Quote from: estar;629469What I am not seeing is how they are going to reconcile D&D Next with 4e AND with the older editions. 4e is just too different to make a core game that also works for older D&D.

Even if they had an optional powers and detailed tactics module that you can tack on, I doubt the resulting game would feel or play anything like 4e.

One thing we do know that B/X style D&D was very good at introducing the game to novices and expansive enough to keep them coming back for more.

I think that having D&D Next as a B/X clone with some revised mechanics (like Ascending AC) along with some customization options is the way to go for the core. Bonus points if you can make the core classes a decent result of a pre-picked build from the "advanced" version.

although you couldn;t make a 4e replica i think you can make a tactics heavy power based game that still runs on the D&D engine. They will eliminate the HP / damage bloat of 4e perhaps so raging mega death attack at 10th level does 30 + 3d6 rather than 80+3d10 and the minotaur has 60 HP rather than 120 but that is just numbers the game could still feel like that I think.
the key isn't to make a series of expansions that play like clones of other editions.
the key is to capture the common essence of all the versions and enable the players to get that vibe based on a selection of features.
There is no point building clones because there are already clones enough.
It has to be the same but different in order to capture the sales.

Your point re can a basic player take their warrior and play them in an advabnced game with no modding is well made. I suspect the answer to that is no depending on how simple the core is. If its AD&D simple with classes with set feat trees aka class powers and the advanced version just replaces those set feats with other optiosn then it may work but i doubt it woudl be slick enough for the 3e fans and it might creeate too many compromises in teh core game.

Quote from: estar;629469What I am not seeing is how they are going to reconcile D&D Next with 4e AND with the older editions. 4e is just too different to make a core game that also works for older D&D.

Even if they had an optional powers and detailed tactics module that you can tack on, I doubt the resulting game would feel or play anything like 4e.

One thing we do know that B/X style D&D was very good at introducing the game to novices and expansive enough to keep them coming back for more.

I think that having D&D Next as a B/X clone with some revised mechanics (like Ascending AC) along with some customization options is the way to go for the core. Bonus points if you can make the core classes a decent result of a pre-picked build from the "advanced" version.

I think to get a 4E style game, you really need a seperate book. A non magical healing option that can be layered onto the core is something I could see as an option in the PHB, but anything involving martial powers or 4E style abilities, you really need a book devoted to that (and I think that is actually the fairest treatment of it for both sides). My expectation is the core book will be too simple for me and I am going to need to buy the advanced book to play the game I want. But I am getting a lot of mixed signals from them regarding the exact structure the line will take.

Where's Maw these days. He'd be fun in this thread.

Quote from: Dimitrios;629447The cleric was always sort of an odd man out because it's an archetype that doesn't really exist anywhere outside of D&D. There's no counterpart in the classic fantasy and S&S literature that early D&D took inspiration from.* And although the class vaguely references medieval Europe, there's no counterpart there either. The original cleric archetype is basically pure Gygax.

Thinking back, none of the parties in our long running campaigns back when included a cleric.

*The "evil priest" is a familiar character in S&S stories (Conan & etc.), but they don't resemble the early D&D cleric much at all.

My personal theory is that the "lose all of your powers if you break the code of conduct" piece likely went a long way towards causing problems.  With a little bit of poorly designed antagonism, it leads to the class being very unpopular.  

It is also a shame that it wasn't framed as Abraham van Helsing in a box.  The driven scholar who understands the forces of darkness well enough to turn undead and heal would have linked into all sorts of archetypes.

Postquoting before reading:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;629428Old school healing is fine.

New school play is what causes it to seem broken.

Fight, fight, fight, and fight again is a playstyle OPTION that requires lots of healing to maintain.

Don't want to play clerics? Find options to achieve your objectives that cause less bleeding.

100x this.  Hell, even when I was running 3e, my guys just did without (main healer was a bard with "cure minor wounds" (1hp!) and potions for about 4 levels until they found a (as in "one single") cure light wounds wand.  (I cut treasure and xp to half in 3e, BTW.)  Worked fine, dudes just had to be careful.

Moreso in TSR editions (without d20 hp inflation) - if nobody wants to play the cleric, nobody plays the cleric, whatever.  (Especially Basic - clerics that don't even get healing at first level go a long way towards curing the "we need a cleric" syndrome.)

Quote from: Piestrio;629364Then play something else?

I know it sounds harsh but I really don't understand the sentiment that D&D should be a sorta shitty generic fantasy RPG rather than a unique and enjoyable game.

It's not like anyone is forcing anyone to play D&D rather than a game more suited to their tastes.

Let D&D BE D&D. If someone doesn't like it they can find and play a whole world of other games.

I know the bed has already been shit, so to speak, and we can't go back to 1999 but that doesn't mean we have to pile mistake on mistake.

I'm tired of the unspoken assumption that TSR D&D was broken and in need of fixing. Magic needs to be fixed, fighters need to be fixes, healing needs to be fixed, magic items need to be fixed, thieves need to be fixed, classes, XP, monsters, treasure, etc, etc, etc...

fixfixifixfixfixfixfix

Fix it until it doesn't resemble D&D.

I'm just happy to see someone say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe TSR D&D wasn't this huge pile of shit that we thought it was for 13 years"

+1

Played 2e all my life.

Never added a single house rule.

Never felt the need.

Games runs fine as is.

Quote from: 1989;629492+1

Played 2e all my life.

Never added a single house rule.

Never felt the need.

Games runs fine as is.

While I agree with this, I think we also live in a different moment and people are not just going to play the game because its D&D. You basically have two to three camps that are all prepared to walk if it doesn't do what they want it to. So while I strongly oppose having HD or similiar healing mechanics as the default, I really don't see an issue putting it in there as an optional rule (and to be fair, 2E had tons and tons of optional rules). In the long term, I believe the approach of core basic book, advanced book and a 4e style book will be successful. I doubt they can construct a core game at this stage which will attract all the different groups that have emerged in the last twenty years. But if putting a few optional rules in the core book gets some of those folks to the table to buy the second and third book, then WOTC might as well do it (particularly if it is a genuine optional rule I can ignore).

I really don't envy Mearls and co. Basically everything he does, is going to get one side angry. I thought this last article was great, because it shows he definitely sees where I am coming from, but if the rumblings elsewhere are any indication, there are a lot of unhappy people PMing him right now that he has "ruined D&D".

Quote from: VictorC;629454So yes, if you want to play D&D, play D&D right. Translation, play D&D the way Piestro like to play.



As you say, there are hundreds of things that make it D&D losing one or two doesn't make it not D&D... maybe not to you.

Furthermore, your "go play something else" that's exactly what the people at Wizards are attempting to stop you from doing. They don't want you to play something else, they want you to play D&D

The Brand D&D, not what Piestro thinks D&D should be.

This is really fucking rich.

The longest running D&D game I've ever been in used an entirely different magic system.

I've run games with radically different HP and damage rules, different combat procedures, different classes, races, etc...

The time I've spent playing D&D as D&D is dwarfed by the amount of time I've spent playing my own altered versions of D&D .

So the "D&D the way Piestrio likes to play" is pretty fucking different from what I've described.

The difference is I'm not a self centered twit who thinks just because I like something in my D&D that it's OBJECTIVELY BETTER and everyone should buy a game with that at the center.

It's about knowing that your preferences are preferences and not privileged simply because they are yours.

It's about recognizing that value exists in things even if you don't particularly like them.

OMG the level of butthurt over at TBP is amazing.

5e regressing?  Well, when 4e was a self-admitted failure, and the previous edition is arguably still the most popular version of an RPG out there, what do you expect?

And this:

Quote from: KaiWhat solution? I mean, in general I would agree with this sentiment but I'm pretty sure the D&D Next team doesn't give a shit what people on RPGnet have to say about what they're doing.

One can only hope so.  You guys are sounding like a bunch of crybabies who fail to acknowledge that your precious version failed.  And color me jack shit lack of surprised that that particular mod is essentially saying edition warring is perfectly OK as long as it's not against 4e.

Oh, and when Mearls says, "Feedback showed that most people never thought it was a problem." that means exactly what it says.  Not "Most people never complained because it was their only option."  Most people in fact didn't think of it as a big problem, regardless of # of options.

Just one more example of them spinning it into something that justifies their complaints, factual or not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629497Oh, and when Mearls says, "Feedback showed that most people never thought it was a problem." that means exactly what it says.  Not "Most people never complained because it was their only option."  Most people in fact didn't think of it as a big problem, regardless of # of options.

Just one more example of them spinning it into something that justifies their complaints, factual or not.

I think this is the most significant thing if his information is accurate. I have always felt it wasn't a problem at all, but I assumed, judging by the comments I see on forums, that it was at least a problem lots of players felt was genuine. Now I think this may be one of those things where the impression online just didn't match the reality of what was going on at peoples' tables (not that there weren't people unhappy with healing, just that it wasn't this widespread problem posters made it out to be).

Quote from: 1989;629492+1

Played 2e all my life.

Never added a single house rule.

Never felt the need.

Games runs fine as is.

It's funny. My appreciation for "by the book" TSRD&D is a somewhat new development for me.

When I was playing it during it's lifetime I was a house-ruling machine.

But it never occurred to me that just because I liked a proficiency based magic system that EVERYONE should like one and that TSR should redesign the game to cater to my tastes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629497OMG the level of butthurt over at TBP is amazing.

Lamentations of the RPGNet princesses? Not surprising; doesn't this occur with every L&L post?

I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

I am with you. Clerics are fun, they are also pretty easy to play without a lot of prep because there is the built in motivation of serving your god.

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

Nah you're not odd. I'm in the same boat, and the Cleric's never been an "underplayed" character at my tables. I'd say it's actually a pretty popular class in my corner of the woods, in fact.