D&D 5E Maybe I'm just tired?

So... just summarizing

it needs to be simple (at the core)
- clear rules
*quick easy character generation
*clear choices at advancement
*sub systems should be very intuitive (or will turn off new players)
- simple action economy
*fast table play
*all players get a chance to shine
- easy and quick to design a session
- needs clearly defined "roles" that a class fills in the party
*could be 4e based (intuitive)
*could be based on strengths/weakness across the three pillars

it needs to have something "new" to pull players out of their existing games
- but it needs not to contravene to heaviliy the above

it needs to be well marketed/supproted by hasbro

designers need to make brave decisions about legacy rules (even if the flavor feels D&D)

** apologies, paragraphing not sticking

Summer-Knight925 said:

I'm not sure, but I really don't see that much I like in NEXT.

What, if any, are your biggest fears with NEXT?

Click to expand...

My biggest fear is an illogical game design process, where only flavor is taken into account and not mechanics, or the prime purpose is simply to copy an older class design with new rules. I saw the same thing in 3.x class design and often see the same thing in class in Pathfinder (the alchemist is an example of this). It gets even worse when WotC decides to hardcode a class's flavor (paladin code, ranger magic) even when large numbers of potential consumers don't like them, just because they're "classic".

I'm not interested in flavorless number boosts either, we saw lots of 3e fighter feats like that. Weapon Specialization should have been a class feature in 3.x, and it was boring - just bonuses to damage. 4e powers were so much more interesting. I'm glad to see maneuvers, even if they're not clarifying class roles.

Role clarity is something sorely missing. It's never been in D&D before 4e, and lots of people hate on it, so WotC seems to scared to even look at it. Before, we had fighters, wizards and (in 3.x) rogues all competing to do the most damage. Clerics had a mix of spells that made no sense, and in some editions you could build a cleric that added nothing to a party. In 4e, roles were clarified. In D&DN, roles are being tossed overboard. I count the cleric as one example. They're still healers, thank the pantheons. (Non-healing priests are another class. Invoker?) Unfortunately, they're not really clerics, they're wizards with religious overtones. How is Radiant Lance (now called Lance of Faith...) a cleric power? It's a direct damage wizard spell. It just has religious flavor to it. If you're looking to kill things with your light zap spell, shouldn't you be playing a wizard? Why do clerics cast spells like Hold Person? Isn't that also a wizard spell? And if they're just religious wizards, why not Hold Monster?

The good news are classes tend to get better over time, at least the mechanical aspects, even if WotC seems to have no intention of clarifying roles. I doubt WotC will take away ranger magic but the monk in earlier editions (prior to 4e) was so badly designed WotC probably felt they had no choice but to redesign the mechanics from scratch. There's still a few flavor issues (alignment, immunity to poison) but they're far less serious than 3.x/Pathfinder's monk.

Tossing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to 4e design. Things like roles, siloing rituals (Comprehend Languages should not be competing with combat spells) and healing rules that don't suck are getting thrown away. (On the latter point, after playing 4e I can't enjoy playing a healer in Pathfinder. You have to give up your entire action unless you're right beside the wounded PC. Standard to cast, move to ... move ... and no time to do stuff you actually want to do.) A lot of people didn't like 4e, but I doubt they'll run screaming if you keep the good parts.

Summer-Knight925 said:

I'm not sure, but I really don't see that much I like in NEXT.

What, if any, are your biggest fears with NEXT?

Try to remain civil guys, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, just trying to address the negatives in a positive and civilized manner.

Click to expand...

It's hard to get lastingly excited about Next given all we're seeing is the foundation of the game. The equivalent of starter kit content.

Jester Canuck said:

I think content like that survived because if the desire for PF to be backwards compatible. Change how crits work and every 3.5e product no longer works quite right.

Click to expand...

I've never noticed a deep problem playing 3.5 without confirming crits. At low levels you fudge player's survival because you can one-shot characters even without crits. I don't see any reason why not having confirming of crits in 3e is any worse than not having confirming crits in 1e/2e.

Aside from that, you could always take confirming crits away from the players and keep it for monsters, if you were deeply concerned that you might be tinkering with it working right.

Aside from the mess classes currently are, I am digging 5th Ed like no edition before (well, save 1st, but that's biased).

Cadence said:

The way you phrased that, I think I would have turned down a player who was that demanding before they would have a chance to turn me down. Or were you turning them down simply because of their clinginess to RAW and inability to discuss (which I can understand)?

Click to expand...

I will say that I was more polite and cautious to them than the way I stated it in this thread, but there wasn't an argument or anything. It was just "I don't agree" or "it is in the rulebook".

I also don't think I'm that demanding. I mean, it is just one rule, and I explained why I didn't like it.

ferratus said:

I've never noticed a deep problem playing 3.5 without confirming crits. At low levels you fudge player's survival because you can one-shot characters even without crits. I don't see any reason why not having confirming of crits in 3e is any worse than not having confirming crits in 1e/2e.

Aside from that, you could always take confirming crits away from the players and keep it for monsters, if you were deeply concerned that you might be tinkering with it working right.

Click to expand...

Totally. I removed crit confirming in my PF game. But it was a part of the game so there were class features, feats, spells, and the like all based around confirming crits. If that was removed, all that content would not work. And PF wouldn't be able to replace it.
So it was kept in. But you can bet there were discussions at the design table and debates.

I fear that next will include features that are non-starters for each of the set of fans they want to include and that the options included to modify those rules won't be satisfying.

(Psi)SeveredHead said:

Role clarity is something sorely missing. It's never been in D&D before 4e, and lots of people hate on it, so WotC seems to scared to even look at it. Before, we had fighters, wizards and (in 3.x) rogues all competing to do the most damage. Clerics had a mix of spells that made no sense, and in some editions you could build a cleric that added nothing to a party. In 4e, roles were clarified. In D&DN, roles are being tossed overboard. I count the cleric as one example. They're still healers, thank the pantheons. (Non-healing priests are another class. Invoker?) Unfortunately, they're not really clerics, they're wizards with religious overtones. How is Radiant Lance (now called Lance of Faith...) a cleric power? It's a direct damage wizard spell. It just has religious flavor to it. If you're looking to kill things with your light zap spell, shouldn't you be playing a wizard? Why do clerics cast spells like Hold Person? Isn't that also a wizard spell? And if they're just religious wizards, why not Hold Monster?

Click to expand...

I sympathize with the first part here to some degree, but I'm not so sure about clerics. Part of the goal of 5e is to get rid of the minor bonuses and such; most of the cleric spells still focus on healing, so I'm not terribly upset that they get ONE orison that lets them deal damage not based on their Strength score.

I mean, why did 4e clerics get Wrathful Thunder, or Cascade of Light, or Command, or (list continues)? Not EVERY cleric spell needs to be a buff or heal.

Tossing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to 4e design. Things like roles, siloing rituals (Comprehend Languages should not be competing with combat spells) and healing rules that don't suck are getting thrown away. (On the latter point, after playing 4e I can't enjoy playing a healer in Pathfinder. You have to give up your entire action unless you're right beside the wounded PC. Standard to cast, move to ... move ... and no time to do stuff you actually want to do.) A lot of people didn't like 4e, but I doubt they'll run screaming if you keep the good parts.

Click to expand...

It sounds like they're still working on rituals, and may add back in some siloing. Cleric healing in the current playtest is basically a minor action (in a system with almost no other minor actions to choose from), so while it's still hogging your spell slots it actually sucks up less of the action economy than it did in 4e (when you might want to do something else with your minor action).

But I can share your overall concern here.

I like what I'm seeing from Next and play testing has been a blast. I don't have any fears in regards to Next thus far though I am, for some reason, terrified of cicadas and living crabs.

But what I am a somewhat disapprobated by is the devs saying that their goal is to appeal to everyone who has played an edition of DnD. I don't mind them drawing inspiration from the previous games but at least on all the forums I lurk on or post on the DnD community is deeply divided. Thus instead of simply making a game I fear their goal of mass appeal will end up creating a game that appeals to no one.

But then again I don't care that much because I can always go play Call of Cthulu (not the D20 one) or Black Crusade or whatever if I don't like Next. Besides the play test is free. It's hard to get pissy about something that's free.