D&D 5E [Poll] Do You Like The Direction D&DN Is Heading In?

Hussar · Jan 31, 2013

Funnily enough, if you were to overlay the results of this poll with virtually every poll on En World that I've ever seen on the number of people playing 4e, they'd be almost identical, about 50% happy and making the change, the other 50% going with other versions of D&D.

This does not bode well IMO.

timASW · Jan 31, 2013

I had a lot of hope that was really growing over the first few playtests but I dont like the rogue at all. The barbarian kind of sucks (or really sucks) and I dont lat all like how they took an interesting fighter schtick (martial dice) and decided to give it to everyone and their brother.

So right now it looks like its gonna be something I just torrent for free and mine for any good ideas to steal for my PF game or true 20 games rather then something I pay for and actually play.

Mod Note: This has gotten reported a couple of times, so I should note - EN World does not condone or support copyright violation. We'll generally moderate you if use this site to distribute or assist flagrant copyright violation. However, it is *not* really against the rules to say, "I'm gonna go pirate this stuff." While we usually don't really want to hear about it, what you do off the site is your own business. If you want to publicly announce that you intend to break the law and be kind of a jerk to people who work hard just because you don't like the output, well, that's your own lookout. We figure the reaction you get when you make such an announcement is usually sufficient punishment that we don't feel a need to come down on you for it. ~Umbran

FireLance · Jan 31, 2013

IMO, the base 4e system is so balanced and flexible that I can take the best parts of 5e* and graft them onto 4e with no problems. I haven't seen how the design team intends to make the reverse true, or much evidence that it's even on the agenda. Or maybe the design team's ideas of what is best in 4e are not the same as mine. :erm:

* Specifically, martial damage dice/maneuvers [replacing at-will powers), more granular healing surges in the form of Hit Dice, and the sorcerer mechanic of gaining constant benefits as he expends his daily abilities.

Garthanos · Jan 31, 2013

FireLance said:
IMO, the base 4e system is so balanced and flexible that I can take the best parts of 5e* and graft them onto 4e with no problems. I haven't seen how the design team intends to make the reverse true, or much evidence that it's even on the agenda. Or maybe the design team's ideas of what is best in 4e are not the same as mine.

* Specifically, martial damage dice/maneuvers [replacing at-will powers), more granular healing surges in the form of Hit Dice, and the sorcerer mechanic of gaining constant benefits as he expends his daily abilities.

I think attunement is a rather slick tidbit easily stolen. The sorcerors benefits are certainly cool how do you convert to context (start with the Psionics?)

FireLance · Feb 1, 2013

Garthanos said:
I think attunement is a rather slick tidbit easily stolen. The sorcerors benefits are certainly cool how do you convert to context (start with the Psionics?)

Agreed on attunement. The sorcerer's benefit could be a class feature (e.g. after you expend your first daily attack power, you gain a +1 bonus to melee damage rolls until the end of your next extended rest) or you could develop powers that have these benefits (e.g. Effect: You gain a +1 bonus to melee damage rolls until the end of your next extended rest). You could even make it a feat.

Garthanos · Feb 1, 2013

FireLance said:
Agreed on attunement. The sorcerer's benefit could be a class feature (e.g. after you expend your first daily attack power, you gain a +1 bonus to melee damage rolls until the end of your next extended rest) or you could develop powers that have these benefits (e.g. Effect: You gain a +1 bonus to melee damage rolls until the end of your next extended rest). You could even make it a feat.

Smacks forhead there is even precidence I rather like the human feat which gives bonuses after expending all your encounter powers like that.. I had somehow forgot it.

Plaguescarred · Feb 2, 2013

Pretty Good So Far

Derren · Feb 2, 2013

Dndungeoneer said:
I think that delericho is getting at the idea that 4E broke a lot of long held conceptions of the D&D game, and while some weren't a great decision from the perspective of veteran players it opened up D&D from being so narrowly focused and short sighted.

And in what way did 4E "open up" D&D? I and many others do not have the perception that 4E made D&D broader. Rather the opposite, it narrowed to focus down again to dungeon crawling after 3E started to broaden its focus beyond that with its skill system and having the same rules for PCs and NPCs.
As for the poll, it would be interesting to see how what 4E players think of 5E and what PF/3.X players think of it. Because WotC has to try quite hard if they want to recapture the latter group while the former one is more easy to hook.

Hussar · Feb 2, 2013

Y'know, Derren, your point would likely be a whole lot more accessible if you stopped trying to speak for other people. As in, instead of talking about "many others", why not just talk about your own experiences.

Additionally, since I have seen elsewhere that you admit that you stopped looking at 4e pretty much after the core 3 were released, wouldn't that be a lot like judging 3e based entirely on the first printing 3e core 3? I mean, if you're going to talk about how 3e broadened its focus beyond things, you really should take some time to examine the stuff that's come out in the last two or three years for 4e before passing broad sweeping judgements.

Just a thought.

Ahnehnois · Feb 2, 2013

Hussar said:
Y'know, Derren, your point would likely be a whole lot more accessible if you stopped trying to speak for other people. As in, instead of talking about "many others", why not just talk about your own experiences.

Well, many is no more of an overreach than the attribution in the post he quoted. And I agree with his point. (IME, "many" on these boards doesn't require more than two).

Additionally, since I have seen elsewhere that you admit that you stopped looking at 4e pretty much after the core 3 were released, wouldn't that be a lot like judging 3e based entirely on the first printing 3e core 3?

Yes. If someone did that, it could be equally valid.

For example, if a 2e player reads 3e and concludes that skills and feats are too detail-heavy or don't "feel like D&D", reading more books of feats is not really necessary to verify that conclusion. By the same token, if one reads that the 4e classes are designed around combat roles and concludes that the focus has shifted towards combat, they don't need to read another dozen of those classes to confirm that.