Nah. 4E is dead and buried. I'm just very leery of anything that WOTC churns out. A broken trust is hard to restore, and they are not doing a good job of it with next.
Oddly enough, I felt like WotC screwed the pooch big-time over the last several years, but not because of 4E's mechanics (which I really liked); rather it was things like the GSL fiasco and the knee-jerk pulling of PDFs that rankled. I'm simply trying to judge 5E on it's own merits, especially since many of the 4E era "movers and shakers" are no more.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, personally, feel that if they had put out 4E as any other game OTHER than the "New D&D" it would have been more successful. In fact, I think that they should take the rules and re-brand it as a Magic: The Gathering RPG.
My gut tells me that they learned a few lessons from their mistakes (the GSL, the PDF pulling, the marketing that many perceived to mock older editions of the game) and that the current game will last a good long time.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I, personally, feel that if they had put out 4E as any other game OTHER than the "New D&D" it would have been more successful. In fact, I think that they should take the rules and re-brand it as a Magic: The Gathering RPG.
My gut tells me that they learned a few lessons from their mistakes (the GSL, the PDF pulling, the marketing that many perceived to mock older editions of the game) and that the current game will last a good long time.
I hope so. I'm a huge fan of the open playtest, the D&D classics pdfs, the 1e reprints, and now the free Basic PDF. All of these are signs that they're listening totheir fans and that they carefirst and foremost about D&D as a brand that people have loved for 40 years.
There may besome mechanics I'll end up houseruling, just like every edition I've played (including 3.75), but overall I really like what I see. I justhope itwon't be too long of a wait for non FR setting material.
I think the general philosophy is: roll your stats for home games, purchase or arrange for organized play.
Seth - The wait is over! The basic rules talk about many different settings in its examples.
If you like FR and Dragonlance, you'll probably love the download.
And Greyhawk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked that many of their examples included Tika Waylan, along with Artemis Entreri (probably mangled the name, but oh well). Hearing that the default setting will be Forgotten Realms (ugh) makes me sad, but just like with Pathfinder, that doesn't matter. Greyhawk, I thought, was better for the generic setting, like in 3rd edition.
It would be nice if they had a conversion book, giving examples of how to convert from the 4 previous versions of the game.
To the comments about Next being "meh" or "no wow", I really have to laugh. On one hand, people fled WotC due to 4E's rules being too far from what people have accepted to be D&D. NOW that they have gone back to the basics, so to speak, its not enough or its vanilla or it doesn't compare to what PF already does. I just think its sorta funny and its why I have the perspective listed above.I see. So opinions of other people are laughable because they differ from yours.I laugh because I find the opinions ironic. A portion of the fan base left WotC because 4e departure from so many sacred cows proved to be too much and, to them, made the game very un-D&D like. WotC goes BACK to their roots and attempts to rekindle the old D&D feelings and beliefs but the same people claim that its nothing new or lacks a WOW factor. In a sense, WotC cannot win, regardless of what they do.
I, personally, could care less if people like or hate or find it "meh". It scratches an itch that neither 3.5/PF or 4E really scratch. Since Pathfinder is essentially free online and 4e products are done, it provdes me an opportunity to purchase this product where I haven't purchased any in a while other than DDI to keep the 4e tools going.
THye have not really gone back to the roots though they are just trying to convince people of that.
1. No traditional vancian spells (a'la 4E).
2. All classes have the same attack modifiers (a'la 4E)
3. Rapid Healing (a'la 4E)
4. Paladins of any alignment/no alignment mechanics (a'la 4E)
5. No racial penalties to the races.
All of those 5 things exist in the retroclones, Pathfinder and all the other D&Ds apart from 4E.
Basically to win the PF crowd they more or less have to make a better 3.5 or a 3.5 where the math works better.
I would have paid good money for a 3rd.4E type game built with something similar to the Star Wars Saga books. Right now I think the only thing that could get me back to my 20 items a year D&D habit/fix is a 3.x game with better math or AD&D 3rd ed.
Completely not interested in any version of D&D with to many 4Eisms baked in I have to pay $$ top get the DMG to remove them.
5E doesn't repel me though like 4E did and I want to try it 1st before I commit or boycott it so I'll grab the starter set at one point as it is a cheap pretty box that can join my 13 other boxed sets.
|
Point 1 - it's vancian-esq, I don't really have a problem with this - though the cantrips damage output as constant SLAs vs. other martials is a bit troubling. I have a fix for this for my game, but I can see some of this increase in flexibility (power) and raw power (power) can be troublesome. The flexibility is a move away from vancian casting, which dials the difficulty and risk of the game down.
Point 2 - may be mitigated with more development of the Fighter class and other martials as more material is released. I do think that any bump in numbers from archetypes or feats will be minimal though; +1 or +2, while keeping the number closer to the proficiency bonus. I can see why they did this, and also minimizing optimization/system mastery to get the best numbers.
I think the idea is that on average a Fighter or Rogue is going to have better to-hits when all their mods are totaled and also greater damage output with their weapons than a Wizard using his staff with no bonus to hit or damage.
Problem of course is when a Wizard is spamming a 1d10 firebolt every round comparing this with a martial + the flexibility of the rest of his spellcasting ability (again, I have a fix for this).
Point 3 - I have a MAJOR problem with this. I of course also have a fix. The beauty of these mechanics is that they are tied more with pacing and what kind of game you want to run. So if you wanted a hardcore game you could say 1 point per hid die spent on a short rest (and you only get these once per hit die, ex 3rd level fighter can only get 3 hp over the course of 3 short rest or 1 short rest). For long rests 1 hp per hd for a full rest and maybe 2hp per hd + Con bonus for full rest under the care of a successful Medicine check before going to sleep.
The point being - whatever you use, 1 point a day - no points on short rests or full hp on a full rest are really up to the DM (if he wants to houserule) and the kind of pacing or immersion he wants in his game. Changes to this do not affect any other aspect of the game besides healing spells and in fact makes those spells more important since they will heal more than my above suggestions. I do hope that the DMG has some classic or Hardcore options besides just adding things to make the game more complicated (re:3r ed). Any changes to the short and long rest heals do not impact the rest of the game mechanically - it just affects how the session is played and how resources are managed.
Point 4 - Alignment is glossed over on pages 33-34, there is also radiant (holy) damage vs. undead and fiends so I believe good vs. evil will be quantified mechanically as the game expands. I did notice a missing Protection from Evil, I'm pretty sure this iconic spell will be added in to the basic game or full game at one point. I would hope so at least, I need to remember who I am dealing with after all.
Point 5 - I think that if players roll their stats they should be tagged differently. Only progressing one point every 4 levels and since they are not using the max 15 highest stat (default array) they a racial penalty system could easily be tacked on. I don't think they did it because the starting stats (if not rolled) are lower on average than any other edition of the game. Again, an optimized Dwarf gets a max 17 Strength - humans a 16, so I can see why having penalties would really hit this array hard.
Not hard to put in - but I get it, the fixes I'm advocating require some work where maybe these options should be listed so the DM doesn't feel like he's going outside the rules.
I do think that this ruleset - at least what I've seen so far - would be an easier baseline to get my AD&D 3 rules vs. messing with PF to get the same results. I'm still going to try and evolve PF to AD&D3 , but man - it is a daunting task.
I liked that many of their examples included Tika Waylan, along with Artemis Entreri (probably mangled the name, but oh well). Hearing that the default setting will be Forgotten Realms (ugh) makes me sad, but just like with Pathfinder, that doesn't matter. Greyhawk, I thought, was better for the generic setting, like in 3rd edition.
It would be nice if they had a conversion book, giving examples of how to convert from the 4 previous versions of the game.
I was surprised that Dragonlance is right out there, since it has been in the basement for so long, but that strategy makes sense. Classic settings, classic stories, and classic characters are the big chips they have in their competition with Pathfinder (and other games, aside from a few iconic monsters).
I'm slowly coming around. I've been reading the Basic rules more thoroughly and seeing what we should have been given as 4E. (For the record, I'm not bashing 4E, but it was too far removed from D&D expectations for my taste)
When I picked up the 3E PHB, I was impressed by it's simple modularity. There were definite standards that allowed for more customization than we'd seen in D&D, AD&D, and 2E. 3.5 ironed out a lot of the kinks before Hasbro decided to ditch it in favor of the MMO on paper that they tried to sell to us as "4E." 4E didn't progress the game, though, it reinvented it. Too bad for Hasbro. Paizo picked up where WotC left off, and .5'd 3.5 into PFRPG. More ironing of kinks. Thank you, Paizo. The trend seemed to have been "simplify to customize."
5E doesn't seem to extend from 4E, though it uses a few of it's innovations. Rather, 5E seems to be a logical progression using PFRPG as a replacement for 4E. We see skills getting even simpler, races getting a little more customizable, and even classes getting something similar to archetypes. Options made possible by increased simplicity. Sounds familiar (and successful).
So what's new? I only have the Basic rules, at the moment, so I can only tell you what's included in or alluded to in that PDF.
- Proficiency Bonus- this is how your BAB, good saves, skills, and spell DCs increase. All one value. Clever.
- Very low XP to advance at first- 300 to second and 900 to third. Looks like WotC knows where the real fun begins.
- Subraces- less PFRPG ARG, more Unearthed Arcana (AD&D). I expect to see an eventual bloat of subraces.
- Ability score improvement is a class function- I'm not too sure about this as a development, but it's the case.
- Fighter style and Martial archetype- double the customization, double the fun! I expect this to end up incredibly overpowered eventually.
- Backgrounds- not just an excuse for the character to exist, anymore. Now they add crunch.
- Low light vision- gone. Upgrade to darkvision, which is a little different.
- Advantage/disadvantage- roll 2d20, take the higher (advantage) or lower (disadvantage). You can still get circumstance bonuses and penalties, but this seems to be the primary way to reflect situational variety.
- Abilities cap at 20- I imagine that magic will overcome this, but that's the deal; ability score cutoff is 20.
- Six saving throws?- each ability can be targeted as a save. I'm not 100% on this.
- Bonus actions- one move, one action, bonus actions as appropriate. No more free/swift/immediate.
- Grappling is even easier than in PFRPG- it isn't as useful, but it's very simple.
- Casting spells at a higher level- similar to casting a Mythic version of a spell. Cool idea.
- Feats are optional- seriously. Feats will be one of the many optional systems that can "plug and play" into the basic rules.
What carried over from another system?
- Tiers of play- less "hard and fast" than in 4E, but still appears as an actual rule.
- Wizards get 1d6 HP- WotC looks like it followed Paizo's lead on PC HD; rogues are 1d8 and wizards are 1d6.
- Channel Divinity- not identical, but similar to PFRPG's channeling.
- Wizards cast like Arcanists- no, seriously. WotC must attend Cons or something.
- Ritual magic- from 4E.
- Electrum pieces- gotta have half-dollars!
- Finesse for dex damage- and automatic, too! If a weapon has the "finesse" quality, you can substitute dex to hit and damage.
- Resting- 5E uses 4E's Short rests/Long rests.
Another observation that defies the two categories above: Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws all take a prominent spot on the front of the character sheet and are intended to be a solid, important part of the character's interaction with the game and the world.
Well, these are the observations that I found significant enough to write about. Feel free to disagree with me or point out that I missed something.
-Abyssian
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...MMO on paper that they tried to sell to us as "4E."
sigh
Wizards cast like Arcanists- no, seriously. WotC must attend Cons or something.Arcanists cast like 3.5 Spirit Shaman- no, seriously. WotC must have knowledge of their previous publications or something.
Huh! My group was on a WOW inspired hiatus by the time Complete Divine came out (I had to research that, just now). Arcanists' casting is actually even more similar to Spirit Shamans' than either are to 5E wizards (5E wizards only use one stat). Learn something new (old) every day. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition.Yeah, because Pathfinder is such a novel take on copy-pasting the SRD.
:P
3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"
Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"
Go figure.
I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition.Yeah, because Pathfinder is such a novel take on copy-pasting the SRD.
:P
3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"
Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"
Go figure.
Well, the difference may be that now they still have a supported system that they like to play? In 2008, PF was pretty much the only source for new material in basically the same system. It was definitely being pushed as 3.5 compatible.
Then it was "Make radical changes I don't like, continue without support material, or continue with support."
Could be. Do you think the current support factor has that much pull? I know current support is a huge deal for me, but I was under the impression that a huge chunk of the D&D community just didn't care that much about it after their chosen system reached a certain level of requisite material released (which Pathfinder certainly has, at this point).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"
Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"
Go figure.
In fairness, Scott, you could be talking about an entirely different group of people.
|
3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"
Go figure.
Smoother play, that we are used to.
Not smoother play we must get used to.
You underestimate the power of the familiar.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so I've had a chance to read through it now. It definitely looks like D&D again, to the point where taking something classic like White Plume Mountain should be fairly easy to play in it, while also allowing for playing The Sunless Citadel or Keep on the Shadowfell under these new rules. Nothing in it truly offended me, but then again, I played 4E for over a year in LFR and GMed a third of the Scales of War AP before I truly tired of the way the rules worked.
I'm currently in a "wait-and-see" mode. Nothing that they printed in the rules really excited me, but similarly, nothing really offended me. I'm very interested in playing the game and seeing how the engine actually performs - that's really the test of the game. Advantage/disadvantage looks to be a neat solution to having 8,000 different situational modifiers, cutting down on the easily forgettable bonuses to just one uniform mechanic - roll twice, and pick one. I hope it succeeds - a market without competition is a stagnant market, and while I see no signs that Paizo is resting on its laurels, it's good for our hobby in the long run to have two robust gaming pillars, rather than just one. I want 5E to be successful. I want to see it thriving. I don't want this to be D&D's swan song before Hasbro gives up on it entirely and swallows it up, utilizing it only as a product for licensing.
I want to keep breaking into dungeons and killing dragons. I sincerely hope that Wizards has created a game that will last the test of time again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 player circa 2008: "Pathfinder is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Take my money!"
Pathfinder player circa 2014: "5th edition is the D&D I love but now with sensible changes for smoother play? Doesn't sound revolutionary enough to satisfy me!"
Go figure.
In fairness, Scott, you could be talking about an entirely different group of people.
Also true. Treating both groups as monolithic entities is probably not the best way to go about it. Still, I feel like the former is by far the most common rationale for people switching to Pathfinder, and the latter is the most common criticism of 5e I've seen from Pathfinder players. So while they're probably not the same group, there's probably a lot of overlap.
What about races? I sitll want to play a Tiefling for example. I heard they are getting subraces now? So that's sort of stolen from Pathfinder.
This free basic edition didn't have a few things in it though like feats did it? I didnt see any. Some guy was trying to argue you didnt have to spend more money to get into 5th. Not true at all. The basic edition is just that, basic. It wont have everything the PHB has. In other words its incomplete. I also dont see a DMG or a MM for free either. So saying 5th ed core rules are free is incorrect.
What about races? I sitll want to play a Tiefling for example. I heard they are getting subraces now? So that's sort of stolen from Pathfinder.
This free basic edition didn't have a few things in it though like feats did it? I didnt see any. Some guy was trying to argue you didnt have to spend more money to get into 5th. Not true at all. The basic edition is just that, basic. It wont have everything the PHB has. In other words its incomplete. I also dont see a DMG or a MM for free either. So saying 5th ed core rules are free is incorrect.
Not really stolen from Pathfinder. AD&D had subraces. I believe that D&D did, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about races? I sitll want to play a Tiefling for example. I heard they are getting subraces now? So that's sort of stolen from Pathfinder.
This free basic edition didn't have a few things in it though like feats did it? I didnt see any. Some guy was trying to argue you didnt have to spend more money to get into 5th. Not true at all. The basic edition is just that, basic. It wont have everything the PHB has. In other words its incomplete. I also dont see a DMG or a MM for free either. So saying 5th ed core rules are free is incorrect.
Personally, I'd think long and hard before I started hurling accusations of D&D "stealing from Pathfinder."
As for the rest -- the basic rules are free. You will be able to use just those to play any of the published adventures. If you want to build your own stuff, you will probably want to pick-up a Monster Manual. Personally, I'm not seeing the angst here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that subraces existed in AD&D.
No, wait.. I'm ABSOLUTELY sure of this.
I'm pretty sure that subraces existed in AD&D.
No, wait.. I'm ABSOLUTELY sure of this.
I said TIEFLING SUBRACES. As in Subraces of the subrace tiefling (you know the subraces that appear in council of thieves and in Blood of Fiends?)...And of course the Kthulou guy is here trolling me again and he apparently didn't fully read what I posted either. No surprise there though.
If you bothered to fully read what I wrote, you'd see I said TIEFLING SUBRACES. As in Subraces of the subrace tiefling... *Sigh*. And of course the Kthulou guy is here trolling me again and he apparently didn't fully read what I posted either. No surprise there though.
Wait, you think the other guy is the troll?
Hmmmm...
Not really stolen from Pathfinder. AD&D had subraces. I believe that D&D did, too.What about races? I sitll want to play a Tiefling for example. I heard they are getting subraces now? So that's sort of stolen from Pathfinder.
This free basic edition didn't have a few things in it though like feats did it? I didnt see any. Some guy was trying to argue you didnt have to spend more money to get into 5th. Not true at all. The basic edition is just that, basic. It wont have everything the PHB has. In other words its incomplete. I also dont see a DMG or a MM for free either. So saying 5th ed core rules are free is incorrect.
It didn't have subraces of Tiefling, or Assimar. That's a Pathfinder thing.
If you bothered to fully read what I wrote, you'd see I said TIEFLING SUBRACES. As in Subraces of the subrace tiefling... *Sigh*. And of course the Kthulou guy is here trolling me again and he apparently didn't fully read what I posted either. No surprise there though.Wait, you think the other guy is the troll?
Hmmmm.
Considering he's not reading what I wrote fully before posting a reply that is only intended to agitate and inflame me? Uh yeah.
Considering he's not reading what I wrote fully before posting a reply that is only intended to agitate and inflame me? Uh yeah.
So...coming to a thread about basic D&D and slinging accusations of theft is A-OK, but pointing out that sub-races existed before Pathfinder is trolling? Mmmmmkay.
Considering he's not reading what I wrote fully before posting a reply that is only intended to agitate and inflame me? Uh yeah.If you bothered to fully read what I wrote, you'd see I said TIEFLING SUBRACES. As in Subraces of the subrace tiefling... *Sigh*. And of course the Kthulou guy is here trolling me again and he apparently didn't fully read what I posted either. No surprise there though.Wait, you think the other guy is the troll?
Hmmmm.
I think you missed his point. He was rolling his eyes at the irony in accusing D&D of stealing from Pathfinder, not specifically referring to whether or not you meant generic subraces or subraces of Tieflings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hereby certify this thread as 100% Ed approved!
Considering he's not reading what I wrote fully before posting a reply that is only intended to agitate and inflame me? Uh yeah.So...coming to a thread about basic D&D and slinging accusations of theft is A-OK, but pointing out that sub-races existed before Pathfinder is trolling? Mmmmmkay.
I said subraces for Tieflings. Why is that so hard to comprehend...
Hmmm... I can't site the sources without doing a lot of research but I do remember there being more than one 3PP that had "subraces" of Tiefling. If by "subraces" you mean decent being of a particular flavor of demon/devil/daemon/demodand. I do remember a few monsters from WotC that were very specific race/evil outsider combinations that, while technically Tieflings, had specific names. (Someone help me out here?)
And, since Tieflings and Aasimar were culled from D&D I don't think that anyone at Paizo would feel comfortable calling foul on WotC applying the "subrace" distinction (something from D&D) on planetouched races (something from D&D).
I said subraces for Tieflings. Why is that so hard to comprehend...
It must be because I'm not as smart as you, Scott.
Remember kids, RPGs are SERIOUS BUSINESS.
I do remember a few monsters from WotC that were very specific race/evil outsider combinations that, while technically Tieflings, had specific names. (Someone help me out here?)
The Cambion was from AD&D I believe, off of the top of my head.
And Alu-Demon.
Except the Cambion and Alu-Demon are straight-up half-demons. Not "My great-great-grandpappy was a Balor!"
Except the Cambion and Alu-Demon are straight-up half-demons. Not "My great-great-grandpappy was a Balor!"
No, but the Fey'ri (Elven tieflings) and Tanarukks (orc tieflings) aren't half-fiends. They are descended from demons just like regular tieflings. Both appear in 3.0 Forgotten Realms.
Except the Cambion and Alu-Demon are straight-up half-demons. Not "My great-great-grandpappy was a Balor!"No, but the Fey'ri (Elven tieflings) and Tanarukks (orc tieflings) aren't half-fiends. They are descended from demons just like regular tieflings. Both appear in 3.0 Forgotten Realms.
Yes they are if not by name in how they are made, they are not tieflings whatsoever. A tiefling has demonblood in their acestry, a Half fiend is the direct offspring of a paring with a demon or devil and Fey'ri and Tanarukks are just that. So are Dreagoloth.
Yes they are if not by name in how they are made, they are not tieflings whatsoever. A tiefling has demonblood in their acestry, a Half fiend is the direct offspring of a paring with a demon or devil and Fey'ri and Tanarukks are just that.
Yes they are tieflings. There are very specifically called out as planetouched creatures (in Races of Faerun), the same as aasimar and tieflings. Both specifically mention they also breed true among their own kind, so they don't even need a full-blooded demon as a parent.
Monster of Faerun even has them listed as "Fey'ri (tiefling)" and "Tanarukk (tiefling)" in the listing of monsters. Later in the book, their statblocks even appear under the heading "Planetouched, Tieflings".
THe Players Guide to Faerun web enhancement (just an update to 3.5 stats) also lists them as tieflings.
You are correct about draegloths, however. They are half-fiends. Which is why I didn't mention them.
Also, the 3.X Fiend Folio introduced the Maeluth, who are descended from dwarves and devils. While not specifically called out as tieflings, they would also be considered tieflings.