People have the strangest deal-breakers

[Rechan]

Lack of dragonboobs is a dealbreaker for me!

 

[Number48]

I don't give a crap whether it's "new" or "old." I want a really fun game that feels like D&D to me. If I get that, I'll be on my way to happy.

I would be right there with you if money wasn't a frequent problem. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the base books will be about $50 retail and be able to find them for about $40-45. If I get the base 3 books, then there all the expansions. I'm not obligated to buy them, but I have a disease. So... make me unable to NOT buy 5E and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Gundark]

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.".......

Sometimes its gotta be hard being WotC.

Myself do I have my "dealbreakers"? Sure I do, but I have to see the rules first.

 

[John Quixote]

5th edition deal-breakers? I'll give Monte three strikes.

1) Feats being hard-wired into the core character rules.

2) Attacks of opportunity being hard-wired into the core combat rules.

3) Monster stat-blocks taking up more than about a line of text on a two-column page. Monster, AC, hp, HD, #AT, Dmg, SV.

The latest transcript implies that the game still has feats, so that's strike one for me. But Monte and company have a chance to hit a home run, if they come right out and say that the whole "character build" thing is just an opt-in from the start.

If, however -- and this is a pretty darned big "if" -- if the way you opt out of feats in 5th edition is to take a default build with all the feats pre-selected, then the whole "layered complexity" thing will have turned out to be a crock after all, and tough noogies, I ain't switching from BECM.

 

[enrious]

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.

Some people want to be disappointed. http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...7174-there-going-lot-people-disappointed.html

 

[Glade Riven]

I don't have any deal-breakers myself. While I play Pathfinder, I don't hate 4e, and enjoyed playing it when I did. I've learned a lot about DMing with 4e, having incorporated minions, reduced stat blocks (why stat everything I'm not going to use?) for enemies and NPCs, and a few other short cuts. I've pulled stuff from other systems, like SW:Saga. Heck, a friend/fellow DM and I are already pondering how to tack on At:Will casting feats into Pathfinder.

For me, I'll be looking over 5e to see if it is better than what I'm playing. That'll determine whether or not I will actually spend money on it as opposed to cannabalizing a few concepts and mechanics.

Some of the deal-breaks I've seen are kinda odd. The warlord class is a deal break, when we know nothing about the implimentation? Really? Healing surges are that big of an issue? It could be flavored better, but still...some of it seems like haters just want to hate.

I'm glad Enworld has cracked down on edition warring, though. It was pretty nasty when 4e came out. I don't mind someone not liking something, or having to agree to disagree. Picking fights is something else.

 

[Stalker0]

Its fun to be absolute. It gives us power to have conviction, to say "This far, and no farther!"

We have our opinions on dnd, and want to believe very strongly that WOTC will listen to our conviction and make it happen.

But here's what will happen. People will check out the new edition, even if it has a "dealbreaker" in it. They will take a look, and decide if its for them. And it likely won't be a single thing that makes them love it or hate, but a combination of many.

 

[Aldarc]

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.".......

Sometimes its gotta be hard being WotC.

The big problem being "What constitutes D&D?," and "How can I force everyone else to follow my vision of it?"

 

[Dausuul]

It's pretty hard for me to come up with one single element that would be a deal-breaker if everything else were good. It would have to be something right at the core of the game, something I couldn't just hit with the ban-hammer, and obnoxious enough that I couldn't just sigh and put up with it. Considering the (to me) obnoxious elements I've put up with in 4E, I really don't know what that would be. If I decline to go to 5E, it will be because of an agglomeration of small issues, not one huge one.

...Oh, wait, I do have one. If 5E is DDI-only and they jack the subscription rate to $50/month, that's a deal-breaker*.

[size=-2]*Probably.[/size]

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Also, I think some people are simply looking for an excuse to reject it and keep playing whatever it is they're already invested in. Truth is, we shouldn't worry about them too much. In some ways, they're lucky. They'll never have to spend money on D&D materials again and can keep playing their nearly-perfect game.

Me, I like new things. I long felt that 3.X wasn't what it could be, but wasn't happy with the 4E solutions. This feels like they're giving it all another go, but with more experience in D&D play and design.