Would you buy a product called 'D&D 4.5'?

[Stoat]

It depends entirely on the content of the product. That said, I would not inclined to buy any new edition of D&D right now. I'm happy with the 4E game I've got. As far as I can tell, I'll continue to enjoy 4E for the next several years.

I also think it would be a monumental blunder for WotC to release either a product called 4.5 or a product called 5E anytime soon. And what are the chances that a company as savvy as WotC would make a monumental blunder?

 

[WalterKovacs]

Specifying it would negate the intend of my poll. I want to see how purchases are affected by the naming of the products. Would just the name put you off or would you give the product a fair chance, despite of the name? Please answer honestly.

The problem is there is no option for "give the product a fair chance in spite of it's name". Just a yes/no/maybe later/I would have if not for the name.

I voted yes under the "if they called Essentials 4.5" idea, but there is a good chance that, depending on what it was, I wouldn't by it.

So, unofficially, I'm in the camp of judging it based on what it is, not what it's called. As a ddi subscriber, odds are I'd already be getting most of the erratta anyway (and my old books are already sort of obsolete as well). The one thing that would probably stop me from getting into it (other than the rest of the group resisting it) would be old stuff being removed completely.

 

[MrMyth]

Specifying it would negate the intend of my poll. I want to see how purchases are affected by the naming of the products. Would just the name put you off or would you give the product a fair chance, despite of the name? Please answer honestly.

Just for @Morrus to decide, just let's say they had 'Essentials' called '4.5'.

Well, I'd say that without having a poll option such as "It depends on the content", the poll isn't going to accomplish much.

For myself, would I be such a product? It depends on what it provides. Is it new and useful content for me? Then probably yes. Is it a reprint of the PHB with errata? I can't imagine a need for it. Is it an actual half-edition like 3.5 was? Depends on whether I like it or not.

Of course, I don't think it would be a good name for a product, and it seems doubtful WotC would ever release such a thing, so I'm entirely sure of the point of discussing a largely non-existent hypothetical.

 

[drothgery]

Unless I really got out of gaming to the point where I went years without playing, I'd probably buy the 'core rules' (however they're branded) of any edition of D&D unless the previews were really off-putting.

 

[SoulsFury]

Unless I really got out of gaming to the point where I went years without playing, I'd probably buy the 'core rules' (however they're branded) of any edition of D&D unless the previews were really off-putting.

I agree. I'd buy the 3 core books most likely. Why not check it out?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess the poll is all about the name, and only the name.

Sure, I'd buy a 4.5, if it was like 4.0, but better. If Essentials had been labeled 'D&D 4.5,' I still wouldn't've bought it. Quality, not title, is what's important.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just live with it. There always were .5 editions. I am quite because I fear a ban if I say more... but believe me, it is annoying as hell.

Wizards can´t do right for some people. It is like having their candy taken aways from designers that don´t write the game exactly as they like, forgetting that there are other people who like t the other way.

You can express your opinion, but others may have it too. Essentials is IMHO in no way a 4.5... Those classes released in Dragon magazine in the next few month could come closer to it, as core classes get an update (like the ranger or bard in 3.5 got)

I had been happy to get a revised PHB, really. I don´t buy players handbooks, as i don´t consider them good resources by now. Bad layout, no real help. Whereas the essentials books seem to be much more useful to me.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Seconded. I bought 4e because of 4e's content. I'd judge 4.5e on the same. I'd certainly prefer a new edition to a revision of this one. Then again, I like this one just fine.

In theory, I'd do the same. In practice, the chances of a 4.5 being something that I would like on the merits approaches zero so closely that you can't wedge a sliver of daylight between them.

I suppose it is possible that the management, design team, developers, etc. could put out this great new version of D&D that both built on the foundation of what came before yet also had advances that were its own. And the direction of game was clearly thought through, with goals that very much made it a new edition, and well-executed. And then a new senior manager is brought on board who--for reasons only an abberant brain could fathom--decided to totally misname this paragon product "D&D 4.5".

And I could win the lottery tomorrow without buying a ticket.

 

[Blue]

I wouldn't until it was significantly better than 4e.

If it's a .5, that's enough to make the old system incompatible, but not enough to actually be aimed at a different playstyle. To me 4e has a perfectly good playstyle, which it supports, so I have no interest in it being .5ed.

5E would be more likely to attract me, because there'd be more chance of it being a new, cool, way to play.

I deal with software all day, so I'm the other way around. First revision is usually heads and hands better then first release. It's been seasoned by real world usage, errors and stuff that wouldn't come out until you have things under production use in a bunch of different environments are cleaned up, etc.

When 3.0 came out it was revolutionary. But when 3.5 came out and addressed a bunch of problems and presented a more mature product, everyone I played with liked it better (with the exception of the call of "I need to re-buy everything").

Not saying 5e wouldn't attract me, it definitely would. I've been playing since red box. That to AD&D was a big jump. AD&D 2nd was a huge cleanup. 3.0 was a unifying and unparalleled flexibility, 4e was streamlining and speed and caster/non-caster balance. 5e I'm sure would be something else revolutionary.

A cleaned up, mature 4e I would expect to have "4" in the name, not "5". I'd be fine with variations. "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 4th Edition". Eh, probably not, it would scare away new blood. But you get the idea.

So I'd buy a 4.5 labelled connected to 4 somehow, and I'd buy a revolutionary step forward as a 5th ed. (Though I think it's too soon for 5th.)

 

[Blue]

We has seen 4.5e and it is us.

I didn't see the need to purchase Essentials since I have a DDI sub, so if it was called 4.5 the same thinking would have applied.

I did buy Heroes of the Fallen Lands, cheap enough in softcover, but you're absolutely correct about DDI being important to the 4.5 equation.

The vast amount of errata and replacement of systems (skill challenges, treasure, monster design, flying, mounts, DC targets for skills, save debuffs, PHB class rebalancing with the Essentials classes like sneak attack per round or wizard encounter miss damage) - we're really already playing 4.5. It's been snuck in as errata. And while it's out there for everyone, the Compendium in DDI has made it palatable to the masses.

The only problem is because it's been a stealth update from 4.0 and they don't want to alienate more players by calling ti 4.5, they need to leave it backwards compatible and leave in chaff - powers and feats that are obsolete, classes that don't fit the new mold, monsters designed using the old math and not updated.