If WotC deliver on all their promises...

If WotC deliver on all their promises, would you adopt 5e as your D&D of preference?


DimitriX

First Post
I vote "No".

First, I don't really think they're going to be able to deliver on all of their promises, so I think the question is moot in the first place.

Second, I don't like WotC as a company and I don't want them to get anymore of my money. As I've said in other places, DCC is my DDN and I don't need WotC's game system just because it has the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Henry

Autoexreginated
I can only answer a resounding "maybe". It depends on (1) if my game group likes it, (2) it continues to have a regular stream of supplements that interest me, and fill in all the bases that I'm interested in (which, really, would just have to be what 3E's core book covered). If so, and they delivered all their other promises as said, I'd be "In like Flynn."
 

Kzach

Banned
Banned
The article on the rogue talks about them as being the master of skills... which really points to 5th edition working like 3rd and 4th edition, rather than being innovative... and that bums me out.

Actually the evidence I've seen gives me hope that they are going to use degrees of success and failure rather than binary pass/fail systems like they have in previous editions.

A good example of a character that would work in a system with degrees of success and failure would be Malcolm Reynolds. My personal take on such a character would be that he would have excellent marksmanship, but be only just above average at other things. He's an above average pilot, an above average mechanic, an above average brawler, his intimidation and leadership capabilities are also above average, but aside from his marksmanship, nothing is spectacular.

So you get a character that can succeed at most of those things, but rarely succeeds with such aplomb that you're left staggered by his brilliance. When he intimidates Jayne, Jayne takes a few moments to think about his options before backing down, and even then, he's not so cowed that he won't try again soon enough. When he does a speech to the crew to get them on side, everyone follows but they do so grumbling and thinking it's a bad idea.

Now, a character who was excellent at intimidation and leadership would have Jayne so cowed by just one instance of intimidation that he'd back down immediately and think twice before ever trying again. And when convincing a crew to follow his plan, they'd be enthused about it and end up agreeing that it was the best plan ever.

That's degrees of success.
 

Kzach

Banned
Banned
First, I don't really think they're going to be able to deliver on all of their promises, so I think the question is moot in the first place.
It's a hypothetical question that assumes that they DO deliver on their promises. So it's not moot at all. Your reply and vote, however, are.
 


scruffygrognard

Adventurer
Actually the evidence I've seen gives me hope that they are going to use degrees of success and failure rather than binary pass/fail systems like they have in previous editions.
I hope that you're right. I'm burnt out on 3rd and 4th edition and want D&D to move in a new direction (while, somehow, looking and feeling like D&D).
 

Lwaxy

Cute but dangerous
What about "as it allows you to play the game I want and thus would be backwards compatible, I'd play in in addition." ;)
 


triqui

Adventurer
I vote "No".

First, I don't really think they're going to be able to deliver on all of their promises, so I think the question is moot in the first place.

Second, I don't like WotC as a company and I don't want them to get anymore of my money. As I've said in other places, DCC is my DDN and I don't need WotC's game system just because it has the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover.

I bet english is not your first language, so I'll try to help:

hy·po·thet·i·cal   [hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl]
adjective Also, hy·po·thet·ic .
1.
assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.


hy·poth·e·sis   [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses  [-seez]
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

This rudeness has been addressed privately. Folks, please be sure to be polite to other members, even when (especially when!) they may not happen to agree with you. -- Piratecat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Top