Something Awful leak.

[Szatany]

Note that my argument was against a lot of small, transient bonuses: the cleric is 15 feets away so +1, the bard is singing so +3, the Vrock has a spore field so -1 unless I move 5 feet that way in which case it is -2, plus I am bloodied so +1 for bloodied determination, I am uphill so +1, and wasn't there a bless spell too?

The game could use streamlining in this aspect of the rules. It should be faster and simpler to calculate a bonus. 99% of situational boni should be +2 (or -2 for penalties). Based on your example it should work like this: the cleric is 15 ft away, the bard's singing, uphill and bloodied determination - that's four favorable circumstances. Spore field is one negative one. That's total of 3 favorable factors so my bonus is +6.

 

[Szatany]

Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.

Life isn't fair. Why should a game that's trying to imitate life (more or less) be fair then?
The only fairness that absolutely needs to be in there is to treat all players equally.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm going to go check if there's a new OOTs now, and then do the final bit of prep work for my Thursday game. The party will be trying to close a shadowgate and that will be interesting. They already got hit pretty good last time and burned up a couple daily powers. Cost them a few surges to boot, now it will be time to see if they can forge their way through the gauntlet and accomplish the mission. Plot twists await!

Really, 5e could be a great thing. People need to keep an open mind to some actual innovations. Really, it needs to have GAME as one of its priorities, not just fan service.

 

[billd91]

Dump stats are much fairer than expecting a player to keep 6 stats high, and punishing them if they don't, especially when the system makes it mechanically impossible to keep 6 stats high.

I emphatically disagree. It's one of 4e's blind spots in the balancing, I think. Not every class has the same number of dump stats, nor do all races. 4e zigged by generally increasing the number of dumpable stats when it should have zagged toward more multiple attribute dependency.

 

[dkyle]

Life isn't fair. Why should a game that's trying to imitate life (more or less) be fair then?

RPGs aren't "life", and like entertainment in general, are inherently escapist. Just because life sucks sometimes doesn't mean a game needs to suck similarly.

In particular, if I feel that a game is punishing me for something I had little to no agency in, I start looking for a new game pretty quick. I don't know if the ability-scores-as-defenses will result in that, but it's something to watch for.

 

[jsaving]

Because I was hoping 5E would be another step forward for D&D.

Pretty much every edition has been a step forward in many ways. 3E built on AD&D, simplifying and boradening the scope, 4E built on 3E, rebalancing and creating new tactical options. I was hoping Next would build on 4E, making an even better game.

This leak pretty much confirms that's not going to happen.

The problem, at its root, is that a large and growing portion of the gaming public doesn't see 4e as an improvement and is currently voting with their dollars to use Pathfinder rather than 4e.

That's what's being missed in this conversation, I think. Monte's arrival at WotC didn't happen in a vacuum -- he was hired only after WotC concluded they went too far with 4e and inadvertently splintered the gaming community they'd hoped to unite. Viewed in that light, Next was never destined to build on 4e to make what 4e fans would consider an even better game, no matter how fervently current-edition players wish it could be so. And I frankly wouldn't trust any new "leak" that might suggest otherwise, for fear that it would simply fill you with false hope.

At the same time, though, the player base can't be reunited simply by dressing up 3e in new clothes and calling it Next. Only a genuine synthesis can do that -- one that includes 4e's strong points as well as 3e's. And whether the 5e team can successfully pull *that* off, only time will tell.

 

[keterys]

I imagine that even if 4E had just really been a revised version of 3.5... folks still would have splintered.

Even without a new edition, folks were splintering. Though maybe not into quite the chasm that's Pathfinder nowadays.

Every edition of D&D. Every year that passes. Every little gripe people have with the system. Every new and cool game. They spread. Sometimes they circle back, of course. Sometimes the new players replace those lost, or even increase above that, but...

It's quite a difficult goal WotC has, and it's not just cause one edition sucks or another edition is great.

 

[Essenti]

The problem, at its root, is that a large and growing portion of the gaming public doesn't see 4e as an improvement and is currently voting with their dollars to use Pathfinder rather than 4e.
<snip>

I would really like to see the numbers on this for other areas. The various meetups in my location are relatively equally diverse. There are about 3 regular Pathfinder groups, 3 4e groups, 4 3.5 groups, 3 2e groups, and 5 BECMI/OSR groups.

I think the biggest issue from the above meetup numbers in my area is that people are playing every edition. I don't see a massive exodus towards pathfinder. I see people playing the edition they are most comfortable with / have the books for. The result is that I've been playing 5 different versions of the game with various groups for a while now, and I've learned that each edition has its merits. ALL OF THEM. It does get a bit awkward keeping the idiosyncrasies of each edition straight for the different games I play though.

The apparent edition fracturing is the main reason I hope 5e accomplishes the goals it has set out for and I am not in the least worried by what was in the purported 1.0 friends and family leak. Not that I like what I saw, but that it seems a perfectly good time for them to mix up a bunch of things from different editions just to see what happens. Sometimes things have redeeming qualities that aren't apparent until you actually see how they are working or failing.

I'm still looking forward to the release of the playtest for 5e.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Hard numbers would be nice, yes. But in the absence of hard numbers, we have the following circumstancial evidence:

1) Paizo is making an awfully fine living supporting their own version of a separate edition;

2) A lot of anecdotal remarks on the internet and otherwise suggesting a trend of rejecting the new edition;

3) WotC's clear decision to forgo either continuing the new edition or revamping it into a revised edition.

All of this suggests that, at the very least, WotC (Hasbro?) thinks that they're losing an enormous amount of money to Pathfinder and older editions. Even if this isn't true, it's fairly obvious that it's driving their decision-making process.

A lot of our world today is driven by perceived trends that may or may not be actual trends. But we still have to deal with the results.

And I'm also looking forward to the playtest release. Too much, almost.

 

[Lanefan]

Because I was hoping 5E would be another step forward for D&D.

Pretty much every edition has been a step forward in many ways. 3E built on AD&D, simplifying and boradening the scope, 4E built on 3E, rebalancing and creating new tactical options.

Thing is, your definition of a step forward is in the broadest terms pretty much the same as my definition of a step backwards, or at least away from a game I would want to play.

I too am hoping 5e is a step forward, but I fear that if it is to please both of us it'll have to walk in two directions at once.

Lan-"these boots are made for walkin'"-efan