D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Ahnehnois]

I suspect a salient difference here is that I typically run infrequent sessions and have more preparation time than I know what to do with, such that I usually have a library of detailed monsters and NPCs without specific plans for them, allowing me to improvise heavily and simply drop whatever monsters I have into the game without needing stats on the fly. Typically, I write several densely packed pages of statblocks per session, and rarely run more than one or two battles. I like making characters. When I run out of characters to make, I start writing new rules subsystems to fill the time.

And if I'm designing monsters in detail (which for large named bad guys I do) I see utterly no benefit in making a dragon follow PC class rules.

Well, specifically as to dragons, at least some versions of D&D assume that magical ability can come from dragon heritage. And I would say a dragon isn't a dragon unless it can do everything it does unambiguously better than other races can do it, including having a full spellcasting repotoire, as well as a wide range of combat abilities, some of them class-like and some of them monstrous (like tail slap attacks or natural armor).

Speaking more broadly, in any campaign world in which the "large and in charge" feat exists, I expect that giants commonly take it, I expect that most celestials have a variety of spells derived from the BoED, and any creature with item slots peruses the MIC for gear. My rule is that if it exists, it exists for everyone, which means I either need to run a core only game or do enough work to incorporate the whole library of rules into the various creatures that populate the world, in the name of believability and balance.

At least we can agree that 5e is uninspiring.

Common ground! Let's all criticize 5e together...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suspect a salient difference here is that I typically run infrequent sessions and have more preparation time than I know what to do with,

Possibly. At the moment I average DMing about one session per fortnight - for a while last year it was three sessions/fortnight. Also I see the stats as probably the least interesting part of the NPCs - motivations and relationships are much more interesting.

such that I usually have a library of detailed monsters and NPCs without specific plans for them, allowing me to improvise heavily and simply drop whatever monsters I have into the game without needing stats on the fly. Typically, I write several densely packed pages of statblocks per session, and rarely run more than one or two battles. I like making characters. When I run out of characters to make, I start writing new rules subsystems to fill the time.

Well, specifically as to dragons, at least some versions of D&D assume that magical ability can come from dragon heritage. And I would say a dragon isn't a dragon unless it can do everything it does unambiguously better than other races can do it, including having a full spellcasting repotoire, as well as a wide range of combat abilities, some of them class-like and some of them monstrous (like tail slap attacks or natural armor).

Common ground! Let's all criticize 5e together...

That's the only version criticism is likely to improve at this point

 

[Scylla]

It needs to:

— Have more an AD&D feeling than more recent editions

— Make combat fast; fitting 5 combats into a 5-hour session shouldn't be too much to ask

— Treat monsters as monsters (rule-wise) and not as characters

— Discourage power gaming and min/maxing in all game modules via hard rules

— Restore more DM fiat and make things (such as magic items) mysterious for the players again

— Increase PC risk and avoid all "heal all damage overnight" type reset buttons

— Not slay any more sacred cows for the sake of change alone

— Make spellcasters effective and provide a full range of both combat & noncombat spells

— Make multiclassing or hybrids a rare, not-necessarily-advantageous choice to be selected because it fits the character concept, rather than merely to increase character effectiveness/power

That would be a great start!

 

[pemerton]

from the perspective of a 4e player, the monsters are simply risible by 4e standards.

I agree with this.

I want monsters which (i) have mechanics that will produce interesting experiences in play, and (ii) which, when I read through their mechanical entry, make it toleraby clear how (i) will be the case.

The playtest monsters don't really satisfy these criteria.

Have more an AD&D feeling than more recent editions

<snip>

Make multiclassing or hybrids a rare, not-necessarily-advantageous choice to be selected because it fits the character concept, rather than merely to increase character effectiveness/power

These two things seem somewhat at odds.

 

[rounser]

They've already struck out with me - the lesson from removing gnomes and finding people who were gnome fans encouraged their groups to leave the game was not an excuse to leave in their dragonborn, eladrin, warlords etc as core for another edition. Anecdotally, that guff has driven more people away than removing gnomes ever did.

Make no mistake: Ain't no dragonborn warlords walking into Homlett or Shadowdale in any game I run, so another edition of D&D incompatible with D&D worlds is in the offing. Could ban them, yes, but I can't be bothered correcting WOTC's mistakes, and they'll pop up everywhere because they're core again. And they'll screw up the worlds again by doing this wacky core races thing again, because FR 4E wasn't enough of a hint. Gah. Oh well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

They've already struck out with me - the lesson from removing gnomes and finding people who were gnome fans encouraged their groups to leave the game was not an excuse to leave in their dragonborn, eladrin, warlords etc as core for another edition. Anecdotally, that guff has driven more people away than removing gnomes ever did.

Seriously? You are literally out because other people might get something they enjoy? You are out because they split elves into high and wood elves, and make the High Elves (Eladrin) actually fey? You are out because people can play a humanoid dragon? And you are out because people don't have to be magic to get leadership abilities?
[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], how many examples of people claiming they are dumping D&D Next do you want before you accept that your claim that it was 4e fans who are utterly unwilling to compromise is mostly projection.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I've seen unwillingness to compromise on both sides of the 3.5Ed-4Ed chasm. It's an equal-opportunity attitude.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Personally, I've seen unwillingness to compromise on both sides of the 3.5Ed-4Ed chasm. It's an equal-opportunity attitude.

There's no need for compromise whatsoever. I'm not adopting 5E out of charity. Either 5E provides a comparable or superior experience to what I already have(4E) or it goes in the trash can. Given the experience of the past few years, I don't expect to have any difficulty in continuing to find 4E players. As others have said, WotC needs me FAR more than I need 5E.

 

[Tallifer]

I want flexibility and to play the game I want. I want to be able to make the game fit the adventure I want to run, not change the adventure I want to run to accommodate the quirks of the system.

For example, I changed how I wrote adventures for 4th Edition. I stopped doing investigative modules or overland travel adventures because of how potent the PCs were if they fought just one creature in a day.
I had to frequently stop and wonder "how am I going to add 3-5 treasure parcels to this adventure?" or "how can I add monsters to this fight for the appropriate amount of xp?"

For me the point of exploration or investigation is not success in combat. The party can destroy every band of brigands on the road, but they need to ask questions and listen to stories to further their quest. The Fourth Edition still works well for non-delve adventures.

As for magical items and experience, I let the players tell their own story for treasure (except when I want to give them an artifact or give them bonus quirky items), and I never calculate experience. So many sessions equals so many levels.

 

[Jester David]

Seriously? You are literally out because other people might get something they enjoy? You are out because they split elves into high and wood elves, and make the High Elves (Eladrin) actually fey? You are out because people can play a humanoid dragon? And you are out because people don't have to be magic to get leadership abilities?
[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], how many examples of people claiming they are dumping D&D Next do you want before you accept that your claim that it was 4e fans who are utterly unwilling to compromise is mostly projection?

Well, that makes one non-4e player to the dozen or so 4e people who've posted about how D&D Next = Fail because fighters don't have spells, monsters lack roles, Vancian magic, etc.

I will admit this might be skewed by the posting audience: a higher percentage of 4e players. Fans of older editions are likely less involved in the playtest and message boards, being more likely to just play what they're currently playing until the game is released.