Uniting the Editions: How well did this playtest packet do?

[UngeheuerLich]

Where's the option for "Why make a lesser game to please the 3e/4e fans?"

The answers should be a bit funny I guess.
but what I see is, that the playtest version pleases the fans of older editions a little bit more at the moment. Still wotc already has 40% of 4e fans and more than 66% of the 3e fans on their side.
So they seem to be on the right track, as 4e fans naturally are the hardest to convince, as it is our edition which was pulled under our feet. But I guess, the response is already overwhelmingly good for the 2nd iteration.

 

[erleni]

The answers should be a bit funny I guess.
but what I see is, that the playtest version pleases the fans of older editions a little bit more at the moment. Still wotc already has 40% of 4e fans and more than 66% of the 3e fans on their side.
So they seem to be on the right track, as 4e fans naturally are the hardest to convince, as it is our edition which was pulled under our feet. But I guess, the response is already overwhelmingly good for the 2nd iteration.

There's a lot of 4e creeping into Next from the first to the second playtest. And they are addressing the main issue I have with 4e (multiattacks).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I clearly see 2nd edition, 3rd edition and 4e already. And it looks, as if the mix could become a great game. They are on track. I am sure, they are really honestly playtesting. They are putting rules in, that may be critically reviewed. They are omitting other rules. They are fokussing on certain things in the playtests (1st was feel, 2nd is encounter balance, even though in the final rules it will not be the fokus).
They are ding a real playtest. And I am fascinated by their efforts. And that more than half of those who voted at the polls would already play the game, 2 years before it is finished, speaks for itself!

 

[Texicles]

My point exactly with 4e!!! ...the design tools are flawed.

Just as a point of clarification, I was saying that the playtest encounter design mechanics are lacking, and would do well to become a little more 4e-like, not that 4e design tools are flawed.

 

[Gundark]

Haven't read the thread . This is still a little early to be asking this question . Comparing a beta to a finished product isn't fair

 

[zoroaster100]

I am a 4E fan, and don't really think DND Next at this point is headed to be a replacement for 4E for me, at least. However, I think I could see myself being pleased with DND Next as an alternate game with a different play style, which could also be enjoyable. I did enjoy playing 1E, 2E, 3E and 3.5E when each came along.

What I'd like WOTC to focus on in creating DND Next is not so much creating a perfect balance of mixed editions, which could actually turn out to be less fun than any of the other editions. Instead, given the direction they are taking, I'd rather they focus on creating a good solid balanced game, fun for its own sake and balanced on its own terms. They need to conceive of their core game design phylosophy and stick to it. It seems they are basically going for a 1E/2E style with some refinements and advancements, kind of like an alternate evolution of the game, as what might have been 3E if different designers worked on it.

Though if there are design elements and ideas developed for 4E (or other editions or games) that fit into that design philosophy, they should incorporate those even if they are different from 1E/2E.

 

[Drowbane]

Your poll is horribly flawed and obviously skewed to your own viewpoints.

After this playtest packet I am still of the mindset to continue on with 3e with Fluff Support from Paizo (Paizo's house rules leave me cold, for the most part).

5e can not unify the Editions, such is simply not possible. edit: except to unify the players against 5e

Perhaps WotC will prove me wrong? I think not.

 

[WarlockLord]

Your poll is flawed.

As a 3e fan, I don't really like 5e due to it not actually having skill rules other than "argue with the DM," poor monster design (so how does that drow longsword work in the hands of PCs again - does it even drop it?), general whiffling, and a sense not really of improvement but in trying to cram as much crap from as many editions into a D&D sized bag. So we can annoy the grognards with fighter powers, 3e guys with crappy skill rules, and 4e guys with the Evil Overpowered Wizard.

Yeah, good luck getting my money.

 

[Greg K]

No option that fits for me. My preferred edition is a house ruled 3e with third party supplements and very little of WOTC supplemental material outside of Unearthed Arcana, Cityscape enhancement 1 Urban/Wilderness skill swap and some of the dedicated monster books. At the moment, I would not play this. For starters

1. Races
a. Humans; I don't like the Human ability score bonuses. A +2 is fine and I don't mind a +1 to a second
b. Dwarves: I don't like the immunity to poison. I don't like that stone cunning and and dwarven weapon training are built in class features. I also don't like the Mountain Dwarf armor mastery ability.
c. Elves: Not a fan of the immunity to charm or Elvish weapon training class features.
d. Halfling: I don't like the Halfling weapon training or Lucky features


Classes
a. Cleric: I don't like that Channel Divinity includes healing. I want cleric spells even more tied to domains. Also not a fan of the armor proficiencies granted by the domains. I want some options to replace medium armor for the sun domain and, for the war domain, to replace heavy armor and all martial weapons except the deity's preferred weapon.

b. Fighter: I don't like glancing blow. I would prefer it to be miss by up to 2 or something like that. Not sold on Combat Superiority. I want something closer to the Book of Iron Might maneuver system

c. Rogue: I hope we will see options to replace Sneak Attack. I also hope the schemes and knacks are not predetermined and their will be choice

d. Wizards: I don't like learn spells on your own.

e. Sorcerer: I don't like the Dragon Heritage Sorcerer. I don't see a point for dragon heritage to, automatically, grant better armor and weapons than the base sorccerer class. I also want alternate options to manifesting draconic features


3. Spells:
a. Hit Point Thresholds...ugh!
b. I don't like the Cleric Spell list (again, I want it more tied to domains) or the Sorcerer and Warlock spell lists provided
c. Rope Trick is still in. Why? I'd rather see it enchant a rope to entangle, trip, stiffen for climbing ,etc. instead of leading to a dimensional portal

4. Bestiary: I want AC broken down like in 3e: natural armor, armor, dex, etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Invalid question. It ain't there yet. And is never going to replace my 4e. But if they want to make a game that runs as easily and well as 4e and does different things well (like fast combat) it may supplement it.