Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Core vs. Optional in 5E - WotC Poll


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)


Link

Some observations:

- Critical Hits, Feats, and Skills are almost universally desired as core components.
- A majority polled would prefer a non-Vancian magic system be core, while a majority would prefer Vancian magic as an option.
- It's probably no surprise that Kits, Morale Rules, Weapon Speed Factors, and Weapon Versus Armor Tables are almost universally rejected as core components.
- Saving Throws didn't fare as well as I'd expect as a core component, but also were soundly rejected as an optional component. Does that point to a desire to see them remain 4E style defenses?
- Themes fared the best of the "prestige class" options as core.
- Based on the results, I think it's safe to expect every item on the list to appear as an option in 5E.

Shadow Lodge

I hate 4E defenses. Both in the sense of pick your best stat and the fact that it is not something the player (or defender) rolls.

I was actually kind of disappointed as well. I selected powers, before realizing they meant 4E Powers (rather than Psionic Powers or abilities like Spell-Like abilities), and can't go back and change my answers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with saving throws is that the poll did not specify if they mean 3.5 and earlier style saving throws or the crappy 55% chance of ending a condition after each turn of 4th edition (one of the 4th edition mechanics that I seriously dislike)

Generally I have to say that the poll is far from being conducted properly as it uses a lots of terms without being more precise about their meaning and does not include many other important options.

Shadow Lodge

Other things I was iffy about:

Prestige Classes, (which editions version, vs "kits", )

Rituals (similar, but also a very different thing in 3E than in 4E, than in even other editions. DO I want Ritual magic? Yes. Do I want 4E Rituals? No, because I want those abilities in the game without Rituals.)

Themes (I'm assuming this is a 4E thing, though this was also a 3E thing which was both late and not that popular/important. Expand please.)

All in all , I kind of felt like it was a clumbsy sort of way to get opinions.


An extremely poor poll! I hope they don't take to much notice of how people voted. I think they should just decide what is core and then ask people what they want added as modules.

I like 4e but the Wizard really did get nerfed into a blaster or nothing. Vanian Wizard needs to be core IMO

I like rituals but fighters etc should not be able to cast them off scrolls.

I think themes are kind of like traits from PF.

Silver Crusade

*checks link, shrugs*

The linked information is almost useless. It shows "how many votes" (presumably in favor of each option), but not how many people voted; or the proportions of voters for and voters against each option.

Seems also rather light in total numbers at best, especially since it's a self-selecting sample... although I suppose they may have enough people voting to bring the margin of error down quite a bit.


This is what illusionist do to make you look where the trick IS NOT happening.


Beckett wrote:
I hate 4E defenses. Both in the sense of pick your best stat and the fact that it is not something the player (or defender) rolls.

I would suggest that a hybrid system might work in place of this. Players roll saves, monsters have static defenses, that the player rolls to bypass. Monsters do not need to follow all the same rules as the players do. My biggest problem with the static defenses in 4E was being hit by action-denial stuff, and my only recourse was to wait until next turn. Granted, the guy who was running it was heavy-handed with his overuse of it, but it left me feeling like I wasn't in control of my own character far too much.

Shadow Lodge

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I hate 4E defenses. Both in the sense of pick your best stat and the fact that it is not something the player (or defender) rolls.
I would suggest that a hybrid system might work in place of this. Players roll saves, monsters have static defenses, that the player rolls to bypass. Monsters do not need to follow all the same rules as the players do. My biggest problem with the static defenses in 4E was being hit by action-denial stuff, and my only recourse was to wait until next turn. Granted, the guy who was running it was heavy-handed with his overuse of it, but it left me feeling like I wasn't in control of my own character far too much.

That's exactly my issue with it. Some people call this the illusion of control, but I think it's a bit more than that. It delves into the nature of the game itself, and the feeling that no matter what, you can't really affect the outcome shouldn't really have any place in RPGs, I think.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

It's a WotC poll, and since most people there would be 4e players, funnily enough they want the new edition to be similar to 4e. So how representative it might be is moot. That said, as a 4e player, I agree with all of the findings...


The results were posted up today as part of Monte's new column and Feats, Critical Hits, Saving Throws, and Skills were the top vote getters for being a part of Core. They were the only ones to get over 3000 votes each, while Feats, Critical Hits and Skills got over 400 votes each.

Monte's Legends & Lore column for today deals with high level play and what level people think things bog down. It sounds like he thinks 4th edition handled high level play the best of any of the versions.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's a WotC poll, and since most people there would be 4e players, funnily enough they want the new edition to be similar to 4e. So how representative it might be is moot. That said, as a 4e player, I agree with all of the findings...

Hoping they(WotC) understand that it is heavily skewed to 4th ed fans...or we can forgot the whole reaching out to other edition fans thing.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
It sounds like he thinks 4th edition handled high level play the best of any of the versions.

The only other edition you could reasonably pick is the one that didn't go up to level 20.

That said Monte's latest article was extremely clueless. If I want to run an epic godslaying campaign of planar teleporting, I shouldn't have to roll 8 times the number of dice or tell my fighter types to go time out in the corner. All editions have both math problems and option bloat with the higher levels, fourth the least of them, but still enough that heroic became the only thing Wizards bothered supporting at some point. A big potential selling point for 5E would be to correct the math, but the way Monte is talking about it, it's not clear he sees the issue that needs correction.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's a WotC poll, and since most people there would be 4e players, funnily enough they want the new edition to be similar to 4e. So how representative it might be is moot. That said, as a 4e player, I agree with all of the findings...
Hoping they(WotC) understand that it is heavily skewed to 4th ed fans...or we can forgot the whole reaching out to other edition fans thing.

Well, it cuts both ways - are they supposed to read your mind? It's well and good opining on a rival website as to the true nature of D&D, but it's much less likely to be read by the people who are in the position to actually alter the nature of D&D. Polls like this are going to be self-selecting, and probably no more unbiased than if the same poll was conducted here - I'd not be hasty to draw conclusions from that either.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's a WotC poll, and since most people there would be 4e players, funnily enough they want the new edition to be similar to 4e. So how representative it might be is moot. That said, as a 4e player, I agree with all of the findings...
Hoping they(WotC) understand that it is heavily skewed to 4th ed fans...or we can forgot the whole reaching out to other edition fans thing.
Well, it cuts both ways - are they supposed to read your mind? It's well and good opining on a rival website as to the true nature of D&D, but it's much less likely to be read by the people who are in the position to actually alter the nature of D&D. Polls like this are going to be self-selecting, and probably no more unbiased than if the same poll was conducted here - I'd not be hasty to draw conclusions from that either.

Sure, but I signed up to be a play tester....they could have just sent out the poll to all the people who did so. It would get a closer to what the majority of people wanted. And it is a small step to take to reach out to the people who they said they wanted to reach out.

Heck if I were them I would be sending out polls to everyone who has ever been a memeber of their forums no matter how long they have been inactive.


John Kretzer wrote:
Sure, but I signed up to be a play tester....they could have just sent out the poll to all the people who did so. It would get a closer to what the majority of people wanted. And it is a small step to take to reach out to the people who they said they wanted to reach out.

They should send out a separate version of the same poll to the playtesters, but a weighted poll like what they have done has merit. They want to regain the players they lost with the change to 4E, but need to avoid chasing away the ones they currently have. The current poll is a great way to manage the latter concern.

Shadow Lodge

Not so sure. It is making me feel it is very weighted towards 4E, which is both having the affect of making me not have hopes for 5E and also encouraging that same exact rift that 4E created between me and 4E/WotC, but most specifically it leavs me feeling like I'm being lied to or decieved, and that the person doing it actually thinks I'm that stupid that I don't see it. It's the last part that is the worst.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It's a WotC poll, and since most people there would be 4e players, funnily enough they want the new edition to be similar to 4e. So how representative it might be is moot. That said, as a 4e player, I agree with all of the findings...
Hoping they(WotC) understand that it is heavily skewed to 4th ed fans...or we can forgot the whole reaching out to other edition fans thing.
Well, it cuts both ways - are they supposed to read your mind? It's well and good opining on a rival website as to the true nature of D&D, but it's much less likely to be read by the people who are in the position to actually alter the nature of D&D. Polls like this are going to be self-selecting, and probably no more unbiased than if the same poll was conducted here - I'd not be hasty to draw conclusions from that either.

Sure, but I signed up to be a play tester....they could have just sent out the poll to all the people who did so. It would get a closer to what the majority of people wanted. And it is a small step to take to reach out to the people who they said they wanted to reach out.

Heck if I were them I would be sending out polls to everyone who has ever been a memeber of their forums no matter how long they have been inactive.

Like Jason says, I think this poll is probably less about informing their design process - that's what the playtest is for, mainly, I wold imagine - and more about providing the impression of consultation and caring. When it comes down to it, the 4e approach wasn't consensual, it was more "Ta-da! 4e! It's grrrrrreat!" whereas I think they are trying to be more touchy-feely here. But I expect the actual, behind-the-scenes process is exactly the same - design the system, playtest, redesign and reiterate until happy, present the new system. I expect the survey (and others) are irrelevant to what is going on. It's about managing the brand and image, not about substantive change to the outcome. And if it avoids people getting upset by cartoons, fine by me.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
Not so sure. It is making me feel it is very weighted towards 4E, which is both having the affect of making me not have hopes for 5E and also encouraging that same exact rift that 4E created between me and 4E/WotC, but most specifically it leavs me feeling like I'm being lied to or decieved, and that the person doing it actually thinks I'm that stupid that I don't see it. It's the last part that is the worst.

What do you think they should do instead? I can't see how, whatever method of gathering information a company in a niche market uses, it won't be heavily skewed towards its current customers. Opt-in surveys will always have more buy-in from their current fans, wont they?


Beckett wrote:
...it leaves me feeling like I'm being lied to or deceived, and that the person doing it actually thinks I'm that stupid that I don't see it. It's the last part that is the worst.

Wow, I don't get that at all.

I'm glad to see that WotC seems to be returning to a more traditional definition of "core," as opposed to the "everything is core" model.


Beckett wrote:
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Beckett wrote:
I hate 4E defenses. Both in the sense of pick your best stat and the fact that it is not something the player (or defender) rolls.
I would suggest that a hybrid system might work in place of this. Players roll saves, monsters have static defenses, that the player rolls to bypass. Monsters do not need to follow all the same rules as the players do. My biggest problem with the static defenses in 4E was being hit by action-denial stuff, and my only recourse was to wait until next turn. Granted, the guy who was running it was heavy-handed with his overuse of it, but it left me feeling like I wasn't in control of my own character far too much.
That's exactly my issue with it. Some people call this the illusion of control, but I think it's a bit more than that. It delves into the nature of the game itself, and the feeling that no matter what, you can't really affect the outcome shouldn't really have any place in RPGs, I think.

While theoretically mathematics could be done so the chances are statistically the same I can see it being completely different on a player-basis. One of my players is known for his rolls of 1. His gnome character in 3.5 rolled so many ones on attack rolls that our GM decided that the belt he wore was infused with ambient misfortune and turned into cursed item. Currently we are thinking that he is going to get another one as he continues to roll multiple ones per session (he oftem rolls three or four ones per twenty attacks). On the other hand GMs rolls against him are within averages. That said, most groups don't seem to have dice-vampire that drains all the good d20 rolls for herself.


Drejk,

Does this player insist on only rolling an actual D20? There have been many times I have gamed where people, including me, have used alternate dice to get the same result, either for a change of pace or because the D20's seemed cursed like your friend's. The most common would be to roll a D10 and a D6, where if you roll a 1-3 on the D6, the roll on the D10 is 1-10, and if you roll a 4-6 on the D6, the roll on the D10 would be 11-20.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Beckett wrote:
...it leaves me feeling like I'm being lied to or deceived, and that the person doing it actually thinks I'm that stupid that I don't see it. It's the last part that is the worst.

Wow, I don't get that at all.

I'm glad to see that WotC seems to be returning to a more traditional definition of "core," as opposed to the "everything is core" model.

I mean what I said above. For example, Powers. Do they mean Psionic Powers or 4E Power?

That implies two different things. If they mean Psionics, are they suggestiong do they want Psionics are part of the Core System or part of the added-on material like it's always been in other editions.

If they are talking about 4E Powers, then that implies I like other aspects of 4E.

Or Rituals. Do they mean the 3E/Unearthed Arcana/E6 Rituals where magic, true powerful non-Vancian magic is mysterious and powerful, or the 4E Rituals that implies that a lot of cool non-combat things are deligated to the DM's whim and plot elements.

It is way to open to interpretation, though I also know deep down that it is all 4E stuff, that I do not want. It makes me feel similar to when someone is obviously lying, and you know it, and they keep going with it.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / Core vs. Optional in 5E - WotC Poll All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.