Thoughts on 5th (next) edition D&D...


4th Edition

251 to 272 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
The very first RPGA adventure I ever ran in 4e involved fighting off a number of monsters while helping to safely deliver a baby, and it worked great. I still don't buy it.

D&D Shoot 'Em Up? :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CorvidMP wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've never seen such a thing in 3.5.
Then you weren't paying attention.

Oh great and powerful psychic, please tell me more about my gaming experience!


Scott Betts wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:

Let's say there is a hostage tied up, taking X rounds of actions to free. At the same time, the party is engaging a monster of level Y. Previous editions were flexible enough to allow for a party member to disengage and rescue the hostage, or avoid using AoE spells to not injure the innocent. 4th Edition (and 3.5) will punish you more than any edition for doing so, because it assumes you will do a certain amount of average damage per round, and are always using your best class features.

To reiterate, 3.5 was the significant shift away from this, not 4e.

The very first RPGA adventure I ever ran in 4e involved fighting off a number of monsters while helping to safely deliver a baby, and it worked great. I still don't buy it.

I'd say an encounter with a hostage or other activity that draws people away from the actual fight would be a higher CR than the same encounter without the distraction. A naive GM could put the party up against something they could handle without the distraction without realizing it would be harder.

Before 3.0 there wasn't really a CR mechanism so it was harder to see the difference.
A 1st/2nd E encounter with a hostage would still have been harder.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


You've completely lost me. Low level PCs and monsters have low HPs, but what does that have to do with building pacifist PCs?
If the combat doesn't seem to be possible, it doesn't mean the character is useless.

Are you talking about 3.x's infamous 'diplomancers'?

Jal Dorak wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
And I'm especially confused that you would say that "anything is worthwhile in combat" and "4e forces certain actions." Due to system mastery, a particular issue in 3.x, combat actions are not created equal. IME the range of possibilities range from "end the fight on turn 1" to "I may as well be twiddling my thumbs."

What I mean is that everything turns into a function of your class features, rather than allowing players to experiment.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Most confusing is your comment about "forced actions." In all my years gaming, I've never been forced to do anything.
I mean the exact type of thing you mentioned above - if you aren't taking the "correct" action, you're wasting your time. And in 4th Edition the "correct" actions are all spelled out on your character sheet. Move away from that, and you're probably dead.

I'm still trying to understand why you think 4e is unique in this regard. In every edition, your best and "correct" options are on your CS. Which effectively punishes experimentation, barring DMs who intentionally reward it.

Jal Dorak wrote:

Let's say there is a hostage tied up, taking X rounds of actions to free. At the same time, the party is engaging a monster of level Y. Previous editions were flexible enough to allow for a party member to disengage and rescue the hostage, or avoid using AoE spells to not injure the innocent. 4th Edition (and 3.5) will punish you more than any edition for doing so, because it assumes you will do a certain amount of average damage per round, and are always using your best class features.

To reiterate, 3.5 was the significant shift away from this, not 4e.

I don't buy the premise of your scenario. In any edition, a good module or DM would account for the otherwise-occupied PC, as Kip84 mentioned.


Jal Dorak wrote:
Let's say there is a hostage tied up, taking X rounds of actions to free. At the same time, the party is engaging a monster of level Y. Previous editions were flexible enough to allow for a party member to disengage and rescue the hostage, or avoid using AoE spells to not injure the innocent. 4th Edition (and 3.5) will punish you more than any edition for doing so, because it assumes you will do a certain amount of average damage per round, and are always using your best class features.

I don't think any of this is true.

CorvidMP wrote:
Then you weren't paying attention.

*rolleyes* That's a load of nonsense.

Scarab Sages

Okay, I give up.

Shadow Lodge

Probably for the best. Both of us screaming anecdotes at each other will get us nowhere.

Scarab Sages

TOZ wrote:
Probably for the best. Both of us screaming anecdotes at each other will get us nowhere.

I do see your points (Scott as well). I think where I diverge is the amount of information your character sheet provides. I'll leave it at that.

In regards to 5e - there is an interesting blog post up regarding races. I can certainly see why they would want to include every race, and I like the fact they want to call out how each race might fit in, however I'm not sure if I like the "common, uncommon, rare" wording (besides the obvious trading card similarity) - these words imply that something like a Tiefling is a "rare" race in any campaign, which is certainly not true. Neither would I be in favor of a "basic, advanced, expert" list. I think the best approach would be two categories: standard (human, dwarf, elf, halfling) and optional (gnome, half-elf, half-orc, tiefling, dragonborn, etc).

While I'm on the subject, I think this is a great opportunity for them to introduce a generic "half-race" template, rather than simply keep it to half-elf and half-orc. That way enterprising groups can blend races as they see fit.

Grand Lodge

Jal Dorak wrote:
I'm not sure if I like the "common, uncommon, rare" wording (besides the obvious trading card similarity) - these words imply that something like a Tiefling is a "rare" race in any campaign, which is certainly not true.

Those terms go back to the older editions of D&D in that they gave the frequency in which any given race/monster was encountered in a typical campaign setting. But it was never a straight jacket (e.g. if a DM wanted a "rare" monster or race to be more common, he simply made it so)...

It's just a starting point; something a DM can look at and adjust within their campaign world as they see fit...


Digitalelf wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
I'm not sure if I like the "common, uncommon, rare" wording (besides the obvious trading card similarity) - these words imply that something like a Tiefling is a "rare" race in any campaign, which is certainly not true.

Those terms go back to the older editions of D&D in that they gave the frequency in which any given race/monster was encountered in a typical campaign setting. But it was never a straight jacket (e.g. if a DM wanted a "rare" monster or race to be more common, he simply made it so)...

It's just a starting point; something a DM can look at and adjust within their campaign world as they see fit...

We hope, but I had read somewhere that the intent was to also tie in the difficulty in the mechanics of classes that were designated in such ways. For example, a Fighter is "common" and thus mechanically pretty simple to figure out. A Paladin is "uncommon" and could have mechanics that are more indepth, compliacted, or contrived when compared to the Fighter. An Assassin is "rare" with more complicated and indepth rules as well as the implications to role-playing with a Good or un-evil party. None of that sits with me very well. If it's JUST to illustrate the proportions of that specific class in a general campaign setting, well that's OK then becuase I can just throw that out the window really quick.

Grand Lodge

Diffan wrote:
I had read somewhere that the intent was to also tie in the difficulty in the mechanics of classes that were designated in such ways.

I had not read nor heard that...

That would, in my most humble of opinion, be BEYOND silly...

I truly hope they do not do this...

Scarab Sages

Digitalelf wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I had read somewhere that the intent was to also tie in the difficulty in the mechanics of classes that were designated in such ways.

I had not read nor heard that...

That would, in my most humble of opinion, be BEYOND silly...

I truly hope they do not do this...

They did mention this, but it was in the context that the default modules for the "simple" classes would be much easier to prep and understand, but could still be replaced by more complicated options.


Quote:
WotC may not be the environment where D&D should sit? TSR 'handed' off to WotC, may be it is time for Hasbro do the right thing by D&D and look at selling off the brand? Perhaps if the smart people (meaing Bruce & Robert et al) did a 'Paizo' and took control of D&D something as good as 'Paizo' could be created? Irony would be if TSR as a trademark is open to take...

If D&D as a tabletop RPG becomes unprofitable, Hasbro will simply discontinue the game. Would they sell the IP? No, because the brand still has value, especially as we seem to be going through another round of 1980s/90s nostalgia at the moment. Hasbro would rationalise that the game may have had its day but that doesn't prevent them from selling novels (each new RA Salvatore FR novel sells hundreds of thousands of copies in hardcover and many of the other authors shift tens of thousands, which is not to be sniffed at), licensing out the film rights (we're probably not far of them having another go at it) and selling computer games.

In such a situation, a 4E-alike game (barring copyright and trademarke issues) could be made by a new company of former D&D staffers, certainly, but there is no way they'd be able afford the D&D IP. With the computer games, possible films and computer games thrown in, the brand is still worth millions of dollars even if the RPG ceases to exist.


Werthead wrote:
Quote:
WotC may not be the environment where D&D should sit? TSR 'handed' off to WotC, may be it is time for Hasbro do the right thing by D&D and look at selling off the brand? Perhaps if the smart people (meaing Bruce & Robert et al) did a 'Paizo' and took control of D&D something as good as 'Paizo' could be created? Irony would be if TSR as a trademark is open to take...
If D&D as a tabletop RPG becomes unprofitable, Hasbro will simply discontinue the game. Would they sell the IP? No, because the brand still has value, especially as we seem to be going through another round of 1980s/90s nostalgia at the moment. Hasbro would rationalise that the game may have had its day but that doesn't prevent them from selling novels (each new RA Salvatore FR novel sells hundreds of thousands of copies in hardcover and many of the other authors shift tens of thousands, which is not to be sniffed at), licensing out the film rights (we're probably not far of them having another go at it) and selling computer games.

Probably, but I think that's a pretty dire circumstance right there. Since the announcement of the next iteration of D&D, many people (here espically) believe that D&D is losing TONS of money or that it's a failing product. I just don't seee that. It's true that they're 'losing' to Paizo for hardcover sales and possibly PDF sales but losing money? No, I think the D&D brand is making money just fine but they (meaning Hasbro) hates being Second fiddle to anyone else. Ergo, we have a new shift in the product, a new marketing and design team, and all that stuff. RPGs in general would have to take a HUGE hit in sales for Hasbro to discontinue Dungeons and Dragons IMO.

Werthead wrote:
In such a situation, a 4E-alike game (barring copyright and trademarke issues) could be made by a new company of former D&D staffers, certainly, but there is no way they'd be able afford the D&D IP. With the computer games, possible films and computer games thrown in, the brand is still worth millions of dollars even if the RPG ceases to exist.

In all honesty, I don't think 4E would transfer well to a computer RPG. There are just too many options, character choices, and in-game decisions that powers and class features change or modify for it to transfer well to CRPGs. Things like immediate attacks, off-turn attacks, Opportuinity Attacks, powers that allow people to fly, etc. that 4E is based on would be hard (IMO) to codify into a computer game atmosphere.


Diffan wrote:
Probably, but I think that's a pretty dire circumstance right there. Since the announcement of the next iteration of D&D, many people (here espically) believe that D&D is losing TONS of money or that it's a failing product. I just don't seee that. It's true that they're 'losing' to Paizo for hardcover sales and possibly PDF sales but losing money? No, I think the D&D brand is making money just fine but they (meaning Hasbro) hates being Second fiddle to anyone else. Ergo, we have a new shift in the product, a new marketing and design team, and all that stuff. RPGs in general would have to take a HUGE hit in sales for Hasbro to discontinue Dungeons and Dragons IMO.

4e has underperformed compared to expectations. My understanding is that the core rulebooks sold well upon their initial release in 2008 and that subsequent books have mostly not done as well as expected (though D&D Essentials was a reasonable success). Far more importantly, D&D Insider has not met expectations at all.

You are correct that 4e has not bombed, or lost WotC/Hasbro overall tons of money, but not meeting sales forecasts and expectations is still a serious issue for Hasbro. Hence why they are moving forwards with the new edition and trying to re-energise the fanbase.

One of the problems seems to be that Hasbro and WotC had different ideas of what constitutes realistic levels of success with 4e. Hasbro, I think, were expecting 3e-levels of sales and success and WotC were more modestly projecting lower sales due to the decline in the overall market. However, what is concerning (especially from Hasbro's market analysis POV) is that 4e's sales being down couldn't be handwaved by the market declining when other games - PATHFINDER most notably - were and are selling very well.

Quote:
In all honesty, I don't think 4E would transfer well to a computer RPG. There are just too many options, character choices, and in-game decisions that powers and class features change or modify for it to transfer well to CRPGs. Things like immediate attacks, off-turn attacks, Opportuinity Attacks, powers that allow people to fly, etc. that 4E is based on would be hard (IMO) to codify into a computer game atmosphere.

Most of these same issues were addressed in older D&D CRPGs (the 3E games all had attacks of opportunity, for example). Flying, for example, is simply not permitted in any D&D CRPG that I'm aware of.

However, I was speaking more of the brand value rather than any specific edition. If computer games with 'DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS' on the cover are making money for WotC and Hasbro through licensing, that's more than enough reason to hang onto the IP even if they decide to discontinue the tabletop roleplaying game (in which case D&D computer games would be free to use any rules they wished, with no current rule set to base things around).


Werthead wrote:
Quote:
WotC may not be the environment where D&D should sit? TSR 'handed' off to WotC, may be it is time for Hasbro do the right thing by D&D and look at selling off the brand? Perhaps if the smart people (meaing Bruce & Robert et al) did a 'Paizo' and took control of D&D something as good as 'Paizo' could be created? Irony would be if TSR as a trademark is open to take...
If D&D as a tabletop RPG becomes unprofitable, Hasbro will simply discontinue the game. Would they sell the IP? No, because the brand still has value, especially as we seem to be going through another round of 1980s/90s nostalgia at the moment. Hasbro would rationalise that the game may have had its day but that doesn't prevent them from selling novels (each new RA Salvatore FR novel sells hundreds of thousands of copies in hardcover and many of the other authors shift tens of thousands, which is not to be sniffed at), licensing out the film rights (we're probably not far of them having another go at it) and selling computer games.

I would be strangely ok if this were to happen. I already look to PF as my serious D&D gaming, but I still play the D&D branded board games (which I think are excellent for what they are) as lighter fare; so while it would be a sad milestone for the hobby in general, I would not see Hasbro discontinuing the tabletop D&D as that much of a loos at this point.

I think that there is still some sort of legal bullshit with the licence that is still preventing any new D&D computer games from being developed like there was a few years ago. I might be wrong about that though, I should probably look for some more current information about the subject.


Quote:
I think that there is still some sort of legal b!*~~@%! with the licence that is still preventing any new D&D computer games from being developed like there was a few years ago. I might be wrong about that though, I should probably look for some more current information about the subject.

There was some legal confusion going on between Interplay (who used to have the D&D licence), Atari (who bought it from Interplay) and WotC (who wanted the licence back to redevelop it) for a few years, but as I understand it that's now been sorted out. We got DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: DAGGERDALE last year, which used a limited version of the 4e rules and sank like a lead balloon.

The next D&D computer game to be released is NEVERWINTER, an MMORPG, due out at the end of this year. This is apparently more of a 'proper' RPG and will use the 4e rules more thoroughly. Which should be interesting given it will come out just a few months before the 4e rules are dropped and 5e/Next takes over.

Obsidian have also proposed an ICEWIND DALE III to Atari and WotC, apparently as a fairly low-budget, old-school isometric RPG (possibly similar to WASTELAND 2, maybe even using the same engine). There's been no word on what response they got about that, but that could potentially be very interesting.


Werthead wrote:
The next D&D computer game to be released is NEVERWINTER, an MMORPG, due out at the end of this year.

Not to nitpick, but the next D&D computer game to be released is Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, which comes out this summer.


Werthead wrote:
The next D&D computer game to be released is NEVERWINTER, an MMORPG, due out at the end of this year. This is apparently more of a 'proper' RPG and will use the 4e rules more thoroughly. Which should be interesting given it will come out just a few months before the 4e rules are dropped and 5e/Next takes over.

What do people know about this? Does it look like it will be any good, or at least better than D&D Online?


Scott Betts wrote:
Werthead wrote:
The next D&D computer game to be released is NEVERWINTER, an MMORPG, due out at the end of this year.
Not to nitpick, but the next D&D computer game to be released is Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, which comes out this summer.

The next new D&D game. Sheesh :-)

Quote:
What do people know about this? Does it look like it will be any good, or at least better than D&D Online?

There isn't a huge amount of info about it, save that the RA Salvatore-helmed 'NEVERWINTER' novel series is supposed to lead up to it, and the makers of D&D Online sued Atari for switching their attention to this new game and not giving much publicity to D&D Online.

Apparently it's more-focused on a narrative than traditional MMORPG mechanics. What that means exactly remains to be seen.

251 to 272 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Thoughts on 5th (next) edition D&D... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition