After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?

[IronWolf]

I am cautiously optimistic at the moment. They seem to be talking the talking for the most part. They certainly have me intrigued and I see more things that sound like things I would like than I would dislike. The proof will be what is in the actual release, but certainly consider me interested.

 

[Stoat]

I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.

I'm operating under the assumption that these early tidbits from WotC are deliberately calculated to appeal to the OSR/Pathfinder folks. My hope is that the complete game really does have something for everyone.

 

[pemerton]

If a feat is required in order to play a basic character effectively, it's a tax. If a feat is required to play the specific character one individual player wants, then that's what feats are for.

But I am wondering whether feats in D&DN will be the feats that we are used to. If they are meant to open up the 4e or 3E or whatever style modules for PC building, they may be playing a different design role from that which they play in 4e and 3E at the moment.

 

[bss]

I'm operating under the assumption that these early tidbits from WotC are deliberately calculated to appeal to the OSR/Pathfinder folks. My hope is that the complete game really does have something for everyone.

A related aspect of the complete game is how many things I need to houserule/plug/unplug/reword to hit my game style. If everything that makes 4e so awesome to me is something I need to bolt on or gut from 5e, that's different than if I just need to swap out magic and add a more concrete skill system. There's a line where the effort to customize the system (any system, not just 5e) to emulate a different one is more work than just playing the target system despite its lack of support.

While of course the first public introduction to the game would involve rules and the playing of games, it is troubling to me that the seminars included "here are the rules we like, this is what we're starting with" rather than "here's how the math of the system works and how rules plug in to it" --- the former sounds more like I am removing rules and hoping others fit, the latter is a meta-system where I could (ideally) chose chapters 2, 4, 9, 10, and 18 from a book and have my ultimate D&D.

(Incidentally, the former is also something DMs have been doing for decades, whereas the latter would actually be innovative design --- take that how you will.)

 

[Nebulous]

I don't like the silver standard, though. Yes, historically most coins were based around silver, not gold, but most editions have used it.

I mean, when you find a treasure chest, it's much exciting to find it full of golden doubloons, rather than silver reales.

I have to disagree, with silver the standard, imagine the glee when you DO find a chest of gold!

 

[bss]

I have to disagree, with silver the standard, imagine the glee when you DO find a chest of gold!

I don't get it either way. It's all fake money. They're just abstract numbers to buy other abstract things. Is it really just them choosing a flavor of currency, is that what everyone's excited about? Silver is more old-school? It's not like gold pieces didn't break down into fractions properly or something.

I'm honestly curious. When I saw that news I just raised an eyebrow and thought "so?".

 

[Nebulous]

It's another game.

It's not 4E. If you want a 4E, stick to it. As people who want PF or 3.5.

It's another edition which aims to cater 1 to 4 playstyles... but it's a new game.

I really and truly believe that 5e will be able to fully replicate 4e...just probably not out of the gate. It will take a few expansions. I don't think 4e lovers want to hear that though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I really and truly believe that 5e will be able to fully replicate 4e...just probably not out of the gate. It will take a few expansions. I don't think 4e lovers want to hear that though.

Since 4E launched, people who don't like it have been singularly unimpressive in their ability to determine what 4E "lovers" like and why. I see nothing so far in 5E discussion to make me think that has changed.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What's more equitable about favoring players who are good with rule systems over players who know how to talk?

This is the one thing I never understood about this position. Someone is always going to get the advantage. All we're discussing here is who it's going to be.

Need to spread XP around. If someone wants to chip in for me, I wouldn't complain.

This is strikingly like the fabled conversation between Churchill and the "lady' over what she was versus discussing the price. Now that we've established what we all are, we can discuss the cost.

 

[Halivar]

As far as I'm concerned, I can't have an opinion, because I have no clue how it's going to look. At this point, they could just be running games with a potpourri of different mechanics to see what sticks with the most people. That being said, if the game that is described is the final version of the game (which it's not, and will likely undergo radical changes before printing, but speaking hypothetically), then I would probably not move to it from 4E.

And that's the thing; see, I don't own D&D. I, unfortunately, have to share it with the lot of you louts in internetland, and sometimes I can't get everything my way.

And that's ok. In that scenario, I still got my 4E books, and maybe it's time for the Tribe of 4ron to spend a few years in the Great Grognardian Wilderness. I hope not, but worst case scenario is everybody still plays the game of their choice. So I can't very well "ick" at it, even if it's not the sort of game I would want to play.