D&D 5E What are/will be the main beefs of D&D Next relative to other editions?

[NewJeffCT]

That's nice. But, as I don't know you it isn't relevant to my comment. As I said, I was speaking about people I know. NOT, people I don't know...

I probably shouldn't have quoted you, but somebody below you then opined that it's not just you & the people you know, but he/she thought the not caring applied to most gamers.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think dis/advantage and 'bounded accuracy' will disappoint many gamers in the long run. In execution, if not in principle. If all those modules do in fact appear, most will either end up as 'common law RAW' by most 5e tables or ignored by most 5e tables.

But mostly I think 5e will be too much of a compromise to be memorable. For a few of us, it'll be "The edition I cut my teeth on." For a few of us, it'll be "The edition I fell in love with." But for most of us, it'll be "That one between 4e and 6e."

That said, before I try to answer, I've heard several complaints about Essentials from the 4e crowd. Some of it's poor naming (it's no more Essential than PHB4 would be), but some of it's that Essentials represented a change in the direction of design. If you liked the old direction, that's reason enough to be annoyed.

I still don't allow E-classes as a DM, even though I can't point to any specific balance problem with them. The whole "Let's put on our rosy spectacles and go retro!" thing leaves me completely nonplussed, and the 'Essentials' misnomer creates the impression that WotC is some sleazy manufacturer tricking customers into buying whatever shoddy gadget they've hammered together.

Usually I'm all for player options, but I just don't trust in the quality control that went into Heroes of Lame or whatever.

 

[Mercurius]

But mostly I think 5e will be too much of a compromise to be memorable. For a few of us, it'll be "The edition I cut my teeth on." For a few of us, it'll be "The edition I fell in love with." But for most of us, it'll be "That one between 4e and 6e."

This seems somewhat misleading simply because "most of us" (assuming that, by "us," you mean D&D players as a whole), 4e was not a very satisfactory experience long-term, or at least an experience that many grew tired of. It seems that the serious "4e neo-grognards" (to quote your signature) are a relatively small percentage of 4e players. Most 4e players, as I see it, are folks that played it because it was the edition du jour and it said "D&D" on the cover, not "Pathfinder" (and also because they were tired of 3.x and wanted a shift in gears).

In other words, I think you're assuming a much larger loyal 4e fan base than actually exists. I think most 4e players never got super attached to it and are happy to play whatever comes next. 4e may end up as a relatively "dead edition" like 2e or B/X (my guess is that most OSR folks play OSR versions, OD&D, or BECMI, while most AD&D players play 1e or hybrid 1e/2e, and very few people still play straight up 2e...but that's just a guess).

 

[the Jester]

This seems somewhat misleading simply because "most of us" (assuming that, by "us," you mean D&D players as a whole), 4e was not a very satisfactory experience long-term, or at least an experience that many grew tired of. It seems that the serious "4e neo-grognards" (to quote your signature) are a relatively small percentage of 4e players. Most 4e players, as I see it, are folks that played it because it was the edition du jour and it said "D&D" on the cover, not "Pathfinder" (and also because they were tired of 3.x and wanted a shift in gears).

In other words, I think you're assuming a much larger loyal 4e fan base than actually exists. I think most 4e players never got super attached to it and are happy to play whatever comes next. 4e may end up as a relatively "dead edition" like 2e or B/X (my guess is that most OSR folks play OSR versions, OD&D, or BECMI, while most AD&D players play 1e or hybrid 1e/2e, and very few people still play straight up 2e...but that's just a guess).

Speaking for myself (as a 4e dm), I enjoy the edition, but I see its flaws- much like I do with those of the editions that came before- and if 5e improves upon them while not regaining the flaws that 4e overcame, I'll happily move on. Until 5e's flaws become apparent, and 6e improves on them without regaining the flaws that 5e overcame... etc.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This seems somewhat misleading simply because "most of us" (assuming that, by "us," you mean D&D players as a whole), 4e was not a very satisfactory experience long-term, or at least an experience that many grew tired of. It seems that the serious "4e neo-grognards" (to quote your signature) are a relatively small percentage of 4e players. Most 4e players, as I see it, are folks that played it because it was the edition du jour and it said "D&D" on the cover, not "Pathfinder" (and also because they were tired of 3.x and wanted a shift in gears).

By 'memorable,' I don't necessarily mean "an edition I LOVE!" I mean "a distinctive edition, that I likely love or hate." I think you'll agree that both 3e and 4e are memorable, in part because so many gamers either love 'em or hate 'em. Also because they both brought new things to the table -- something which 5e doesn't look like it'll be doing much of.

 

[GreyLord]

I am getting the feeling that the most outraged at the moment are 4e fans who are feeling a little betrayed. For almost everyone else there just doesn't seem to be enough passion to really be upset at 5e. Its more like a bit of a "meh."

I do think that the goal to be all things to all people (so to speak) is going to, in hindsight be a bad decision. But the games not out yet and they may still pull it off. Maybe.

Going back a bit, actually I think THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. Not following through on that promise is going to be the bad decision.

As some have stated previously, they should have taken the old core from BD&D, AD&D 1e, and then expanded with options for making it run akin to other editions, that way it truly COULD have been all things to all people, inclusive of 3e/3.5 and 4e.

 

[Mercurius]

Speaking for myself (as a 4e dm), I enjoy the edition, but I see its flaws- much like I do with those of the editions that came before- and if 5e improves upon them while not regaining the flaws that 4e overcame, I'll happily move on. Until 5e's flaws become apparent, and 6e improves on them without regaining the flaws that 5e overcame... etc.

This is exactly how I feel on all accounts.

By 'memorable,' I don't necessarily mean "an edition I LOVE!" I mean "a distinctive edition, that I likely love or hate." I think you'll agree that both 3e and 4e are memorable, in part because so many gamers either love 'em or hate 'em. Also because they both brought new things to the table -- something which 5e doesn't look like it'll be doing much of.

Maybe, maybe not. Without having played the playtest, what I think 5e potentially brings to the table that is somewhat new is a 3e/4e cohesiveness of design (namely, based upon a simple, flexible core mechanic) but with a simplish basic rule set closer to BECMI than 3.x or 4e in terms of complexity. If they can really follow through on the promise of modularity, this simple core base and multiple possible layers of complexity will be new.

 

[seti]

I agree with everything everyone has posted in this thread. And that's the problem...'Next'; by trying to do everything well, does nothing well. Or distinctively.

My beef is calling it 'Next'. I hate that. Call it 5e, WotC.

 

[TrippyHippy]

There are a number of factors that will reduce the level of vitriol against 5e:

1) There was a public play test. People have had plenty of time to complain about things they don't like. If they go ahead and buy a product they don't like, more fool them - while Wizards ought to have at least acknowledged most of the major issues.
2) There is no reason whatsoever that past editions cannot be made available by pdf/pod. If people want past editions they should be able to buy them - all profit for Wizards at minimal cost.
3) There are so many variant forms of D&D these days, as well as other rpgs generally, again there isn't much excuse from fans wanting something else.
4) The 5e itself is an attempt to build bridges between editions, rather than a radical overhaul of rules (as were previous editions). While some will (inevitably) find fault and question the degree of success in achieving design goals, the goals themselves are less conflictive.

 

[silverblade56]

I agree with everything everyone has posted in this thread. And that's the problem...'Next'; by trying to do everything well, does nothing well. Or distinctively.

My beef is calling it 'Next'. I hate that. Call it 5e, WotC.

I agree with that. 5E or simply "D&D" would be much preferred. If they keep the name, it has already won the "dumbest name for an edition" award.