Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5948905" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>No, I'm not.</p><p>You are mistaking my comments about "perception" and "reality". I was commenting to @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>' perceptions about what 5e will be. His perceptions seem to be favourable because of the aspects which were either founding principles or driving goals or architectural features of 4e.</p><p></p><p>I don't appreciate my entire argument summerized as "h4ter" speech. I dislike 4e and have reasons why I do. But instead of discussing it you call me a hater and blow on past. Also, since I was STILL talking about <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>' perceptions the feeling or "seeming" do seem relevant.</p><p></p><p>Presumed math. Not actual math, there is remarkable little Actual math. If there were more than one ogre would it have less hp? I would have to assume so, or else things wouldn't be "balanced" for the encounter. Thank kind of thing.</p><p></p><p>Would I be right if they had 1hp?</p><p>They kept 2hp kobolds from AD&D but quadrupled* the HP the PCs would have at the same level.</p><p></p><p>This is also a completely different issue which I have discussed elsewhere, if you want my thoughts on the subject go looking. No need to further deviate from the real topic.</p><p></p><p>There were higher hp kobolds in 4e too. How does that invalidate my comments about minions?</p><p></p><p>See comments above, but..</p><p></p><p>If the 4e fighter had the slayer's ability how would that be different about minions?</p><p></p><p>Okay, so your point is that 5e is old school and not 4e. And you annoyed that I said <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>' perception was pro-4e when 5e isn't 4e?</p><p></p><p>My fear isn't that 5e will resemble 4e. What I do fear is that there will be comments from people who say they are 1e or 2e or 3e players, who are giving feedback and saying they like the 4e aspects, while all the while liking those aspects of 4e. I know this looks like I'm fearing 5e being 4e. But I fear the feedback, along with the assumptions they'll get.</p><p></p><p>Allow me to illustrate:</p><p></p><p>Say WotC receives feedback from three players (or groups or w/e);</p><p>1st is "Tony", who tells WotC he is a 4e player and loves XYZ of 5e so far.</p><p>2nd is "Not-<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>", who says he is a 3e player and loves XYZ of 5e so far.</p><p>3rd is "Tovec", who says he is a 3e palyer and dislikes XYZ of 5e so far.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that WotC is going to say, great, 4e players love it and at least some of 3e players do too. Whereas, "Not-<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>" is actually a AD&Der who seems to like aspects of 4e.</p><p></p><p>Once again, this has more to do about perception than reality as far as the rules go. Which happens to be what I said originally. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>' perceptions are either 4e slanting, intentionally or not. I bolded why I thought so and you haven't refuted that. The fact that "4e" showed up in all his comments solidified my thinking, I didn't need to have a anti-4e to see that, just "good eyesight".</p><p></p><p>First, those aren't mutually exclusive.. so Both!</p><p>Second, I don't object to them having options for everyone, NOR am I against people having exactly what they want. The fact that I want what I want is just part of this.</p><p>Third, this ties into "second" but if I don't get what I want then it won't work.. for me. They are perfectly able to make something that won't work for me. However, if they want my money then they WILL have to address sticking points. Others can have theirs, but if they want me then they'll have to address mine - which they aren't doing so far as I have seen. And that is based on both the playtest as well as the blog-spots coming out of any branch of WotC.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately they can certainly ignore me. I would just prefer if they are going to, that they realize they are ignoring me, so that when I don't like the product it won't be a surprise. However, if the reporting is off then they might be surprised when they don't get the results from my demographic that they expected.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a></p><p>That could be my bad, when I asked that question I was referring to my asking <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html" target="_blank">Ahnehnois</a>, not you Tony.</p><p></p><p>Certain aspects already strike me as 4e but I can understand if you do not feel the same. I probably come off sounding the exact same way when people say aspects come off as 3e when I fail to see it.</p><p>Beyond that, if you entire point is that 5e reminds you more of AD&D than 3e or 4e then I suppose I can understand that even if I do not agree.</p><p></p><p>A. I would be a little surprised if AD&D fans are going to be their largest change or segment of the population. It is possible I suppose but I have not seen that. More often I see AD&D people who have moved onto different systems entirely or newer editions of DnD. I see this more often then them moving onto retro-clones but maybe that has to do with them not talking about it, who knows.</p><p></p><p>B. Sucks to be you for not investing in books, which they cannot take away, instead of online sources which you have to subscribe to. *shrug*</p><p></p><p>C. I know far too many people who are not willing to play pathfinder for your last comments to be true. The ones who did not convert generally either did not want to shell out the money or that they did not trust a non-WotC brand. Both of these problems could be circumvented by 5e because it IS a WotC brand and because it has been (and still will be) a few years.</p><p></p><p>D. Anyone who decided to not go outside the official books for any edition are in the same boat Tony, 4e is not unique in that regard.</p><p></p><p>E. (the last paragraph) I do think 5e has a stronger chance of keeping more than a few aspects of 4e. As much as it wants to recapture old fans, it HAS a current fanbase who will probably buy the product if it keeps a lot of the same foundation and math. There is no telling, yet, if this is going to happen but it would be smart to incorporate 4e into 5e as much as possible. Probably MORE SO than <em>only </em>getting older players to try new twist on old material. The winning strategy of course will be the blend old, new and in-between to get as many people as possible to play the latest game. (This is also their declared goal of 5e. Go figure.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>*Maybe not quadruple, but somewhere in that magnitude.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5948905, member: 95493"] No, I'm not. You are mistaking my comments about "perception" and "reality". I was commenting to @[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL]' perceptions about what 5e will be. His perceptions seem to be favourable because of the aspects which were either founding principles or driving goals or architectural features of 4e. I don't appreciate my entire argument summerized as "h4ter" speech. I dislike 4e and have reasons why I do. But instead of discussing it you call me a hater and blow on past. Also, since I was STILL talking about [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL]' perceptions the feeling or "seeming" do seem relevant. Presumed math. Not actual math, there is remarkable little Actual math. If there were more than one ogre would it have less hp? I would have to assume so, or else things wouldn't be "balanced" for the encounter. Thank kind of thing. Would I be right if they had 1hp? They kept 2hp kobolds from AD&D but quadrupled* the HP the PCs would have at the same level. This is also a completely different issue which I have discussed elsewhere, if you want my thoughts on the subject go looking. No need to further deviate from the real topic. There were higher hp kobolds in 4e too. How does that invalidate my comments about minions? See comments above, but.. If the 4e fighter had the slayer's ability how would that be different about minions? Okay, so your point is that 5e is old school and not 4e. And you annoyed that I said [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL]' perception was pro-4e when 5e isn't 4e? My fear isn't that 5e will resemble 4e. What I do fear is that there will be comments from people who say they are 1e or 2e or 3e players, who are giving feedback and saying they like the 4e aspects, while all the while liking those aspects of 4e. I know this looks like I'm fearing 5e being 4e. But I fear the feedback, along with the assumptions they'll get. Allow me to illustrate: Say WotC receives feedback from three players (or groups or w/e); 1st is "Tony", who tells WotC he is a 4e player and loves XYZ of 5e so far. 2nd is "Not-[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL]", who says he is a 3e player and loves XYZ of 5e so far. 3rd is "Tovec", who says he is a 3e palyer and dislikes XYZ of 5e so far. It seems to me that WotC is going to say, great, 4e players love it and at least some of 3e players do too. Whereas, "Not-[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL]" is actually a AD&Der who seems to like aspects of 4e. Once again, this has more to do about perception than reality as far as the rules go. Which happens to be what I said originally. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL]' perceptions are either 4e slanting, intentionally or not. I bolded why I thought so and you haven't refuted that. The fact that "4e" showed up in all his comments solidified my thinking, I didn't need to have a anti-4e to see that, just "good eyesight". First, those aren't mutually exclusive.. so Both! Second, I don't object to them having options for everyone, NOR am I against people having exactly what they want. The fact that I want what I want is just part of this. Third, this ties into "second" but if I don't get what I want then it won't work.. for me. They are perfectly able to make something that won't work for me. However, if they want my money then they WILL have to address sticking points. Others can have theirs, but if they want me then they'll have to address mine - which they aren't doing so far as I have seen. And that is based on both the playtest as well as the blog-spots coming out of any branch of WotC. Ultimately they can certainly ignore me. I would just prefer if they are going to, that they realize they are ignoring me, so that when I don't like the product it won't be a surprise. However, if the reporting is off then they might be surprised when they don't get the results from my demographic that they expected. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL] That could be my bad, when I asked that question I was referring to my asking [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/ahnehnois.html"]Ahnehnois[/URL], not you Tony. Certain aspects already strike me as 4e but I can understand if you do not feel the same. I probably come off sounding the exact same way when people say aspects come off as 3e when I fail to see it. Beyond that, if you entire point is that 5e reminds you more of AD&D than 3e or 4e then I suppose I can understand that even if I do not agree. A. I would be a little surprised if AD&D fans are going to be their largest change or segment of the population. It is possible I suppose but I have not seen that. More often I see AD&D people who have moved onto different systems entirely or newer editions of DnD. I see this more often then them moving onto retro-clones but maybe that has to do with them not talking about it, who knows. B. Sucks to be you for not investing in books, which they cannot take away, instead of online sources which you have to subscribe to. *shrug* C. I know far too many people who are not willing to play pathfinder for your last comments to be true. The ones who did not convert generally either did not want to shell out the money or that they did not trust a non-WotC brand. Both of these problems could be circumvented by 5e because it IS a WotC brand and because it has been (and still will be) a few years. D. Anyone who decided to not go outside the official books for any edition are in the same boat Tony, 4e is not unique in that regard. E. (the last paragraph) I do think 5e has a stronger chance of keeping more than a few aspects of 4e. As much as it wants to recapture old fans, it HAS a current fanbase who will probably buy the product if it keeps a lot of the same foundation and math. There is no telling, yet, if this is going to happen but it would be smart to incorporate 4e into 5e as much as possible. Probably MORE SO than [I]only [/I]getting older players to try new twist on old material. The winning strategy of course will be the blend old, new and in-between to get as many people as possible to play the latest game. (This is also their declared goal of 5e. Go figure.) *Maybe not quadruple, but somewhere in that magnitude. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do we really need D&D:Next to be the One Edition?
Top