D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why does it look that way?

What has been said by 5E's designers that even hints at this, or is it just because they haven't been mentioned yet?

If so, then by the same logic Rangers, Bards, Assassins, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, Giants (Firbolgs, Goliaths, whatever name used...), Warforged, and many, many others are also being held back because they are somehow toxic...

Nah, I'm not buying it.

No, I agree with Obryn, there's a VERY definite "It's crap if it was invented in 4e" (most 4e things DO have 3.5 antecedents but few people are aware of most of them). Thus not one class or race introduced in 4e is so far mentioned in DDN, nor any rules innovation, nor actually ANYTHING. There's a theory that maybe the "World Axis" 4e cosmology will get a nod, but my guess is basically "There may be a supplement on that" is about where it stands (which is OK, but...). Someone will point to 'hit dice' but in the context of DDN's entirely different healing mechanics the similarity is pretty small, and even the mechanic taken in isolation lacks key features of 4e's HS mechanics.

Indeed it looks EXACTLY like there is no more than the most miniscule trace of 4e in DDN, right down to fluff and content. Its very possible some of that may show up at some point, but it is quite telling that not one iconic power name, mechanic, game element (race/class/item/etc) exists in any of the DDN playtests. The message is QUITE clear.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From here, dated Feb 25:

*Some people asked about the warlord - the class deserves an L&L of its own, along with an update on classes in
general.

*Long and short of it is that there should be a tactical/commander guy in the game, but it might not have healing and might be a type of ftr.

*And when I say healing, think of it in terms of use X to give back hit points. There are other ways to mitigate damage or keep PCs going.​

Exactly making my point @El Mahdi. I'd LOVE to find some trace of any intent to cater to 4e players in DDN in any way shape or form, but not only is it not there, AT ALL, it is almost as if there is an actual focus on obliterating any trace of 4e's legacy on D&D. Sorry, I'm actually developing an active distaste for what WotC is peddling. Call it irrational or whatever you want, but flat out I want a game that has 4e DNA, and I certainly at least want to see options in the game and elements of the game that reflect back to 4e. If Mike ever reads these threads I can assure him there are legions of 4e fans who feel similarly. I don't know what percentage it is, but you guys are about to loose a big hunk of good customers.

 

[Ratskinner]

The first part? I'm not sure about. I think the warlord, like many other 4e idiosyncrasies such as dragonborn, are being held back because they are somewhat toxic to a portion of the fan base they need to court - folks who are not current WotC customers. I could be wrong about that - I hope I am - but so far that's what it looks like to me.

I think the Dragonborn issue is probably more "toxic" than the Warlord. The only thing about a Warlord that seems to provoke gobs of venom is the non-magical healing. Change/fix that, and I think plenty of Old-schoolers would take to a tactical/commander guy. (Dragonborn are just a lightning-rod/poster child for 4e's "gonzo" or "over the top" style.)

Just my impression, though.

The survey bit... Like I mentioned, I'm a firm believer in emergent gameplay. I'm also undoubtedly suffering playtest fatigue. I'm not really into the thought I'll need to keep up with another year of play tests in the hope there will be stuff I want to use. I'd rather leave that to the folks who actually are enthusiastic about it, like yourself. And if I like the finished product? Awesome! If not, at least other fans will be there to bear the torch.

I go back and forth. I think a big portion of what 4e fans are upset about ("<X> hasn't even been mentioned yet!") is merely because WotC (correctly, IMO) wanted to start with the "Core 4" and work out from there. I mean, if you start there, of course the initial playtests will look like BECMI/2e in fluff. On the other hand, I see a lot more of 4e in the current playtest than they do. Which is not to say that there aren't valid concerns. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be the champion of the pacing/adventure design thing. Which I think is particularly vexing, because it would be so hard to retro-fit with a module.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the Dragonborn issue is probably more "toxic" than the Warlord. The only thing about a Warlord that seems to provoke gobs of venom is the non-magical healing. Change/fix that, and I think plenty of Old-schoolers would take to a tactical/commander guy. (Dragonborn are just a lightning-rod/poster child for 4e's "gonzo" or "over the top" style.)

Just my impression, though.

But "change/fix that" is exactly the problem. 4e warlord fans exactly want that feature, it is the essence of what makes the warlord good/interesting, that you can have a different sort of tactical leader that isn't a spell caster and specifically isn't a cleric who can bolster the party. Given that hit points are the primary measure of how well the PCs are doing it is really at best difficult to imagine a useful warlord that lacks healing.

The Dragonborn thing is just petty. I hope you can understand that, speaking strictly for myself, anyone who insists on excluding such a minor addition to the game as a new race is so petty I have no interest in even talking to them. It is perfectly easy for them to not use Dragonborn if they don't like them, and that's OK. Demanding that I have to give up that thing which I like that was added in 4e, sorry, just not having a debate about that. Certainly if they are at all interested in 'unifying the fan base' they must realize that they have to meet the other side half way.

I go back and forth. I think a big portion of what 4e fans are upset about ("<X> hasn't even been mentioned yet!") is merely because WotC (correctly, IMO) wanted to start with the "Core 4" and work out from there. I mean, if you start there, of course the initial playtests will look like BECMI/2e in fluff. On the other hand, I see a lot more of 4e in the current playtest than they do. Which is not to say that there aren't valid concerns. @pemerton seems to be the champion of the pacing/adventure design thing. Which I think is particularly vexing, because it would be so hard to retro-fit with a module.

Yeah, I see ALMOST nothing of 4e in the current playtest. The way the game plays, as Pemerton has so handily explained, is utterly at odds with 4e in virtually every respect. The few scraps tossed to 4e players in the form of 'Hit Dice' just don't help at all. Hit Dice are nothing like Healing Surges. They aren't all that similar mechanically, and they are placed in a context in a game so different from 4e that even if they WERE identical they would only barely accomplish something roughly similar (though admittedly it would be a step forward). As it is they don't measurably add '4e-ness' to the game. I'd be interested in hearing what other things you consider to be 4e-like because TBH I can name not even one thing. I can certainly see where for instance skill systems and such are reactions to 4e design, but they are REJECTIONS of it far more than anything else.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the Dragonborn issue is probably more "toxic" than the Warlord. The only thing about a Warlord that seems to provoke gobs of venom is the non-magical healing. Change/fix that, and I think plenty of Old-schoolers would take to a tactical/commander guy. (Dragonborn are just a lightning-rod/poster child for 4e's "gonzo" or "over the top" style.)

Just my impression, though.

Mine is the opposite. I mean, the style of the 4e dragonborn is offputting, but in substance, dragon-people are classic D&D. They're usually just more of an NPC race, or way out in a supplement somewhere.

The concept of a class as being "person who tells other people what to do and somehow makes them better at it in the process" really didn't exist before the Miniatures Handbook. Sure, there have been abilities for party enhancement, like paladin auras or teamwork benefits, but the idea of building a class around that really doesn't fit with the notion of what a class is. Classes aren't about what other people around you are doing; they're about you yourself.

 

[Ratskinner]

The Dragonborn thing is just petty. I hope you can understand that, speaking strictly for myself, anyone who insists on excluding such a minor addition to the game as a new race is so petty I have no interest in even talking to them. It is perfectly easy for them to not use Dragonborn if they don't like them, and that's OK. Demanding that I have to give up that thing which I like that was added in 4e, sorry, just not having a debate about that. Certainly if they are at all interested in 'unifying the fan base' they must realize that they have to meet the other side half way.

I don't really care about Dragonborn. However, I think the number of people who demand their inclusion and their centrality to the game as a whole is small enough that designing them can be left towards the end of the process.

At this point, I honestly can't conjecture what WotC does or doesn't think about its fanbase or how accurate they are. It seems like everything from 3.5 on has been one PR trainwreck after another. ::shrug::

 

[Alan Shutko]

At this point, I honestly can't conjecture what WotC does or doesn't think about its fanbase or how accurate they are. It seems like everything from 3.5 on has been one PR trainwreck after another. ::shrug::

That's something I can DEFINITELY agree with!

As for races people don't like, Dragonborn don't bug me as much as gnomes. I mean, seriously, why are they there? What's the point? At least tinker gnomes were fun! But gnomes are sort of dwarfy craftsmen, sort of elvish magical, halfling-scale small, BAH! I should boycott everything that has gnomes in it!

 

[Garthanos]

The Warlord emphasizes the aspect of teamwork that has always been a part of D&D... but which came to a head in 4e, party synergy and enabling others to operate better is seriously cool stuff. The role as an effective one is new to D&D but leaders having this impact is normal in real life..

In comparision Dragonborn? sheesh not even on the same chart.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mine is the opposite. I mean, the style of the 4e dragonborn is offputting, but in substance, dragon-people are classic D&D. They're usually just more of an NPC race, or way out in a supplement somewhere.

Fine, but would you actually say that you are hostile to the idea of Dragonborn being in DDN? What if I say I'm hostile to Half-orcs being in DDN? Should people question that? They are after all not a race that was even in 2e at all, and were pretty limited in 1e at best (they had horrible level limits in most classes). They've always been kind of an awkward race, with rather creepy implications. It is understandable that 2e just dropped them. (honestly I'm fine with Half-orcs, but consider it as an example).

The concept of a class as being "person who tells other people what to do and somehow makes them better at it in the process" really didn't exist before the Miniatures Handbook. Sure, there have been abilities for party enhancement, like paladin auras or teamwork benefits, but the idea of building a class around that really doesn't fit with the notion of what a class is. Classes aren't about what other people around you are doing; they're about you yourself.

I don't really understand this. The main point of the cleric has ALWAYS been "what I do for the party". Clerics always had some obvious active capabilities (some melee, turning undead, options for active spells). I guess I just don't see the same thing you do there. The 4e warlord is far from passive or about giving bonuses. Certainly they DO that, but they also have effective attacks and powers that do things directly, just like AD&D clerics could do things. IMHO classes are about archetypes, and the battle leader is certainly an archetype. Honestly find me an exemplar of the cleric archetype in fiction, legend, or myth. I can find a dozen battle captains and not one clearly defined cleric, so which one really is the strong class? (again, I have nothing against clerics as a general concept, but it is hard to see how they are more acceptable than warlords IMHO).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really care about Dragonborn. However, I think the number of people who demand their inclusion and their centrality to the game as a whole is small enough that designing them can be left towards the end of the process.

At this point, I honestly can't conjecture what WotC does or doesn't think about its fanbase or how accurate they are. It seems like everything from 3.5 on has been one PR trainwreck after another. ::shrug::

Agreed. I don't really insist that Dragonborn have to be in core DDN either. I like them but the PHB1 can't hold everything and there are more iconic things to put in it. Nor is it something that has to show up in early playtest, it just isn't that foundational a part of the game. It is sort of a modestly illustrative example of how 4e stuff is simply absent from DDN. By itself it means little. In the context of the lack of EVERY other 4e element from the game it takes on an illustrative role.

And I agree, WotC is terrible at relating to the fan base. They always have been, with possibly a few bright spots here and there. I think the culture there is just not well-suited to the product somehow.