DDXP Begins Today!

[FitzTheRuke]

I think the positive vibe comes from two main places:

1. They are asking for our input. So if we hear anything we don't like, we've got a chance to help to change it.

2. What they've said so far actually sounds really good, if they get the details right. We've got a chance to influence the details (as in 1 above).

You'd have to be basically entirely pessimistic to not be at least cautiously intrigued. Therefore, a whole lot of general optimism, with a bunch of natural scepticism.

Hopefully it will continue!

 

[Dire Bare]

3.X Added a new class (sorcerer) and it was awesome. The warlord concept is awesome and deserves a class. New D&D editions sometimes get us something new, or even cast raise dead on things we thought were gone for good (monk*, I'm looking at you). What I don't want is to have to choose between druid/bard and warlord. In this case, tradition gets the edge.

On that regard, races are an entirely different deal. If I ever see a dragonborn or warforged (and I really like the later) in the Player's Handbook, I know that's an edition of D&D I won't be running. Men (even more awesomeness if that's used in place of humans), dwarves, elves and halflings (the plump ones, please) are the races I want in the core rules. I can see a case for gnomes and half-dudes, but that's where it ends. Everything else goes to optional modules.

Cheers,

*While I really like monks, I want a new Oriental Adventures book to be released, and I want monks to be there, on the spotlight, together with ninjas and samurais.

I find that an odd statement. New class archetypes are okay, but new racial archetypes are not? Granted, to deliver a simpler, classic experience we probably won't see tieflings, dragonborn, and warforged in the core books (or box) . . . . but if we did, it'd be awful silly to write off the game because of it. It will be just as easy as ever to say, "In my campaign, no devil-dudes, dragon-guys, or robots allowed!"

 

[Dire Bare]

How are they defining "roleplay" such that it excludes exploration and combat? Do they mean social interaction?

Um, you can both explore and fight without any roleplaying. Pick any videogame to play and experience it for yourself. And I'm sure that nothing will prevent you from roleplaying while you explore or fight!

 

[buddhafrog]

[MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION]

Without knowing anything about the mechanical implementation of what it will look like, and how close it will match what I envisioned in the other thread, logically it makes sense to de-emphasize ascending bonuses. It allows you build a world where your basic orc is still relevant several levels later.

It allows you to make a game that is super compatible with all prior editions. So much so that with minimal conversion you can run Keep on the Borderlands or classic Tomb of Horrors, or you can shift gears and run through a Paizo AP, or slap on the minis rules and run the 4e Madness at Gardmore Abbey, all with 5e PCs. Thats an amazing degree of flexibility and power.

I assume you are right, but I don't understand how / why. Can someone explain this in the most basic terms, with details / examples?

thanks.

 

[Khaalis]

I'm not unhappy. WotC can make any version of D&D that they want and I'd still be happy. I will just keep playing AD&D.

I guess I'm selfish, but if the core basic of this new edition isn't super simple with just archetype classes and the four classic races, then I won't be involved. I see the word Warlock or Tiefling anywhere? I'm out. I'm not unhappy. I'm just going to play a different game.

But again, I don't expect WotC to cater to my specific desires.

Not to sound too negative here, but it sounds like what you are saying is that all you will ever play is AD&D and that if D&D5/Next isn't pretty much exactly the same as AD&D, you won't even give it a shot. So, uh... why are you even involved in the discussion?

The entire point of the new system is to create a New D&D that will hopefully make itself available to a wider audience than 4E did. To do that, it takes constructive input from a wide range of people who are willing to make such a modular system work. All of the people who refuse to come out of their respective corners and have the attitude "my way or no way" simply aren't helping the discussion. I just don't get it. Why come into a discussion just to say you won't ever be interested unless the game is exactly the way you want it, when you know it can never be exactly what you want?

 

[Khaalis]

Why does all of the talk of D&D Next sound like Fantasy Craft? I am sure it will be a lot simpler than FC but dang it does sound like they are channeling it. I looked it over once (FC) and decided against purchasing it. While the customization sounded awesome I figured it would have been entirely too much work for the Dungeon Master to work out all the details and make player's handbooks. I also figured you best not let your min-maxers ever look at that core book because they would want to use a lot of stuff you as DM didn't want.

Personally, I am a fan of FC (already converted my old D&D world to it) because it fixes SO many of the standard d20 issues. I would be very happy to see some of the design concepts make it into the new D&D.

 

[Dragonblade]

I assume you are right, but I don't understand how / why. Can someone explain this in the most basic terms, with details / examples?

thanks.

See my other thread here.

 

[avin]

If the game does, in fact, use more Tolkien-like classes and races (like this fat halfling that they're speaking of and the Aragorn-type ranger), then that suits my style of D&D just fine. But words are wind. We'll see.

Problem is, some D&D players aren't Tolkien fans... and they want to cater all D&D editions... there should be room for Tiefling fans, Dragonborn fans... and if a DM doesn't want to use that on his world he just said that.

This happens in every RPG system... (I was never able to play an Assamite )

I don't get the NDAs either. Really if anyone wants to steal the game they can legally do it thanks to the OGL and regular copyright laws. WotC needs to defang their lawyers.

It's later alpha, they don't want people to discuss something that may be never in game.

Not to sound too negative here, but it sounds like what you are saying is that all you will ever play is AD&D and that if D&D5/Next isn't pretty much exactly the same as AD&D, you won't even give it a shot. So, uh... why are you even involved in the discussion?

It's like going to a candy shop and tell all the clients he won't buy chocolate with almonds instead of just buy the chocolate he wants and leave (sorry [MENTION=6060]Falstaff[/MENTION], couldn't resist)

 

[Nebulous]

To which I say, "yahoo for the Marshal/Warlord!!"

I like the idea of the class -- now, if they can streamline the abilities to make sure there are very few to no "quasi-magical" powers in there, I'm set. If Pathfinder can pull off the Cavalier, then WotC can pull off a passable Warlord.

IF they can do that....fine, i will be ok with that. Conceptually the class is fine.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Granted, to deliver a simpler, classic experience we probably won't see tieflings, dragonborn, and warforged in the core books (or box) . . . . but if we did, it'd be awful silly to write off the game because of it. It will be just as easy as ever to say, "In my campaign, no devil-dudes, dragon-guys, or robots allowed!"

It's not that simple. As someone already pointed in another thread, it's not easy to simply disallow a Player's Handbook race without some players seeing you as a jerk.

Also, the implied setting is a very important part of the D&D experience to me; look at the cover of 4E PH and what you see? Yes, a dragonborn. And they'll also appear a lot around in both modules and sourcebooks, even in the background of the world.

I don't like dragonborns, but I have no problem with people liking them, I just want them to be an option in whatever book they're released, not a relevant part of the core, with people asking me why they're not a part of my setting. I hope I have clarified that.

Cheers,