People have the strangest deal-breakers

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I admit to having a "strange" deal breaker: encounter powers. Seriously, if they keep that design paradigm, I am out.

It is a shame that they are probably gone in 5e, I really like encounter powers. 5e is more and more the D&D the "I'm sorry about 4e edition" to me.

 

[Number48]

I've been pretty open-minded too, but I have the exact opposite deal-breaker. I want D&D to be D&D... not Generic Fantasy RPG #543 with the D&D name plastered on it. If you don't like D&D, there are lots of other fantasy RPGs out there. The D&D game has a 35+ year history. Things that have been around since the beginning should carry a lot more weight than stuff that's only been around for the last couple of years.

I have been playing D&D for 30 years. It is because I love it so much that I want to see a 5E that does it justice. If their vision of the best D&D possible is a dusted off 2E, then I think the designers have given up. We can unite the best of D&D while still moving in a forward direction!

 

[Oni]

I admit to having a "strange" deal breaker: encounter powers. Seriously, if they keep that design paradigm, I am out.

It seems likely they will continue to exist in some form or another since they were specially called out that some magic feats could give per encounter spells of sorts.

 

[Aeolius]

I want D&D to be D&D...

This. Granted, what feels like D&D differs from person to person, so it's a tad difficult to narrow down. To me, 2e and 4e did not feel like D&D, so I skipped them for the most part.

I have high hopes for 5e.

 

[Wulfram]

Most genuine deal-breakers reflect scepticism or an unwillingness to buy the product anyway. It's not that this is one issue would necessarily kill the game for them on it's own, it's that this is where they've chosen to draw the line. This far and no further.

While for other people it's more of a tactical negotiating position.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Only dealbreaker for me is if they system is so rigid it doesn't support house rules.

 

[avin]

Ultimately, the only deal-breaker for me is if Casters return to overshadowing Non-Casters because the former are MAGIC, while the latter are MUNDANE.

That's my only deal-breaker too. As a player I don't want my Fighter to be be a sidekick of some Wizard because Wizards are "magical". As a DM I don't want to deal with other players frustration because some combo is overpowered.

I'm gonna try, I'm gonna play and I'm gonna DM 5E for a while, but will be short lived.

My deal-breakers would be excessive amounts of DM prep time, or excessive book look up time during the game.

Not a deal breaker to me but, yeah, 4E's short prep time + CB + MB must be in for all that married DMs around.

Monte Cook said this earlier today on Twitter .... " When I say, "I want D&D to be a game for all D&D fans," and then see people write that's a bad idea, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.".......

Most genuine deal-breakers reflect scepticism or an unwillingness to buy the product anyway.

That's the best answer.

Some people won't buy 5E because it's a new edition, not BECMI.

Some people won't buy 5E because they break up with Wotc after 4E's RP fiasco.

Some people won't buy 5E because Vancian is back.

All these people won't buy it anyway but, for some reason, they keep seeing red flags, deal breakers, etc.

It's not all people. Some have real deal breakers, but some just want to say X edition is their game of choice.

 

[Yora]

Having to have prepared spellcasters who forget how to cast spells after they cast them once would really annoy me great time.

But they already said classes other than wizard and cleric will cast spells differently. (I hope there's some kind of spontaneous druid.)

 

[Reynard]

these people won't buy it anyway but, for some reason, they keep seeing red flags, deal breakers, etc.

It's not all people. Some have real deal breakers, but some just want to say X edition is their game of choice.

I saw lots of "red flags" during the development of 4E, but I bought it, played it and ran it anyway. And while there were things about it I liked, there were things about it I really hated -- the most egregious of which was the encounter power paradigm (for lots of reasons that we don't need to get into right now).

So me saying encounter powers are a deal breaker isn't some excuse to not want to like 5E. I want to like the game that carries the official D&D brand. I grew up with D&D. It matters to me. But since there are real alternatives now that are D&D in all but brand, the onus is on WotC to create a version I feel is D&D not on me to adjust my opinions to accept whatever someone decides to brand D&D.

 

[Li Shenron]

So we've only got a few bits and pieces, mostly discussing design theory. Already, comments are flying about how one thing or another is a deal breaker, even though from what we're hearing, the new system is designed to allow you to say "no" to anything you don't like.

I dunno. I guess I find this sort of thing odd - I'm an inclusionist. I like variety, and the ability to structure my campaign world however I like. ...

When it comes to non-rules concepts, such a certain Class, a certain Race etc., I can understand why some people say "if X isn't in 5e, I won't play it". However given the precedents, we can safely assume that everything that's at least mildly popular will be in the game early or late, maybe not in the core but still.

Anyway, from how they're advertising it, 5e is more about saying "yes" to things you want to add, than "no" to things you dislike.

I am however worried about the more fundamental rules, such as vancian magic vs 4e powers, because each of the fundamental rules profoundly affects the entire game and the character material. If 5e supports vancian magic then it must provide lots of spells, if it supports dailies/encounter/at-will powers then it must provide lots those.... If it supports both... how's the books going to have all that material? Will they have two versions of every "classic spell"? Will they have conversion rules or equivalence tables? There are just some things in the core mechanics, which are very very hard to image that you can choose "yes/no" in your game, without major problems.