D&D 5th Edition


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 845 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I learned from a Reliable Source (Margaret Weis) that someone by the name of Monte Cook is writing Fifth Edition. You know what I say to that?

*Takes a look at 4th Edition and . . . *

FUS RO DAH!

* blasts 4th Edition off the planet with the Theme for Skyrim playing in the background. *

The Exchange

+1

IN THEIR TONGUE HE IS CALLED ELTON-KIIN! MEME-BORN!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. This is what I want to happen with the release of 5th Edition.

* Wizards makes a healthy profit. First and fore most, a company exists to make money. 4th Edition presented a bunch of problems that needed to be solved 5 years after its release. Wizards of the Coast publishes Dungeons and Dragons to make money.

* That the new game inspires Creativity. In order to make more money, Wizards of the Coast would have to make a fairly inspiring game. Their core audience are interactive storytellers that have creativity in their bones. So to speak.

* That the new game is totally open with the OGL, or totally closed off with Copyright. I suggest the former, as 3rd party products sell 1st party products.

* If it's open, Paizo would be able to build off 5th Edition and refine it.

* Finally, I wish Monte Cook the best of luck in writing the new game. Monte Cook isn't the perfect game designer, but he does have many projects under his belt.


Do we really need more anti-4E garbage threads than there already are?

Also Margaret Weiss got that info from a guy who spoke with Monte, so it's 3rd hand information when it gets to you. Ever play the game "telephone?" Also, I've always been told to consider the source. That killed it right there for me.

Elton wrote:

Yeah. This is what I want to happen with the release of 5th Edition.

* Wizards makes a healthy profit. First and fore most, a company exists to make money. 4th Edition presented a bunch of problems that needed to be solved 5 years after its release. Wizards of the Coast publishes Dungeons and Dragons to make money.

Generalized statements like this are why we can't have nice things. But to which problems are you referring to, if I may ask?

Elton wrote:


* That the new game inspires Creativity. In order to make more money, Wizards of the Coast would have to make a fairly inspiring game. Their core audience are interactive storytellers that have creativity in their bones. So to speak.

Which is easily done with pretty much every single edition of the game to date. Or more importantly, how does one version of the game do this better than another? And be specific, as this will reflect on your overall grade.

Elton wrote:


* That the new game is totally open with the OGL, or totally closed off with Copyright. I suggest the former, as 3rd party products sell 1st party products.

I can agree to a point here. The OGL is the single reason why I wouldn't purchase one product of Pathfinder outside their APs...becaues they're free. I'm paying for a book because..........? Which means tons of free stuff AND I get what I want. Awesome.

Elton wrote:


* If it's open, Paizo would be able to build off 5th Edition and refine it.

If by refining it you mean a producing stuff that isn't a buch of crap-tastic feats and rule minutia that doesn't overly bloat the system like what we saw for 3.x then I'm right there with you.

Elton wrote:


* Finally, I wish Monte Cook the best of luck in w
riting the new game. Monte Cook isn't the perfect game designer, but he does have many projects under his belt.

Agreed, yet with his recent articles with Legends and Lore....I can't see this happening. I think he's still too much in love with the "DM is GOD, pay tribute or die" mentality of 2E. Also, from his articles it appears that too many options are a bad thing, forcing players to stick to the Basics of "Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing" and the four core Classes of "Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric" that we saw way back in the day. HOpefully I'm wrong, but from what I see it looks like 5E will be the edition of rules that craps in player's cheerios for wanting to play interesting character concepts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

Do we really need more anti-4E garbage threads than there already are?

Also Margaret Weiss got that info from a guy who spoke with Monte, so it's 3rd hand information when it gets to you. Ever play the game "telephone?" Also, I've always been told to consider the source. That killed it right there for me.

Elton wrote:

Yeah. This is what I want to happen with the release of 5th Edition.

* Wizards makes a healthy profit. First and fore most, a company exists to make money. 4th Edition presented a bunch of problems that needed to be solved 5 years after its release. Wizards of the Coast publishes Dungeons and Dragons to make money.

Generalized statements like this are why we can't have nice things. But to which problems are you referring to, if I may ask?

Ignoring your remark on my remark on Profit I'll get down to what I perceive as problems with the 4th edition of the game:

Easy enough, it doesn't feel all that real to me. When I ran 4th Edition for a group, I honestly gave it a good try the first and second time. I did my best to adapt my world to 4th as I conceived of it.

Classes are hard to produce within 4th Edition. You have to make up a lot of powers. It's easier to write a race than it is a class. In fact, it's easier to add powers to an existing class.

Skill Challenges are the best thing that came out of 4th Edition. The concept is wonderful enough that you can actually adapt it to Pathfinder without any problem.

There weren't enough skills. There were enough skills to cover adventuring (like in original Rolemaster) but not enough to cover every instance.

Rituals are spells from previous editions. I didn't like it because they didn't feel like rituals enough to me.

As for Monte Cook and how he feels about going back to basics, I'd say that he's right. As for Paizo or another company refining 5th Edition, this is exactly what I want to see happen. The best thing about the OGL is that it created competition.

Paizo took 3.5 Edition and refined it to near perfection, in the words of a poster here. With Competition and no monopoly, you generally will get better materials as well as craptastic ones from your competitors. And if you haven't even seen, there are a group who will stay loyal to the 1st party (while someone like me likes the 3rd party, within reason). \

Generally, though, I agree with your rebuttal on Monte Cook, in as far as one thing:

I am excited about 5th Edition. I really am. 4th Edition jumped the Shark for me, and that is one of the reasons why I went to Pathfinder. I desire an Edition of Dungeons and Dragons that gets it. 4th Edition gives me a childish vibe, not a childlike vibe. With the announcement of Margaret Weis, I felt like I could talk about 5th Edition, even though I wanted to talk about it just after 4th was released.

I love Pathfinder and I liked 2nd Edition AD&D. 3rd Edition for me was exciting, and I felt you can actually do a lot with your characters. Fourth was odd to me. It really was.


Elton wrote:

I perceive as problems with the 4th edition of the game:

Easy enough, it doesn't feel all that real to me. When I ran 4th Edition for a group, I honestly gave it a good try the first and second time. I did my best to adapt my world to 4th as I conceived of it.

While I appreciate your opinion, that's really not a definitive problem of the system itself. I never liked how Vancian magic worked in 2e, 3e, and PF or why Barbarian's could only get REALLY MAD one time per day yet I can't really say they're problems of that system (in the mechanical sense). I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's broken.

Elton wrote:


Classes are hard to produce within 4th Edition. You have to make up a lot of powers. It's easier to write a race than it is a class. In fact, it's easier to add powers to an existing class.

If your going to write your own classes then why do you feel the need to pay someone to do it for you? Additionally, 4E has over 40 base classes to choose from, not including Hybrid options and Multiclass options and Paragon Multiclass options. Alternatively, I had a friend even write up his own Factotum for 4E. All 30 levels of it with 2 Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and specific class Feats. All it takes is some system mastery and compare/contrast with existing powers to get the numbers right. I, myself, have convereted over 20 prestige classes to paragon paths for the Forgotten Realms.

Elton wrote:


Skill Challenges are the best thing that came out of 4th Edition. The concept is wonderful enough that you can actually adapt it to Pathfinder without any problem.

Agreed, though I wish they gave us better examples of using it. And the way they say to use the rules are fiddly at best. After trying it their way, it was a disaster. After implementing some common sense and more roleplay with a more focused concept, it worked really well.

Elton wrote:


There weren't enough skills. There were enough skills to cover adventuring (like in original Rolemaster) but not enough to cover every instance.

Rituals are spells from previous editions. I didn't like it because they didn't feel like rituals enough to me.

Ah, the skills. Could you tell me how many times players actively use their Craft, Perform, or Profession skills while adventuring? Or if those skills were pivitol to the outcome of the campaign? Perform had mechanical ties to the Bard, and it made sense for the system that he use that, but why did they "HAVE" to make it so specific? Couldn't he just have Performed? Did it have to be Wind Instruments, Percussion, Sing, Dance all requiring it's own ranks? Don't you think that was a bit too much micro-managing? And outside of the first 6 levels, how critical was it that the fighter needed Craft: Weaponsmiting to repair armor the sorcerer/wizard, cleric, bard, druid couldn't mend?

Now, I'm not saying they don't have their place. Obviously people are mad about their expulsion. I just feel characters shouldn't have to spend finite resources on aspects of their character that might come up once a few gaming sessions that quite honestly has little relevance on the outcome of what-ever that character is doing. I felt it would be better done as a background aspect during character creation.

You mention Rituals and there was even a little article about their importance in the edition which I felt nailed it. They're really really important, yet got a back-burner approach that felt shoehorned in. I would've like to have seen all their consumable prices go down, slowly buidling as they incrased in level and ability. But lets face it, the wizard holding onto all those scrolls of Knock, Mount, Discern Location, and the like (or having them prepared) wasn't really good game design. They're utility is nice to have, but not essentially required on-the-fly as most mage's spells are. So instead of saying These are Wizards, these are Clerics, these are Psions, yadda-yadda they made them more wide spread. This, I feel, really added to character depth as even Fighters could obtain a few rituals to enhance armor and the like, but they have to be somewhat proficient with their usage or it'll fail.

Elton wrote:


As for Monte Cook and how he feels about going back to basics, I'd say that he's right. As for Paizo or another company refining 5th Edition, this is exactly what I want to see happen. The best thing about the OGL is that it created competition.

Paizo took 3.5 Edition and refined it to near perfection, in the words of a poster here. With Competition and no monopoly, you generally will get better materials as well as craptastic ones from your competitors. And if you haven't even seen, there are a group who will stay loyal to the 1st party (while someone like me likes the 3rd party, within reason).

I think WotC has had enough "healthy" competition at this point, lol. I was saddened that Paizo wouldn't be rolling out products designed for 4E when it was announced however. Their APs are leaps and bounds ahead of where many 4E adventures are in terms of story, plot, and feel.

As for refining 3.5, I'm a Char_Ops kinda guy and the problems I see are still there. They never fixed BAB. They still felt it was ok to treat Rogues and Monks like trash. Wizards still have instant-win buttons. Poisons still paralyze PCs for minutes on end and set up Coup-de Grace scenarios. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics still dominate high-level play. I can't go back to paying for that, hells I won't go back to paying for that. I have PF's SRD online, and it's nice. I have 50+ 3e/v3.5 books at my disposal, and dozens of 4E material. I just can't fathom the game reverting back to aspects of suck that 3.5 was. Like Level Adjustments....seriously?!


It really won't be that hard to make a successful 5th edition.

1. Make the rules fairly compatible with previous editions. They only need to be as compatible as 3E was with 1E. Which was not much, but close enough. 3E and 4E were just too different and completely incompatible.

2. Publish a supported setting with the rules. An updated Greyhawk with Planescape seems the most likely choice, but any will do, even a new one.

3. Launch it with an online VTT. Let me repeat: launch it with the VTT. As in simultaneously. (btw, wasn't 4E supposed to have a VTT eventuality? Did it ever happen? If so, how is it?)

That's pretty much it. They just need a game that gets 2 groups of players from any previous version to be a success. They need a substantial number of players from some combination of two of the following groups of players for it to succeed: 4E, 3X/PFE, 2E, 1E, ODD. Any two will do. Three would be ideal but probably not possible. One will be a failure.

Note I said nothing about OGL. I just don't think it needs any OGL support at all to be successful. Having it is a bonus but not critical. I think a setting, a VTT, and multiple demographics of players are critical.

Also note that none of this will lure me back but I'm not going to be a target of the new edition anyway.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have zero interest in 5th right now.

Grand Lodge

Elton wrote:


* That the new game is totally open with the OGL, or totally closed off with Copyright. I suggest the former, as 3rd party products sell 1st party products.

* If it's open, Paizo would be able to build off 5th Edition and refine it.

1) It probably wouldnt be OGL, just like 4e isnt. I seriously doubt theyll go back to it whenever they get around to doing 5e (which Id place money on not being developed right now).

2) Paizo revamping another edition of DnD would be a terrible idea. They had to start someplace, and revamping 3.5 was fine. To stop working on their own stuff in order to revamp the system from yet another game would only put them in a worse position. It makes their brand purely about being reactive and improving other peoples products.
Instead, they should (and plan on, from what I hear) doing a new version of Pathfinder. How far removed from the core 3.5 rules that version of PF will be could be very little (3.0 to 3.5 jump) to huge (3.5 to 4.0). No matter how different they make it though, they need to do it by themselves, and not simply react cause WotC says so.

Anyway, besides that, Hasbro very may well sell the DnD brand altogether before a 5e comes out. :P

*Btw, not a 4e hater here. While Im not terribly fond of it, I do think its a good system.*


cibet44 wrote:

It really won't be that hard to make a successful 5th edition.

1. Make the rules fairly compatible with previous editions. They only need to be as compatible as 3E was with 1E. Which was not much, but close enough. 3E and 4E were just too different and completely incompatible.

I don't know, I thought the transition between 3E and 4E were relatively easy. Some classes were harder than other (like the Swordsage or Daggerspell guy). But overall, AC works the same. You have 3 same Save Defenses. You have skills. You have feats (more even). And classes often work relatively the same (clercis heal, wizards blow stuff up, fighters smack people with swords). How they go about these are a bit different, but I just don't see the great divide.

Having it be comparable to 4E or even a combination of 3E/4E would be nice too. Not sure how something like that could be pulled off.

cibet44 wrote:


2. Publish a supported setting with the rules. An updated Greyhawk with Planescape seems the most likely choice, but any will do, even a new one.

Amen. With the release of 4E there seemed to be no ground setting all these feats, races, and adventures were coming from. They took "Sandbox" too far IMO. IT's coming around a bit more with the fleshing out of Nerath (more so for the board game than the TTRPG) with a few articles in Dragon/Dungeon detailing specific places in their PoL setting. More of that please!

cibet44 wrote:


3. Launch it with an online VTT. Let me repeat: launch it with the VTT. As in simultaneously. (btw, wasn't 4E supposed to have a VTT eventuality? Did it ever happen? If so, how is it?)

QFT. Yes they promised a VTT. Yes it had some bugs. NO they haven't released it "officially". There was some talk about Beta testers for it for those with DDI subscriptions but I had no need so I didn't bother. This is one of those things they should've came through with at the onset of 4E.

Although, I hear the Beta tests for the VTT was pretty positive.


Elton wrote:

I learned from a Reliable Source (Margaret Weis) that someone by the name of Monte Cook is writing Fifth Edition. You know what I say to that?

*Takes a look at 4th Edition and . . . *

FUS RO DAH!

* blasts 4th Edition off the planet with the Theme for Skyrim playing in the background. *

So are you going to automaticly hate 5e without ever playing it?


Stereofm wrote:
I have zero interest in 5th right now.

Same boat here - especially considering that many of the things I think 4E did right in terms of narrativism, the more limited magic system and the skill system (emphasis on balance as well though to a little lesser extent) are all things Mr. Mearls seems to feel are the areas where 4E stumbled. A position I vehemently disagree with and one where what is usually being talked up, in the legend Lore Articles, generally sound like inferior replacements. What is being discussed as the replacement skill system being especially egregious in my opinion.

There are other reasons as well, mainly I actually like, for the most part, the place where the game currently is. I think the majority of the problematic early bugs have been generally worked out or errata'd and the quality of a lot of the material is more consistent and generally better. The quality of the monsters in the recent monster books being a prime example. In essence I feel that they have really gotten the system up to where it ought to be in terms of quality and I'd be more then happy to spend the next 4 years seing it be used on quality adventures and campaign settings.

That said if they use Monte to make a big book of Unearthed Arcana I would not mind plundering that for elements for my campaign so long as I can stay away from his bad ideas and incorporate only what I like of his material.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm tentatively hopeful. Perhaps mistakes made in 4th edition and 3-3.5 won't be repeated. And, in the words of one of my favorite heroes:

"...Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stereofm wrote:
I have zero interest in 5th right now.

I have zero interest in 4th right now.

Sure, it made a few changes that I like, but it continued the feel of playing an MMO on a tabletop which was started with 3rd and continued with PRPG. I want a new edition where I do not feel like I am forced to use battle mats and miniatures and a slide rule to fight a battle. I want the imagination back in the game.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

5E sucks.

Oh wait, am I too early?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not everybody likes miniatures....


Morgan Champion wrote:
Not everybody likes miniatures....

Agreed, yet they seem to be the most dominate visual tool to play the game ever since 2E and on up.


Gorbacz wrote:

5E sucks.

Oh wait, am I too early?

Hey, I know very nice 5th edition games... Call Of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Runequest (that one never officially named 5th edition however, it was second RQ from Mongoose).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

5E sucks.

Oh wait, am I too early?

Hey, I know very nice 5th edition games... Call Of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Runequest (that one never officially named 5th edition however, it was second RQ from Mongoose).

I really need to talk to some diehard CoC fans on how they feel when Chaosium puts out a new edition of their game :)


Gorbacz wrote:
I really need to talk to some diehard CoC fans on how they feel when Chaosium puts out a new edition of their game :)

"Look, look, they added comic about CoC PCs..."

"Were is that damn summoning spell, why they had to redesign Grimoire section?!"*
"A new edition? I looks to me like a new printing - I can't find any difference beyond new cover art."
"Wait, now you have 1% in all skills? Even those which had starting value of 1%"

*that one is exaggerated - in first Polish edition (which was 5th edition I think) classic Cthulhu spells (summon/bind, contact entity, contact god, summon god) were grouped together while the rest of spells were placed alphabetically. IIRC 5.6 edition had all spells put alphabetically. I think that 6th edition kept that.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Stereofm wrote:
I have zero interest in 5th right now.

I have zero interest in 4th right now.

Sure, it made a few changes that I like, but it continued the feel of playing an MMO on a tabletop which was started with 3rd and continued with PRPG. I want a new edition where I do not feel like I am forced to use battle mats and miniatures and a slide rule to fight a battle. I want the imagination back in the game.

If they went with a 'build your own version of D&D' type model I could imagine them putting out a book on how to play without miniatures but otherwise its highly doubtful. For one its hard to imagine a version of D&D that actually had a VTT that was not pretty miniature dependent and its unlikely that they would make a version of the game that was not meant to also have a VTT for the extra revenue potential. Furthermore versions of the game that include a table top component are generally more profitable because you then get to sell consumers books full of feats that are all about adjusting movement. Cut the table top element and you straight out have less content you can generate for the game.

It just seems to detrimental to their business model to take this route unless there is some significant reason to believe that the majority of their potential customers want a game without miniatures. Doubtful because there are some pretty good miniatureless games out there and if miniatures where a break point for their customers those games would have a bigger market share.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.


ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

Ah, so your in the "fighters and weapon-toting fools can't have nice things" camp then?

You do realize that there are games out there that don't use battlemats and miniatures that do Fantasy just as good (or better) than D&D right?


ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

Is it just battle mats you hate or any representation of the battlefield that grants a greater strategic than your imagination that you prohibit?

Liberty's Edge

If anything from what I'm reading from the L&L articles they either want to rerelease an updated AD&D which I can get behind if it does not lose all the advances that 4E gave to the system. If all they are going to do is rerelease AD&D with better rpoduction values and no changes wel they lost me as a player and a fan. Nor do I want them to go the PF route either. I like that in 4E classes are blanaced. I don't want that removed. If they can create a modular version of D&D then that would be interesting to see.

-100000 to the Op for starting the new year on the wrong foot. Barely two weeks into 2012 and already an anti-4E thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
Agreed, yet with his recent articles with Legends and Lore....I can't see this happening. I think he's still too much in love with the "DM is GOD, pay tribute or die" mentality of 2E. Also, from his articles it appears that too many options are a bad thing, forcing players to stick to the Basics of "Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing" and the four core Classes of "Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric" that we saw way back in the day. HOpefully I'm wrong, but from what I see it looks like 5E will be the edition of rules that craps in player's cheerios for wanting to play interesting character concepts

Then again I've seen too much of the "The DM is Priviledged to Be My Slave" expression of player entitlement that started with 3.0 and is still running strong these days. I for one don't have a problem with "The DM is God" given that he or she is the one who's put together the playpen and doing the donkey work of providing the campaign in the first place. There seem to be players who have problems giving deference in return.

And excuse me if I crap in some player's cheerios when I tell them that they can't run Jedi in Greyhawk.


LazarX wrote:


Then again I've seen too much of the "The DM is Priviledged to Be My Slave" expression of player entitlement that started with 3.0 and is still running strong these days. I for one don't have a problem with "The DM is God" given that he or she is the one who's put together the playpen and doing the donkey work of providing the campaign in the first place. There seem to be players who have problems giving deference in return.

And excuse me if I crap in some player's cheerios when I tell them that they can't run Jedi in Greyhawk.

Seeing as it's the DM who's dictating what is and isn't allowed in the campaign game is perfectly fine. If you want to crap in someon's cheerios because you don't like a particular class, build, combo, whatever that's a perfectly acceptable situation. Hopefully those kinds of DMs have the foresight to say "hey, this is what I allow. This is what I don't. These races are ok, these aren't." at the start of Char-Gen, then there isn't a problem.

But the rules shouldn't dictate what's is allowed and not allowed to be played. And please don't say: "Then people will want to play Terrasques!" becuase then it falls back on Common Sense. I'm talking about inherent penalities like Level Adjustment for un-common races. Negative ability scores in place just.....because. These sorts of rule restraining features are BAD for player creativity. Forcing players into pigeon holes with their race and class choices is BAD for player creativity. And I don't want D&D going back to those days.

If the DM allows his players to walk all over the rules, the game, and him then there's a lot more problems than what the system is doing at this point. Yet if the DM kills players randomly for not liking something the DM says or disagrees with a rule then why bother playing with that guy? It's a balance to be sure, but is should be a balance that the rules plays little into.

Also, why would there be Jedi in Greyhawk??

Liberty's Edge

Diffan wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

Ah, so your in the "fighters and weapon-toting fools can't have nice things" camp then?

You do realize that there are games out there that don't use battlemats and miniatures that do Fantasy just as good (or better) than D&D right?

Ad Homien much? But yes. And I play several of them, and not just Fantasy games either. However, what does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is 5th edition?

Xabulba wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

Is it just battle mats you hate or any representation of the battlefield that grants a greater strategic than your imagination that you prohibit?

Ad homien again. And if you'll notice, I said my group wouldn't use it if it required battle maps, but if those maps were online (say in a VTT) I would use it.


As a companion to my above list of 3 things 5E must do to succeed here are 3 things it must NOT do to succeed:

1. It must not be called "5th Edition". The word "edition" in D&D is now forever linked to "edition war". 5e must avoid an edition war at all costs so it must not use "5th" or "edition" in its title at all.

2. In the run up to and initial release of the new game it must not provide disparaging comparisons to any previous version of the game. It should not say things like "In 4th edition rituals were cumbersome to use, with 5th edition we fixed that by..." Or "In Advanced Dungeons and Dragons character classes were overly strict with the abilities they had access to so in 5th edition we took a different approach..." Discussion of 5th editions rules and changes must leave out all editorial comments about previous incarnations of the game no matter how innocuous they may seem.

3. It must not ignore the "Adventure Path" concept and nomenclature. "Adventure Path" is as much a part of the lexicon of the game now as "module" or "monster manual" or "campaign setting". 5E must embrace this concept AND nomenclature and make it it's own instead of something Paizo exclusively owns.


cibet44 wrote:
2. In the run up to and initial release of the new game it must not provide disparaging comparisons to any previous version of the game. It should not say things like "In 4th edition rituals were cumbersome to use, with 5th edition we fixed that by..."

It strikes me as difficult to engage your fanbase in a conversation about edition changes when you aren't able to discuss the reasons that those changes were made.

"We thought rituals were too cumbersome and so we tried to address that in 5e," seems a very reasonable sort of thing to say. Not being able to say it really hamstrings the level of dialogue you can have with those you're talking to.

The real solution here would be for the gaming community to stop looking to be offended by everything anyone in a position of relative authority says.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Diffan wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

Ah, so your in the "fighters and weapon-toting fools can't have nice things" camp then?

You do realize that there are games out there that don't use battlemats and miniatures that do Fantasy just as good (or better) than D&D right?

Ad Homien much? But yes. And I play several of them, and not just Fantasy games either. However, what does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is 5th edition?

Xabulba wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

Is it just battle mats you hate or any representation of the battlefield that grants a greater strategic than your imagination that you prohibit?
Ad homien again. And if you'll notice, I said my group wouldn't use it if it required battle maps, but if those maps were online (say in a VTT) I would use it.

It's "ad hominem," and neither of the things you quoted were good examples of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


The real solution here would be for the gaming community to stop looking to be offended by everything anyone in a position of relative authority says.

True, but I just don't think that will ever happen. The well is far too poisoned by everyone involved which includes BTW, anti-4e players, pro-4e players, anti-4e companies, and pro-4e companies. They all played a part in poisoning the edition well and now I don't think it can be undone. I think it's best to just avoid the comparisons and talk about what the new game does without comparing it to any other game or version.


Scott Betts wrote:


The real solution here would be for the gaming community to stop looking to be offended by everything anyone in a position of relative authority says.

Scott, if we did that then most everyone here in this sub forum won't have anything to talk about. You'll be messing up their fun if you hit them with reality. The problem with D&D is that since it's the game that most competitors compare to, it's pretty much at the top. So, everyone of all stripes play D&D.

You tend to get these people divided when you create a new edition. A new edition will always attract certain players and alienate others. Strangely, this way, you can get a version that will appeal to all players.

Every player enjoys their version of D&D.

I think what people are really mad at is discontinued support, or the threat thereof, for their favored edition. Thats what gets people angry. People will play their favored version of the game, they just get no support for it by the parent company.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:


It's "ad hominem," and neither of the things you quoted were good examples of it.

Agreed. I'm not seeing anything that qualifies as an attack myself.

Liberty's Edge

Its not like Wotc is the only company to discontinue support of a porudct. After Windows 98 I was stuck with a whole bunch of games that would not run on the next version of Windows after that. Car companies stop producing replacement parts for older cars. I'm not saying it's fair or that I like it much yet it's unfair to single out Wotc as the only culprit that does that. It happens all the time.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Diffan wrote:


Ah, so your in the "fighters and weapon-toting fools can't have nice things" camp then?

You do realize that there are games out there that don't use battlemats and miniatures that do Fantasy just as good (or better) than D&D right?

Ad Homien much? But yes. And I play several of them, and not just Fantasy games either. However, what does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is 5th edition?

Ad hominem? You've stated "if 5E has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it." which to me expresses your desire to keep these classes simple and straight-forward with relatively little options aside from attack, move, attack, move, attack. I judge this with the basis of previous edtions of the game where Fighters, rogue, etc. have no "powers".

In addition, if there are indeed games out there that better support a system with less mechanical attributes dedicated to battlemats and miniatures, I see no reason to force D&D into this column as well. Variety, they say, is the spice of life. Yet I'd also like to express that there has never been a requirment for battlemats and miniatures in 4E (or 3E, PF, 2E). It does make the game more enjoyable for a multitude of people, which I believe keeps the desire for said mechanics to persist in their systems.

Scarab Sages

cibet44 wrote:
2. In the run up to and initial release of the new game it must not provide disparaging comparisons to any previous version of the game. It should not say things like "In 4th edition rituals were cumbersome to use, with 5th edition we fixed that by..."
Scott Betts wrote:

It strikes me as difficult to engage your fanbase in a conversation about edition changes when you aren't able to discuss the reasons that those changes were made.

"We thought rituals were too cumbersome and so we tried to address that in 5e," seems a very reasonable sort of thing to say. Not being able to say it really hamstrings the level of dialogue you can have with those you're talking to.

The real solution here would be for the gaming community to stop looking to be offended by everything anyone in a position of relative authority says.

Every change of edition requires the staff to explain why their new way of doing things is (in their opinion) better than the old.

Otherwise, why buy it? Why print it? Why develop it?

And that's exactly as it should be. As a customer, I want to make an informed choice, not be taken by surprise at the changes, when I pull off the shrink-wrap. I want to know what the changes are, why those decisions were made, and what benefits they will provide me at my table (or in easier prep work).

The changeover from 2E to 3E certainly pulled no punches.
In fact, many of the changes were things that home groups had been complaining about, or house-ruling that way for years.
And you can bet your life, that when those grass-roots players were debating the rules they most hated (that would later be changed by WotC), they pulled even less punches.
(E.g., "Ooh look, monsters now have ability scores, just like PCs." Whoo-****ing-hoo, they've finally caught up with Runequest. They've dragged this game kicking and screaming into 1979, everybody.")

Some people seem to have a very short memory.


The biggest jump that 4e made over 3.x is in considering Nonplayer creatures to be inherently different from PCs. For example, Goblin shaman (the monster) has a set of abilities that no player, not even a goblin shaman (race/class) can get. Since the diplomacy check of a gelatinous cube will never come up during normal play, why does it need a CHA score?

The next biggest change was the elimination of effects which required massive recalculation before the results were known, like constitution drain (A 10th level wizard with 33 max HP, 20 damage, and a CON of 12 takes 6 points of constitution drain, and you need to go back and check the hit die rolls to determine if he is conscious. Play stops while math happens.)

The last major change was to artificially balance every class, weapon, and race. Only a small number of powers are significantly superior to others of the same level.

None of these changes alter the role-playing portions of the game. At all.

Grand Lodge

I'm all for a new addition , if and only if its a DnD that looks back to what made it great and give us a game that allows us to easily adapt the aspects we loved form the previous editions, with out those aspects feeling foreign or completely alien in the new system.

I too tried 4th edition, and with what I had with the basic books, and my campaign was not what I felt when i started at the cusp of 1e into 2e, it didn't seem like those days I had in my friends attic rolling dice, signing a merry bard tune as we tried to find our deadly Big Bad Evil Villian! I was reluctant to pick up 3e at first but eased into it and ran with it, and for nestalgia we played with another group who loved 1e way too much and introduced me into the Hackmaster world!

But I digress,l If there is another edition ( which IMO their will be) I hope it is in line with the initial reports as a interesting blend of all the previous editions, a literal ala' cart of rules allowing once and for all rules to better help those of us who constantly try to do this but either lack time or are not superiorly skilled in these areas, some offical aide. If so I'll try it and either go yay or nay!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they're not making a 5th edition at all. I hope instead that they're working on something that doesn't carry all the baggage of the past so that we can avoid needless flames long into the future. I mean, if you're gonna get rid of sacred cows, might as well get rid of the one that is the most troublesome: the D&D name.

Make a new RPG, call it something else, but then SAY it is like D&D. It's worked before.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
I want a new edition where I do not feel like I am forced to use battle mats and miniatures and a slide rule to fight a battle. I want the imagination back in the game.

Aah; the long-lost days of our youth, when we still had that which the elders call 'Imagination'.

When a chess piece, a blue marble, a d12 and the plastic fairy from a kid sister's birthday cake ventured forth to do battle with the salt and pepper pot of Handwavey Mountain.

I will always remember that villainous condiment set, with their horde of M&M minions, who would come at us from poorly-defined tunnels whose dimensions changed from one round to the next.

Ah, how my heart is a flutter at the memory of Handwavey Mountain. It ranks up there with the other formative games of my mis-spent youth, such as the Vague Corridors of Chaos, The Scribbled Keep on the Bus-Timetable, Dwellers of the Forgotten Module, RavenLost, and The Sinister Secret of Scratchpaper.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:


But the rules shouldn't dictate what's is allowed and not allowed to be played. And please don't say: "Then people will want to play Terrasques!" becuase then it falls back on Common Sense. I'm talking about inherent penalities like Level Adjustment for un-common races. Negative ability scores in place just.....because. These sorts of rule restraining features are BAD for player creativity. Forcing players into pigeon holes with their race and class choices is BAD for player creativity. And I don't want D&D going back to those days.

Un-common races aren't the issue...it's extremely powerful ones. Like Drow Nobles who don't balance to regular elves and Humans. What exactly are you saying in cases like this?

And what do you mean by pigenholing races and classes, because there isn't a class that's forbidden to any allowed race... unless the DM has reason to forbid such combinations. such as Night Elf Warlocks for example.

Player creativity is going to have restraints.... just as GM creativity is restrained by the needs of versmilitude. IF the GM's freedom isn't absolute, why should yours be?

Shadow Lodge

My my, is it that time of the month already?


Snorter wrote:

Aah; the long-lost days of our youth, when we still had that which the elders call 'Imagination'.

When a chess piece, a blue marble, a d12 and the plastic fairy from a kid sister's birthday cake ventured forth to do battle with the salt and pepper pot of Handwavey Mountain.

I will always remember that villainous condiment set, with their horde of M&M minions, who would come at us from poorly-defined tunnels whose dimensions changed from one round to the next.

Ah, how my heart is a flutter at the memory of Handwavey Mountain. It ranks up there with the other formative games of my mis-spent youth, such as the Vague Corridors of Chaos, The Scribbled Keep on the Bus-Timetable, Dwellers of the Forgotten Module, RavenLost, and The Sinister Secret of Scratchpaper.

Those sound like they must have been AWESOME games! :D

Oh, the fun games of youth in which almost anything could happen and almost anywhere could hold adventure! <sigh...>

d-(^o^)-b


TOZ wrote:
My my, is it that time of the month already?

LOL

Happy New Year, everyone!

d-(^o^)-b

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
My my, is it that time of the month already?

I hear that whenever they group up their cycles start lining up... OH, fancy meeting you here. :P


Elton wrote:
Scott, if we did that then most everyone here in this sub forum won't have anything to talk about.

If by that, you mean that people who don't play 4th Edition wouldn't have any reason to complain about new developments to the game they don't play, then I'd be all for it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

If fifth edition comes out and it has powers for fighters, rogues, etc. like 4th edition has, neither I nor my group will use it.

If it requires battle maps my group won't use it. If it comes out with a VTT and requires battle maps I'll use it online, otherwise, I probably won't have an option to use it.

I'm inclined to agree with both of these.

Why can I only kick dirt in someone's eyes once per encounter? what if the second guy didnt see me do it to the first guy? Dont give me arbitrary rules on how often I can do a mundane trick, apply at least a little bit of common sense. If youre going to limit how often I can do something, have it be for logical reasons.

I'm not a big fan of Vancian Casting either, but I'm able to ignore it more because "That's how magic works" is harder to argue with than "you dont know how to kick more than once in a 5 minute period", or what have you.

Secondly, I hate being given distances in squares. I've hated it since 3.5, but in 3.5 you can ignore the squares and just talk in feet. in pathfinder you can pretty much do the same. In 4e, most of the powers rely on weird square based shenanigans, fireball makes a cube, and other such things, which all make me feel like I'm playing a hasbro wargame based on minecraft.

There are nearly no rules for things that happen outside combat, and monsters dont have any abilities outside combat other than "just make something up".

Too many things in 4e take the approach of boardgamey balance instead of logic. Things can't be used outside their intended purpose wihtout houserules.

All the open ended spells (the ones that were interesting) are gone. there are no more demon summoners or necromancers, because you can only summon one dude at a time. Etc. And frankly, while alot of 4e players seem to like that, it's a dealbreaker for me.

All the spells that allow you to control other creatures are gone. Theres the occasional "he cant attack you" or "he hits someone standing next to him" but nothing flavorful along the lines of suggestion, or geas, or charm, or dominate.

And I want those sorts of effects in my games. They make the games interesting, and give me more stuff to do than just combat, and have that more stuff be mechanically supported, instead of just being "story time" where I make some stuff up and the DM approves or disapproves.

If 5e is like 4e in these ways, I wont end up playing it, and I'll stick to Pathfinder/WoD, and just keep trying out new games that have no connection to D&D, like the Unisystem Games, or Runequest, or what have you.

1 to 50 of 845 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / D&D 5th Edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.