Something Awful leak.

[Janaxstrus]

Unfortunately, I have little incentive to compromise. Just like you have 4th edition I have Pathfinder. If DndNext isn't better than Pathfinder FOR ME then I'll try and stick with Pathfinder.

At some level I don't really care if DndNext succeeds. I certainly do NOT want to see it succeed at the expense of Paizo (I prefer Paizo to Wotc as a company). Now, I DO want to see the industry as a whole thrive but its not at all clear that DndNext is the vehicle for that.

The only reason that I'll compromise is probably the only reason that you'll compromise. If (and only if) DndNext is good enough that it grabs the huge majority of players and so makes it hard for me to find Pathfinder players.

This means that WOTC has an incredibly difficult job. They have to convince most existing Pathfinder players that DndNext is better than Pathfinder, they have to convince most existing 4th Edition players that it is better than 4th Edition, and they have to convince a reasonable number of NEW players that it is both better than any other D&D AND worth playing at all.

This is exactly where I am. I have all the 3.5 books and all the PF adventure paths (something WotC has neglected entirely). I am an adult with a lot of disposable income, but I'm not going to give any of it to Wizards until they prove they won't just mess it up. The only money they have gotten from me since the day they stopped publishing 3.5 materials was Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012 on Xbox and the occasional novel (although the spell plague has slowed my buying of that as well)

They killed a minis game (DDM) that was getting them thousands of dollars from me alone every year (luckily I was able to sell the majority of stuff before the market collapsed). They wrecked a setting (from my perspective, the Forgotten Realms is a ruin of what it once was for novels) that was my favorite, which means I went from buying every novel, to picking and choosing only a few select ones. And, until their recent mea culpa, have been telling me for years that it was badwrongfun to play the old edition of D&D compared to the new shiny one.

I have no incentive to trust they can get this right. I am, however willing to give them a shot to do it. For me personally, 4e with some nods to us grognards won't cut the mustard though. It either has to be completely new, with all the strikers, controllers, dps and minions and healing surges and such gamey terms and feel yanked, or it has to be a throwback system.

If they can do it, I'll buy it all. If they can't, I won't buy it at all, and Paizo will continue to benefit.

 

[Sunseeker]

How about the hiring of a designer who was critical of 4e and worked for Pathfinder? -Monte

Pathfinder did a lot of good things for 3.x, but people who don't like 3.x probably aren't much more enthused about Pathfinder. In any case, if your #1 competitor has a top guy who is now free, you hire them. It's not a statement on 4e, it's a business strategy. If you don't hire him, someone will, or he'll go back to your competitor.

How about the head designer of 4e commenting about the way it restricted some game types, comparing it to forcing a musician to play thrash metal - Mearls on thrash metal

Every edition restricts certain gameplay styles. I'm certain you could find similar commentary regarding previous editions.

How about the fact that they ALREADY tried a reboot of 4e 2 years ago

Essentials wasn't a reboot, it was a revision. Take it as more 4.5 than a complete redo. And it had some very good elements, I'll take some of the Essentials classes over any previous incarnation of them in any edition. Wizards was probably aware that support for 4e was dying, so they decided to go for the gusto and try something new. Personally I think Essentials was a great idea and I hope that they continue with some of it into 5e.

How about the design goal of the new edition, which DIRECTLY addresses the fact that 4e splintered the base (Design goal - to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is.)

Every edition splinters the base, every book and every supplement runs that risk too. There were people who stayed with 3.0 when 3.5 came out, there were people who stayed with 2e, B, AD&D when the others came out. Laying the blame for "splintering the base" on 4e is just narrow-minded edition hating. 5e will likely splinter the base as well.

Don't forget, there are a lot of fans of 4e out there. Probably at least as large as any of the other edition factions. They are included when Wizards says they want to "unify the fanbase".

How about the fact that many of the changes 4e introduced are gone (Vancian is back, alignment is back, etc)

You have two examples. That's not "many", that's not even close to "some".
Vancian was popular and thats largely the reason it's back, but WOTC has already admitted that doing so will make class design more difficult. Alignment never left, 4e simply used a different alignment system, from what I hear it's closer to some older editions than the 9-alignment system popular in the 3.x stuff.

 

[El Mahdi]

How in the hell did a perfectly awesome thread about the upcoming mechanics of 5E, turn into a thread about 4E vs. 3E/Pathfinder, and WotC vs. Paizo?!?!

I thought we were all so passed this...

I would have thought that with some of the things said in the last Rule of Three article, things that more or less confirm that this leak is likely based on a real look at early 5E rules, that the thread could have moved away from conjecture a bit and really discuss the meat of the presented mechanics.

How and Why did it instead end up being the same Edition war crap yet again...

 

[dkyle]

I would have thought that with some of the things said in the last Rule of Three article, things that more or less confirm that this leak is likely based on a real look at early 5E rules, that the thread could have moved away from conjecture a bit and really discuss the meat of the presented mechanics.

How and Why did it instead end up being the same Edition war crap yet again...

The problem is that almost all the mechanics are drawn from previous editions (mostly pre-4E), so it's kind of hard to discuss them without inherently discussing those editions. It's makes sense to point to an edition and say "that mechanic was in that edition, and I didn't like it".

 

[El Mahdi]

The problem is that almost all the mechanics are drawn from previous editions (mostly pre-4E), so it's kind of hard to discuss them without inherently discussing those editions. It's makes sense to point to an edition and say "that mechanic was in that edition, and I didn't like it".

Discussing the mechanics of previous editions is appropriate to this thread.

Unfortunately, the last 30 or so posts have not been at all about the mechanics of any edition, whether past or future. It's been about edition warring.

Discussing whether or not one edition or another is a failure is a known inflammatory subject, and not the subject of this thread.

Discussing whether Paizo is outselling WotC is also an inflammatory subject, and again, not the subject of the thread.

Discussing whether Monte Cook is anti-4E or not is also a very inflammatory subject, completely subjective (since nobody here is qualified to know what is going on in the heart and mind of Monte Cook except Monte Cook), and is also most certainly not the subject of this thread.

 

[Agamon]

It seems like board games are humming along fairly well. Certainly nowhere near the same feeling of DOOM that seems to pervade the RPG industry.

Not to mention, Wil Wheaton's Tabletop show on Geek & Sundry isn't going to be about RPGs.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would have thought that with some of the things said in the last Rule of Three article, things that more or less confirm that this leak is likely based on a real look at early 5E rules, that the thread could have moved away from conjecture a bit and really discuss the meat of the presented mechanics.

Because there isn't really that much meat to them.
Lets start from the top and get ourselves a list:
-Rolling stats, point-buy, and arrays are all there.
-Races grant +1/-1, back to 3.x style.
-Classes give a +1 to primary, this is new but not world-shattering.
-Level bumps to stats now come at 3 level intervals. We now get a total of +6 instead of +5, not exactly math breaking either.
-Stats are pretty much as they've always been. Charisma applies to getting henchmen. Well I guess Charisma is nice....if you care about henchmen.
-Wisdom adds to Cha saves(great we have a save for each score now?, wasn't 3 enough?)
-Humans get something that he can't really describe(thanks! That was helpful), sounds like "Heroic Effort" with a dice roll.
-Vancian is back...okay we knew that.
-Fighter seems to get "stances" like Essentials came up with, d10 HD like 3.x, special crit-die? Yay more complicated rules.
-Multiclassing 3.x style. Say hi to the Ranger/Bard/Druid/Cleric/Power-Gamer again.
-bad joke on class rarities.
-score maximums: because Wizards needs to tell us how to play to appease the old-schoolers.
-Skills are Pathfinder-esque, training gives an immediate bonus beyond the +1

I'm not going to disagree with some of their sarcasm towards the end about how this is basically a laundry-list of things from 3.5 and earlier editions. So we aren't really starting an edition war here. We're getting prodded into one on the basis that WOTC is claiming to want to "unify the base" and then pretending that 4e and it's fans don't exist.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I haven't seen anyone mention the possibility that this was only a piece of the puzzle. I think there is a good chance that certain modules were used for the characters here, and others weren't. Those who are concerned about the lack of A/E/D powers for fighters shouldn't worry too much at this point.

I think it makes perfect sense, if a goal is to have characters with different modules balanced against one another, to send out playtest docs with different characters using different build types to get an understanding of what works well with what and what doesn't.

We are but seeing a small piece of the whole and extrapolating that the whole must look like the piece.

Thaumaturge.

 

[El Mahdi]

...we aren't really starting an edition war here. We're getting prodded into one on the basis that WOTC is claiming to want to "unify the base" and then pretending that 4e and it's fans don't exist.

Which is a completely baseless assertion. People making this assertion are reading into what Monte and Company are saying, and taking it as what they want to hear, rather than what's actually being said. In other words, picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.

We are so far away from anything concrete as to the final look and feel of the game, that it's absolutely preposterous to claim that WotC is pretending that 4E doesn't exist.

It could be just as likely that they already know what they want to keep from 4E, and the first look was simply road-testing some ideas from previous editions, along with some new ideas, and not road-testing 4E concepts at the time because it wasn't necessary.

Is what I just said likely? I have no idea. They're no more likely than any other assertion about WotC's intentions. Which is why it's absolute foolishness to be arguing about it. But even more importantly, WotC's intentions are not what this thread is about. The personal biases and assertions expressed in that leak aside, the leak was predominantly the possible mechanics of 5E based on what we see of the mechanics in this early leak.

Discussing the mechanics of 5E does not involve nor require discussing whether Paizo is outselling WotC (or vice versa), whether any edition is a failure (whether objectively, in the consideration of WotC, or in the consideration of players), or statements about what systems mechanics are best (which is a pointless and purely personal and subjective argument, one that can't be won and contributes nothing useful), or trying to read the heart and mind of Monte and Company as to their like or dislike of competing editions (I said competing not because they are actually in competition, but because people in this thread are beginning to compete with eachother about which editions are best, or which editions players treated other edtitions players worse).

All pointless arguments, comparisons, and competition of which nothing good can come of.

 

[El Mahdi]

So how do people think the lack of BAB and Defence progression will affect the game?

How do you think the different damage expressions will show "progression"?

Do you thing there will be Feats for specialization and such that will increase Attack Bonuses? Will they be nerfed, stay the same, or even expanded upon (even higher attack bonuses, or more feats providing attack bonuses)?

Will Defence be able to be advanced through Feats? Or will armor remain the only way to "improve" your defence?