Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
Currently, the #1 thing I want to see more of is modules. The (formerly?) primary selling point of D&D Next would be how customizable it would be. I understand that they're still in the process of getting a core that they feel comfortable with, but it's been several months now, and we still don't know how they're going to work, let alone how backwards compatibility is going to function across multiple, highly distinct systems. There haven't been many new ideas expressed in D&D Next, and even the good ideas like Advantage have a host of problems that need fixing. I'd really like to see them display the supposed strengths of D&D Next (flexibility, customization, backwards compatibility), rather than have them show me "Generic Fantasy D20 RPG", because right now, D&D Next hasn't showcased any reason for me to change systems.
And I don't even like advantage, I'm happier with the flat circumstance bonuses of 3.X.

Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
Some classes could be like a variable width crescent wrench, but are instead a fixed width crescent wrench on account of how the mechanism for width variation was designed poorly and jams all the time. The part of these classes that causes the mechanism jam is indefensible, even if you can still work with them, strictly speaking. They certainly shouldn't be defended with "if you can't work with these, it is your problem", and it is that use of logic that I am criticizing. I don't feel that the sorcerer necessarily is one of these tools, Zeful appears to, and appears to feel that bloodlines are what's jamming the mechanism for width variation. I'd consider bloodlines something that has jammed mechanisms in the past, and that could turn the sorcerer into one of these tools, but they might be able to prevent that.
No reason some classes can't be fixed-width wrenches. They just shouldn't be core in that case. (Druid, Paladin, Sorcerer, &c.)