&D, which has been a bit of a turn off.  And more than half of what they've said has just been puffy promises that don't tell us anything.  When they say that you can do X, Y, and Z in 5e, and its all balanced... well, if you're in an optimistic frame of mind, you get excited.  And if you're in a pessimistic frame of mind, you think that they're making foolish promises.


----------



## IanB (Jan 31, 2012)

I'll say that I'm not really 100% happy with any current version. It is absolutely possible for them to come up with one that I like better; therefore I'd say the comment upthread (that I forgot to quote) about how WotC is the only one unhappy with the current situation is untrue. I can't be the only person who feels vaguely dissatisfied with every edition in some way, right?


----------



## Yora (Jan 31, 2012)

I certainly don't. I see the flaws of 3rd Edition that 4th Edition wanted to adress, but disliked the result even more.
Now many of the things they mentioned last week also adress these very same flaws of 3rd Edition, and many of the changes they have in mind sound like much better solutions than the ones tried in 4th Edition.

I play PF only because it's the game I least dislike.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 31, 2012)

Yora said:
			
		

> I play PF only because it's the game I least dislike.




Dude (or dudette) -- there are like a million RPGs out there. Try Dragon Age or Hackmaster. Life's too short to play the game you dislike least.


----------



## Yora (Jan 31, 2012)

True, but I like the mainstream popularity of D&D and I really like the legal security that the OGL gives to amature publishers like me.
With a homebrew setting for Dragon Age, who would ever give my work a single look?

Though I have to say I did look at lots of other RPGs, and they also really don't strike me as any better. Different, but with the same amount of faults. Except Dragon Age, that game is cool.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Feb 1, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> It just makes me sad.
> 
> Maybe it will always be true that the fan of the current fears and loathes the new.  Maybe it's just a basic, human reaction.
> 
> Not a lot of automatic change lovers out there.




I loved 3.5, but when 4e was announced I was overjoyed. Yay, something new! Early information sounded great to me, like reducing some of the overlapping skills into something more sensible (so I can Disable a device, unless that device happens to be a lock? What if it's a device made to _resemble _a lock in every way, but it isn't quite a lock - what then?). Easier rules for grappling were also promised early on, another draw (though I didn't find grapple that complicated, just more so than seemed necessary).

Then 4e came out. I'm glad to know that many people have enjoyed it, & some come into the game with it - but I, quite frankly, loathed it.

So I guess I can't say my own experience fits what you suggest, as I actually quite welcome the prospect of change in general - but the change needs to be GOOD (for my own gaming-style definition of 'good') in order for me to embrace it.


----------



## kiltedyaksman (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm just so-so. I like some of what I've read, and dislike other bits of news.

I'll check it out, but if it doesn't capture Gygax style D&D I won't be playing it.


----------



## OnlineDM (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm intrigued and optimistic about D&D Next, but I voted "meh" because I still feel like I don't know anything significant about the game. Once I get the playtest documents, I'm hoping to feel "Yay!"


----------



## marleykat (Feb 1, 2012)

I am on the positive side.  Generally I have.a wait.and. see attitude.   It's.far too early to be worried.  What I have heard makes me optimistic given I the editions. I like are e
fore 4th and Fantasy Craft. The theme idea and the state plusses to class are virtually a straight port from that game and it works fine IMO.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm positive, because it seems they are turning to balance.

There seems to be a Progressive vs. Conservative faction in games--two factors.  This is not meant to reflect classic politics, but the general view of the terms.

The progressive faction believes in making sweeping changes, less mired in tradition and more into what makes for the best game out there.  

The conservative faction is more into tradition and avoids change or only advocates slow change over time.

The key thing is for the game to survive is compromise between these two factions.  

From what I've seen, D&D got really conservative a few years before the release of 2nd Edition (I'm kind of ignoring the 2e "options" books), which is probably why people reacted to 3e very well, it was received well by most gamers and it seemed to reignite the market.  But I believe it was also counter-balanced by the conservative faction in the newly acquired merged studios of TSR and WoTC.  Somehow, I think 4e was too progressive for most of the fans.  

Which is why I think 5e has been worked on and is being approached with (hopefully) a little more care.

I think if a lot of 4e changes are being reversed, it's come from the progressive faction taking too much control.  People like to say "it needs to take advantage of 30 years of game design"--but game design isn't a science.  It's a combination of art and science, a craft, and to be honest the older forms of D&D (say, BECMI as ideal) are still good solid games.  (In fact, game design has been shown to follow fads and trends over time).

There needs to be a mix between these two factions.  I don't expect D&D to be 100% 1e AD&D circa 1980, but I also don't expect D&D to just be a trademark that gets rebooted every 10 years with little in common with the prior editions, or to just follow fads.  

If the current design team is taking a more conservative stance, it's because 4e must not have done as well as the other editions, which means something is not in balance anymore.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Feb 1, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> I want to hear more about Monica Belucci's lingerie, and less about molesting weasels.






Aldarc said:


> Isn't molesting the weasel what most people do when they think about Monica Bellucci's lingerie?



Unfortunately, Google Image Searches mostly provide nearly-naked pictures of Ms. Bellucci. It seems she prefers nudity to lingerie. Sigh.

Off topic, am I the only one hoping for some _Star Wars Saga Edition_ to be thrown into the 5E mix? That 3.75 system had some good stuff, IMHO.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 1, 2012)

JohnRTroy said:


> Somehow, I think 4e was too progressive for most of the fans.




I don't think it is a matter of being progressive. Progressive is not automatically equal to superior.

It's a matter of quality across the board (both crunch and fluff), not just quality in a few areas.

I'm an old grognard, but even I can see the advantages of many of the 4E changes. But, I also see many of the disadvantages whereas I think that your Progressive hardcore 4E players might not see those.

Good change is good. Meh or bad change, not so much. Everyone has a different opinion about what is good and what is not, but 4E didn't just change crunch. It changed some very significant (to some players) fluff as well.


I'll give a simple example of what I consider Meh (or even bad) fluff change in 4E that many people have probably never even heard of.

Dragonborn in 3E were creatures of any humanoid race that heard the call of Bahamut. They were originally Dwarves, or Human, or Halfling, or whatever. Bahamut changed them into Dragonborn.

Now, most people were not heavily invested in 3E Dragonborn. They were only around for about 2.5 years before 4E came out. But for a player who had a very intensive backstory for his Dragonborn PC, 4E Dragonborns could be a very annoying shock. How dare WotC just up and wipe out the entire Dragonborn concept and replace it with a new one such a player might ask?

Quite frankly, I cannot think of a good answer to this question. WotC just changed it with no real good reason as far as I can tell. WotC did even more with regard to Paladins and Wizards and many other classes and races that a lot of players DID have a heavy personal investment in.


So to the vast majority of 4E players, this small group of 3E Dragonborn players who might be bothered by such a drastic change (in their minds) is no big deal. Live with it. But, it's the trampling of the D&D concepts which as a DM and player for almost 35 years, I find to be most annoying. This is merely a simple example. Not only did 4E totally revamp a significant portion of the crunch (wiping out 30+ years of many core D&D ideas), but they revamped a significant portion of the fluff as well.

WotC just threw these players (and many others) under the bus, all in the name of progress. They didn't really care that they were wiping out many perfectly good PC concepts. Their "problems" such as the 5 minute workday, Codzilla, Polymorph, and golf bag of healing wands were more important to them than the D&D feel consistency of their fan base. They didn't solve the problems by staying within the fluff, they did it by throwing fluff (and crunch) away and creating new fluff. Sometimes to match the new game mechanics, but sometimes just because they felt like "being progressive".

That's a mistake and I think that's why 5E is heading back towards that D&D feel consistency.


I actually applaud WotC for trying to merge original fluff and crunch back into the game. They won't be able to satisfy everyone no matter what they do, but could you imagine if they were to create a 5E that was even MORE progressive than 4E, but further away from 1E through 3E? They would not only have lost a significant 1E, 2E, and 3E portion of their base, but they would push away a portion of their 4E base as well.

By merging a lot of the concepts of 1E through 4E, they might push away some of their 4E base. But at least they might also bring back some of their 1E through 3E base. No matter what they do, they would have lost some of their 4E base. At least this way, they can at least try to make up for that. Combining conservative with progressive might be the best decision that they can make for a 5E.


----------



## soulcatcher78 (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm looking forward to this new edition.  The only concern I have is how the different rules modules will fit together (i.e. can you have one player using the grid rules beside someone who doesn't see the need for the grid?) in actual play.  

Guess we have to wait for the open playtest to really see but I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## LordArchaon (Feb 1, 2012)

I think I have an argument-ender here, though i take no credit for it.
The version that was playtested, besides being pre-alpha, was also the "core" version. They stated that by "core", they don't mean much "the only official one", or "the only one you get to play without splatbooks". No, they said it's the "basic foundation" of what "basic D&D" is, and on top of which every play-style can be built. Now, it's more than logic that the core ought to be the simplest possible, hence the old-school feel. It's also more than logic that 4e is the farthest thing from a "basic D&D experience", not because of the fluff which is subjective, nor because of the different "feel" of mechanics, which again is subjective. It's just objectively more difficult to pick up: you have way more options at 1st level in 4e than you had at 4th in every other edition. As such, it's obvious that the "core" aka "basic" game, caters less to 4e than it does to other editions. _*That doesn't mean that the "4e module" (aka Tactical Combat) won't be on the very first Player's Handbook. *_What's more, you can be pretty sure we'll have it from the start, because as many others said, it's not in their interest to loose 4e players. True: players wanting to play 5e in the 4e style will have to tinker more with the rules. But that's exactly what they've been doing with 4e for the last 4 years. And again, those rules are going to be just as official and valid as the "basic"/"core" ones. They're going to be Core in the actual sense. As Mearls was quoted saying more or less, you'll be able to play your 4e-style character right at the side of a player who'll play a 1e-style one. They'll be balanced, it's just that the 4e one will have many more things to choose at each level, compared to the others.


----------



## D'karr (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm a 4e fan, I make no mystery of that. It kept me in the game I like, which is DMing.  I also like simplicity in games.  4e is not a simple game but it has a very simple core.  I can understand how a solid core can be used to emulate a bunch of different effects and styles.  4e did this very well mechanically with the ad-hoc guidelines.  In essence my style as DM was reinforced by the solid, simple rules at the "core" of the game.

When I saw the playtest and what we were to run, I was slightly apprehensive, but I took it in stride.  I wanted to provide a very fun experience for my players.  After running many tables I can honestly say I was exhausted, but content.  There were many enthusiastic players after the games.  I was organizing the seating at the tables and I'm sure there is a group of players that had a "nerdgasm" when at their table they got Monte as DM.  A few minutes later they were joined by Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb and Miranda Horner.  Then Steve Townsend strolled in looking for his table and he ended up at that one too.  That was one crazy fun table.  And by the way, the game played well - even with a large table like that.

After listening to the seminars, and speaking personally with some of the designers and hearing a lot of the comments from others as they sat with the playtesters, I'm optimistic.

What everyone saw at DDXP is a very "rough draft" of the game as it stood several weeks ago.  This game is currently in almost a state of "pre-development", a pre-alpha release if you like.  The comments from the playtesters are very important.  Mike Mearls spent most days looking over them and collating them.  Rob Schwalb was looking at them too when he wasn't engaged in seminars, or running the playtest.  I honestly believe that the designers want to put out the best game they can.  They are taking the input very seriously.  This input will help guide them as they move forward with changes to what we have seen.

The OPEN playtest is scheduled for sometime in the spring, at this moment.  I would expect many changes from now until then to solidify the "core" and experiment with some of the modularity.  I'm sure that the comments from playtesters will impact what we see in OPEN playtest.  And it is sure to be different than what we saw this weekend.  I'm optimistic that what we see then will have a lot of elements that will appeal to all the different audiences.

So right now I'm optimistic, and exhausted.


----------



## bss (Feb 1, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Just to play devil's advocate, it's wholly possible that they don't have the _basic rules_ down. Therefore, "These are stuff we want to do/add" and "Here are our design goals" is all they got. Otherwise, the playtest didn't matter - if they _did_ have all the basic rules nailed down, then feedback form the DDXP crowd woudln't have mattered.




I would be cool with this. They would just need to backpedal ever so slightly and say "alright, we demoed OSR, but we didn't intend for it to seep so deep into the core, we biffed the presentation a bit. Bear with us."

There was a tweet by one of the Wizards folks (Trevor?) which suggested the 4e support is there, it is just waiting for a different playtest cycle. In my opinion they need to make that very apparent soon.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 1, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> I don't think it is a matter of being progressive. Progressive is not automatically equal to superior.




You basically said what I said.  Neither progressive nor conservative are "right" or "wrong", both words have a neutral connotation.  From Wikipedia.

Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.

Replace politics and state with the D&D game


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 1, 2012)

When someone asked what the might want to see back in the game for 5e, and one of the answers was "the Great Wheel", I was dancing. We'll see if it comes to pass, but if it does, it raises the spectre of having it and the PF cosmos to play around with. What a wonderful problem to have!


----------

