D&D 5E Maybe I'm just tired?

Sunseeker · Nov 16, 2012

My biggest fear with Next is that it will actually allow me to summon demons and justify all those whackjobs who call it satanic. Or, ya know, open up a portal and allow the Old Ones entrance to our universe(assuming they aren't here already).

Aside from that, not much really. The possibility that I simply "won't like it" is there but that's not a big deal. I've got my 3.X/Pathfinder, I've got my 4e, I've got a dozen other TTRPGS and games that I just love, so if I don't like DDN, it's not that much of a big deal.

If DDN rocks my socks, sweet, if it falls flat on it's face, it's not the end of D&D. Even if Wizards drops the license and stops producing product for a decade, that won't stop people like Paizo, or the players from playing the game and producing our own stuff for it in that time. And it certainly won't mean Wizards will come into my house and destroy all my books so I can never play again.

I'm honestly not real worried about DDN. D&D has lasted this long, I don't forsee it's demise any time soon.

Derren · Nov 17, 2012

That the majority of people playtesting the next edition of D&D are people who like 4E so that the opinion of all the people who had been driven away by it will not be heard.

Ratinyourwalls · Nov 17, 2012

delericho said:
That it will be absolutely everything that we want in a game, but not sell quite well enough for Hasbro, who proceed to kill D&D.

Hasbro would never kill or shelve D&D. If they do that they give Paizo/Pathfinder control of the market and Hasbro would never be able to get it's foot in the door again.

Vicar In A Tutu · Nov 17, 2012

- Complexity: I'm afraid the game will become too complex.
- Ease of prepping: Say what you want about 4E, the game was incredibly easy to prep for. I don't like NPC statblocks with spells that I have to look up. Statblocks in 4E were self-contained.
- Negativity. The fact that there seems to be a general "this is doomed to fail"-mentality, that it is impossible to unite the fanbase and that (with a few exceptions) the results of polls are all over the place, with people saying that X and Y is awesome (40%), horrible (40%) and "I don't care" (20%).

Lanefan · Nov 17, 2012

My biggest fear with 5e is that it won't stick to its initial promise of a bog-simple framework (similar to 0e) with lots of optional add-on modules to make it more or less complex (to a 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e level as desired). More and more it's looking like too-complex 3e and 4e stuff, or transparent variants thereon, is going to be part of the core framework. Bleah.

ferratus said:
I have also almost joined 3 Pathfinder games, but no DM was willing to sacrifice confirming criticals to have me as a player. They never defended it when I explained why it was bad design ...

Confirming simply reduces the chance of an actual critical hit occurring, which is good; as 1-in-20 is simply too frequent and thus not as special.

It also depends on what a critical represents in that system. If it's merely a few extra points of damage or an auto-max damage roll, that's kinda pathetic and who cares how often it happens. But if a critical hit has the potential to be an instant kill or major combat changer (which I like) then it really shouldn't happen that often (which I also like).

Lanefan

Aaron L · Nov 17, 2012

A big fear of mine is that the game will actually be called D&D Next, which is an absolutely abominable name.

I haven't been paying very close attention to the development; the small bits I have seen didn't impress me, but I'm not passing judgement until I see the finished game.

I hope the art will have a more mixed art style with less "dungeonpunk" and more historic, classic fantasy style stuff. The dungeonpunk aesthetic is fine but it's been overdone to DEATH. I's all we ever get nowadays. Lets mix it up with some actually historically accurate illustrations of armor and weaponry. Fewer spiky shields and enormous, bizarrely-shaped cartoonish swords that no one could actually ever fight with, and more realistic stuff. I'm not saying to do away with the dungeonpunk stuff entirely, just tone it down and mix it up with realistic artwork. I remember defending the dungeonpunk look when 3E first came out. I thought it would be used in moderation and in combination with realistic illustrations. I'm sad to say that I was very very wrong and now regret it was ever introduced, because it's become the ONLY style that is used.

PLEASE, mix the dungeonpunk with some classic realistic-looking fantasy art, WotC.

amerigoV · Nov 18, 2012

Two fears:

1. There will be millions of modules (and not the cool adventure kind). I'm not interested in buying 20 books just to run the game I want. But this a minor fear for me as I will probably stick with Savage Worlds -- but I can see this pushing people away.

2. That there will not be good modules (the adventure kind). This week I was looking over Keep on the Shadowfell to see if was worth Savaging (using Savage Worlds). There are some very nice pieces in that material, but overall there are too many WTF? moments. Given the names on it and that it was the first one for 4e, that really hurt my impression of 4e.

Good adventures are something that can draw people back, even if they do not use the system. It gives people like me a reason to keep paying attention to D&D.

Starfox · Nov 18, 2012

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
A lot of people didn't like 4e, but I doubt they'll run screaming if you keep the good parts.

There is no agreement about what were the good parts of 4E. Roles and minor action healing are controversial issues.

(Psi)SeveredHead · Nov 18, 2012

Minor action healing is controversial? Do people want to give up their whole turn to heal?

Starfox · Nov 18, 2012

Spending a turn healing when it matters is heroic.

Spending a part of a turn to buff up another character's hit points is pure resource management. There is nothing heroic about it.