Explain the excitement over D&D Next


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

d20 =/= classed based. There are many many class-based games that are not d20, and even a few d20 games that are not class-based.

By the way, it's not fighting the design of 5e to have non-martial classes be competent with their chosen weapons. That's fighting the design of d20/3.x/PFRPG. Which doesn't really matter, since 5e isn't a d20/3.x/PFRPG game.


And there is plenty of precedent in earlier versions of the game for sword wielding wizards. Generally you had to use some strange corner case to get it to work however. I quite like that 5e says, sure go right ahead and wield a sword as a Mage, but you burned up a small amount of your chargen resources doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The proficiency bonus bugs me for a different reason. In theory, the game was supposed to have "bounded accuracy" and "flat math" by excluding things like the 1/2 level bonus from 4e.

But the proficiency bonus is exactly the same type of bonus. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Cheers!
Landon


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

Apparently it's how this D20 game works.


Landon Winkler wrote:

The proficiency bonus bugs me for a different reason. In theory, the game was supposed to have "bounded accuracy" and "flat math" by excluding things like the 1/2 level bonus from 4e.

But the proficiency bonus is exactly the same type of bonus. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Cheers!
Landon

My understanding is that bounded accuracy is supposed to reign in the total bonuses to keep them within a tighter span. By basing most (at least I think it's most of them) bonuses on the proficiency bonus, and keeping the proficiency bonus within a tight span, I think it fulfills its intended purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:

The proficiency bonus bugs me for a different reason. In theory, the game was supposed to have "bounded accuracy" and "flat math" by excluding things like the 1/2 level bonus from 4e.

But the proficiency bonus is exactly the same type of bonus. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Well, other than being a much reduced version of it. Going from +2 to +6 over 20 levels is only a +4 difference. That's sounds pretty "bounded" to me. Compared to the +20 difference in 3.x, for example.


bugleyman wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Except we are explicitly talking about Wizards who do spend time training with weapons. That's the point of them being proficient! Whether they spent a feat on it, or have a racial benefit, the idea is that this isn't some random scholar who just picked up a sword, but someone who actually has spent time and effort learning to wield a blade. Why shouldn't they be perfectly capable of swinging the sword with skill, if they have the stats and proficiency to do so?

Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

I'm not saying that's good or bad...it just is. Fighting the design of system seems like an unnecessary headache.

And that's still how this game works. If you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

Giving a wizard proficiency with a sword doesn't make him good at fighting. Even if he has the same attack bonus from proficiency as the fighter. The bounded accuracy approach changes what "Good at fighting" means. Your BAB isn't really a good proxy for "Good at fighting" anymore. The wizard will still get stomped by the fighter in a sword fight, even if he's also gotten armor proficiency and made himself a worse caster by choosing stats for melee.


Patrik Ström wrote:
My understanding is that bounded accuracy is supposed to reign in the total bonuses to keep them within a tighter span. By basing most (at least I think it's most of them) bonuses on the proficiency bonus, and keeping the proficiency bonus within a tight span, I think it fulfills its intended purpose.
thejeff wrote:
Well, other than being a much reduced version of it. Going from +2 to +6 over 20 levels is only a +4 difference. That's sounds pretty "bounded" to me. Compared to the +20 difference in 3.x, for example.

I completely agree that +4 over 20 levels is really low impact.

On one hand, if we really care about that +4, they've dropped outside of their target for bounded accuracy. On the other hand, if it doesn't have that much impact, why are we screwing with all these +1s?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's game breaking or anything. It just feels like a tepid design, halfway between their design goals and people's expectations.

Cheers!
Landon


Adjule wrote:
It is a side effect of spellcasters using their spellcasting ability + proficiency bonus (aka BAB) for attack spells. And since touch AC is no longer a thing, their proficiency bonus needs to be the same as the fighter's or else no one would play a spellcaster unless they like staying waaaaaay far away and concentrating on a single buff/debuff spell or heal. Which isn't exactly compelling gameplay.

My argument is that they should have retained separate categories of advancement for the classes and their proficiency bonuses. At 1st level, a Fighter should get +2 to hit with weapons, a Cleric and Rogue +1 and a Wizard +0. The Wizard should apply the +2 proficiency bonus to hit with spells and spell DC's (Fighters and Rogues would get +0, Clerics +1) because that is what he/she is good at...casting spells, not attacking with weapons. Rogues would get the full +2 bonus to skills, while the other classes would get a lower number (+1 or +0).

Liberty's Edge

Logan1138 wrote:
My argument is that they should have retained separate categories of advancement for the classes and their proficiency bonuses. At 1st level, a Fighter should get +2 to hit with weapons, a Cleric and Rogue +1 and a Wizard +0. The Wizard should apply the +2 proficiency bonus to hit with spells and spell DC's (Fighters and Rogues would get +0, Clerics +1) because that is what he/she is good at...casting spells, not attacking with weapons. Rogues would get the full +2 bonus to skills, while the other classes would get a lower number (+1 or +0).

Playtest did not support the need for different proficiency bonuses. Bounded accuracy handles differences in combat ability between classes much better.


bugleyman wrote:

Because that's not how D20 games work? Seriously, it really isn't. The game is designed so that the majority of one's ability is defined by class; ergo, if you want to be good at fighting, pick a class that's good at fighting.

I'm not saying that's good or bad...it just is. Fighting the design of system seems like an unnecessary headache.

If that was the case, things like skills, feats, race, ability scores, background, etc, would not exist. Class is a central part of a character - the most central part, even - but many of the last few editions have had plenty of other elements that make up one's character.

You represent you are a strong character by having a high Strength - not by being a fighter. You represent whether one is capable with a weapon via weapon proficiency. Being a Fighter is one way to get that proficiency, but not the only way. It also gives a variety of other benefits - even if I play an Elven Wizard with high Strength who is proficiency with a Longsword, that is still going to be a very different character on the table than the Human Fighter. Even if both are swinging swords at the enemy.

Modern design of d20 games, at least, seem to value having a variety of options available for customizing one's character, rather than having the entirety decided by class choice alone. For me, that's a valuable part of such systems, and one that in this instance, I think is being handled quite well.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are expressing over 5e is based on them trying to play 5e exactly the same as if it were 3.x/PFRPG. It's not the same game, and you might have to adjust your expectations. The same as 3.x/PFRPG isn't the same game as 4e, and they play differently. And how neither 3.x/PFRPG or 4e are the same game as 0e/1e/2e/Basic D&D, and they all play differently.

If you can't handle a game not playing exactly the same as 3.x/PFRPG, my suggestion would be to stick to 3.x/PFRPG.


Well, a little more experience with it.

EVEN LESS REASON TO PLAY ROGUE....

Rogue get's bonuses on skills...

So does the Bard...and what do you know...The bard ALSO has spells.

Really not getting into the flat math thing for all classes either...if anything, I'm actually starting to dislike it.

Still at the meh stage...maybe I'm just too much of a PF player currently or something...

I just can't get into the game. We went up three levels over the weekend.

Sometimes I like quick advancment...but does that seem just a little quicker than normal. Maybe the first few levels are supposed to be like that though.

I actually DID play the Rogue. Was out done in skills by a Bard, outdone in battle by the Barbarian, and really DO feel like the Rogue isn't that impressive...BUT I DID give it a shake.

Maybe I just don't understand exactly what the Rogue's speciality is supposed to be in D&D next.

On the otherhand, for starting out, Half Elves are pretty good to choose as a race...after Humans.

Still on the roles for another weekend of gameplay, though I'm wanting to return to PF or an older D&D edition currently. Group still is going for the New D&D gameplay for now.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I believe the first few levels are supposed to whiz by as a kind of "learn how the character works" experience. I seem to remember some quote about the assumption being that experienced groups will just start at level three.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You need 300 experience to get from 1 to 2. 600 (or 900) to go from 2 to 3. First couple levels are supposed to go by the fastest, as they figure the real game begins at level 3 (when most classes choose their subclass).

I don't know about your group, GWL, but the one I got to play in this past Sunday did pretty well, with his sneak attack. He actually showed up my dwarven fighter by 1-shotting 2 goblins.

From the sounds of it, this edition is not for you. And there is nothing wrong with that. Pathfinder isn't for some, 4th edition wasn't for some. Not everyone is going to enjoy every edition of anything.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Sometimes I like quick advancment...but does that seem just a little quicker than normal. Maybe the first few levels are supposed to be like that though.

Well... they are. Have you looked at the experience chart?

GreyWolfLord wrote:
I actually DID play the Rogue. Was out done in skills by a Bard, outdone in battle by the Barbarian, and really DO feel like the Rogue isn't that impressive...BUT I DID give it a shake.

Rogues get more features around skills. They can add double their proficiency bonus to them, for example. They can also keep up with a greatsword-wielding fighter in round for round damage. It sounds like the bard was better optimized or rolled better stats, and I can't speak for your combat prowess but I can say the class itself is fine damage wise. You may have felt like you did because the barbarian tradeoff is a little vulnerability for increased damage output. That doesn't make them weak.


Kthulhu wrote:

It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are expressing over 5e is based on them trying to play 5e exactly the same as if it were 3.x/PFRPG. It's not the same game, and you might have to adjust your expectations. The same as 3.x/PFRPG isn't the same game as 4e, and they play differently. And how neither 3.x/PFRPG or 4e are the same game as 0e/1e/2e/Basic D&D, and they all play differently.

If you can't handle a game not playing exactly the same as 3.x/PFRPG, my suggestion would be to stick to 3.x/PFRPG.

The problem I foresee is that they made so much of an effort to pull in from every other edition that 5E will struggle to stand on it's own. It does various things well, but, especially for the 3.x crowd, I have yet to see anything that is going to have the same long term appeal as simply modifying or continuing to use modifications already made to existing systems when most groups are going to find something about 5E that they will likely want to change to be more like their favored edition. The changes they made to wizards and casting in general will annoy as many people as it pleases. Ditto for the inclusion of feats (although they seem to have somewhat worked around that one), healing surges, and their attempts to boost fighters and martials in general. For every person I've seen that likes those specific changes, there usually just as many that are wary of them or outright don't like them. The idea of bounded accuracy is already starting to see a number of holes in it. The only feature I've seen that is universally liked is the dis/advantage system, but that is easily enough ported to other systems that it won't require long term support of 5E to use elsewhere. I could very easily see a lot of people buying the core books, and use those rules in the settings, worlds, and campaigns they already have from elsewhere. While that won't hurt WotC, it's also not going to help them much in the long run either if that's all the support they get from most people.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But I don't think they necessarily are trying to compete for the 3.X crowd. I think it's been obvious from the get-go they are going after fans of rule-lite systems + DnD brand loyalists. I for one am glad they are not trying to compete for the same consumer niche as Pathfinder. That would be a bad idea for both brands.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What are these holes that are appearing in the bounded accuracy mechanic?

And it is fine that not everyone will enjoy 5th edition. From your comments, you come off as believing everyone enjoyed and jumped at the chance to change over to 3rd edition when it came out. This may not be true, but that's how it seems. But there were a lot of people that hated what they did in 3rd edition, and I am sure if the internet was as widespread in 2000 as it is now, we would have read a lot of hate. Just looking over some of the old Dragon magazines (never got into Dungeon magazine), there were letters expressing negativity towards the new edition. I can't imagine how many there were that they didn't approve for publication. Hell, there were people (and I am sure they still feel this way) that didn't care for the changes when they revised 3rd edition, and refused to buy and play that version.

5th edition seems to be a lot more well received than 4th edition, as it looks and feels like previous editions, even with the reduction of spellcasting power. I seriously doubt that the changes to spellcasting are as reviled as you feel. Of course, they may not be as welcomed as I think they may be. I don't know. I don't go to every forum or blog or youtube channel or what have you where 5th edition is commented on.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

I actually DID play the Rogue. Was out done in skills by a Bard, outdone in battle by the Barbarian, and really DO feel like the Rogue isn't that impressive...BUT I DID give it a shake.

Maybe I just don't understand exactly what the Rogue's speciality is supposed to be in D&D next.

My take on it would be that the Bard is good at both skills and spellcasting, while the Rogue is good at both skills and combat. A focused spellcaster (like the Wizard) will be better with spells than the bard, while a focused combatant (like the Barbarian) will be better at combat than the rogue.

But, in return, the bard and rogue have their improved skill use and utility features to give them a solid role in the party.

When compared against each other, meanwhile, the bard has the bonus of spells, vs the rogue's greater capability in combat.

I wouldn't think that the bard would be better at skills than the rogue. I suppose it could be the case that in the specific adventure you played, the bard's skills and abilities happened to be more relevant to the situation, but I think that tends to balance itself out over the course of time.


In my opinion, the attitude of players (I was running around with about two dozen differt D&D gamers at the time in three different games) when 3.0 came out was trepidatious, but at the same time everyone I knew was sort of like
"Well, there are other role playing games, but I like D&D so what else am I supposed to do but learn."

But this is not what I am seeing with 4th and 5th edition releases, as the attitude I am seeing (Admittedly only on the internet, as I do not participate in live games anymore)is more like

"I like D&D so I will take a look, but I can still play D&D using other rules that are still supported by a lot of different companies."

I am excited about this edition, because when it comes to D&D, as I have already stated, I am still 12 years old, and this kind of thing exites my like finding cherry zots at the check out counter at Winco.


Terquem wrote:
"I like D&D so I will take a look, but I can still play D&D using other rules that are still supported by a lot of different companies."

This is a lot of what I'm seeing as well. There's a lot of people looking at the new edition, and even a lot of people buying one or more of the core books, but not really a lot of people automatically switching over entirely. While this doesn't have to hurt WotC, it will require a different strategy than what they leaned on in the past, and so far at least they haven't shown themselves to have any strategy at all. The lack of any books for any of their world IPs even scheduled at this point will especially limit any long term effects the boost from the core sales could have provided, as those are the best chances to boost sales without going super rule heavy.

They are in a position very similar to where they were after the OGL was released, where they have to figure out how to adjust to the new market to at least some degree rather than having the market automatically adjust to them. So far their only response to those concerns is largely none at all, either in comments, products, or anything else. Not precisely the kind of proactive response I expect to see from a company that is supposedly the market leader.


ok my thoughts with players handbook so far

rogues can use magic-called the trickster. If you want a rogue/magic user thats the way to go. Cant comment on difference between bard and rogue but will later this week. As an experienced gamer it was quick and painless to roll up a forest gnome rogue. finesse style weapons allow a dagger weilding rogue to be as accurate as a fighter in combat. Have not used backstab yet

Fighters level 1-you chose your playstyle right there. Want the benefit of 2 weapons then done as early as level one. Want to be a specialized archer (done) want to be a shield maiden (done). You done need multi feats to get what you want.

love the optional feats instead of ability increases.

quality of book is best yet of any (1st-5th)edition.

Was good to get group back to D&D after losing interest fast in 4th edition. We had moved onto Star wars for last 2 years and nobody wanted to invest time/money into pathfinder campaign (wasnt my decision to make).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:

This is a lot of what I'm seeing as well. There's a lot of people looking at the new edition, and even a lot of people buying one or more of the core books, but not really a lot of people automatically switching over entirely. While this doesn't have to hurt WotC, it will require a different strategy than what they leaned on in the past, and so far at least they haven't shown themselves to have any strategy at all. The lack of any books for any of their world IPs even scheduled at this point will especially limit any long term effects the boost from the core sales could have provided, as those are the best chances to boost sales without going super rule heavy.

They are in a position very similar to where they were after the OGL was released, where they have to figure out how to adjust to the new market to at least some degree rather than having the market automatically adjust to them. So far their only response to those concerns is largely none at all, either in comments, products, or anything else. Not precisely the kind of proactive response I expect to see from a company that is supposedly the market leader.

Have you been to their website? They did two years of open playtesting. They already have an adventure out for FR (remember that PF started out their world with an adventure too), video games, merchandise, minis, boardgames, electronic support for the RPG, and maybe an upcoming movie. Mike Mearl and the D&D twitter feed answer questions nearly every single day on many topics including D&D. They leak previews on various websites as well as their own.

They have five RPG books coming out between Aug and Nov of this year, a mini game and minis (through another company), plus all the novels, video games, etc. Heck they even have D&D Kree-O toys coming out.

Starting in 2015 they plan to make an announcement about OGL/open source. They will open up limited playtesting when needed if a rule seems to be a big problem. And they are already working on the next adventure for D&D 5E.

Also, they started their organized play at Gen Con.

All this info is easy to find. They are doing a lot now that D&D 5E is finally here.


Charlie D. wrote:
Starting in 2015 they plan to make an announcement about OGL/open source.

That's the only part that really gets my interest. Adventures are great, but are not going to take the place of actual books about the different worlds; PF, while it started with adventurers, also included, and still includes, more in their APs besides the adventure and they still ultimately started a line to support the actual world itself. Video games, merchandise, boardgames, and movies look great on paper, but ever since 3.5, boardgames are the only ones to have really come through. In the end, I'm seeing mostly what I've seen for the last ten years; lots of plans, big goals, and not much else. The novels need a major shot in the arm for most of their readership to see them as anything but Drizzt novels plus a few others that try to capitalize on Drizzt's success. For this edition specifically, they have plans for more books and for electronic support beyond the core books, but nothing major, and very little besides adventures, actually scheduled beyond the core books, with no specifics on how the electronic support will work. If they are actually serious about supporting an OGL this time, it will be less of a problem, but with that announcement not until next year, that still leaves at minimum a several month gap between the core books and whatever either they or anybody else can put out. So, in the end, we end up in the same place as before, a lot of potential, but the opportunity of directly feeding off the initial boost from the sales of the core books probably squandered due to lack of anything else immediately following (a few adventures don't really count for sustaining momentum).

I'm not saying that they are going to fall flat on their face again, just that unbridled optimism is not yet something that most people are going to be able to easily muster. They've talked these same talking points constantly for at least a decade, and while the new edition is doing better than I expected, it's still not enough by itself to exorcise the lack of progress on the major talking points they are stressing yet again despite having had no major success in any of them recently.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Charlie D. wrote:
Starting in 2015 they plan to make an announcement about OGL/open source.

That's the only part that really gets my interest. Adventures are great, but are not going to take the place of actual books about the different worlds; PF, while it started with adventurers, also included, and still includes, more in their APs besides the adventure and they still ultimately started a line to support the actual world itself. Video games, merchandise, boardgames, and movies look great on paper, but ever since 3.5, boardgames are the only ones to have really come through. In the end, I'm seeing mostly what I've seen for the last ten years; lots of plans, big goals, and not much else. The novels need a major shot in the arm for most of their readership to see them as anything but Drizzt novels plus a few others that try to capitalize on Drizzt's success. For this edition specifically, they have plans for more books and for electronic support beyond the core books, but nothing major, and very little besides adventures, actually scheduled beyond the core books, with no specifics on how the electronic support will work. If they are actually serious about supporting an OGL this time, it will be less of a problem, but with that announcement not until next year, that still leaves at minimum a several month gap between the core books and whatever either they or anybody else can put out. So, in the end, we end up in the same place as before, a lot of potential, but the opportunity of directly feeding off the initial boost from the sales of the core books probably squandered due to lack of anything else immediately following (a few adventures don't really count for sustaining momentum).

I'm not saying that they are going to fall flat on their face again, just that unbridled optimism is not yet something that most people are going to be able to easily muster. They've talked these same talking points constantly for at least a decade, and while the new edition is doing better than I expected, it's...

The funny thing is, Wizards doesn't announce stuff too far ahead now until they are sure they can follow through. Which is better than promising and not following through. But then people complain that they aren't announcing enough stuff.

The core books won't even all be out until Nov. I can't possibly see what Wizards could announce now when they haven't even rolled out the new edition yet.

I would also say the PH is a success by Mike Mearl's standards. He has tweeted as much.

But yeah, I don't think you're going to hear any big grandiose new plans from Wizards in the next few weeks. Unless they are 100% sure they are ready to announce something they can follow through with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All I know is they have about wrecked the Realms beyond repair (my opinion). I'm tired of every edition bringing "cataclysmic" changes to the campaign setting, I.E., Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc. In my opinion, the same kind of "earth shattering" events and pantheon shake-ups is what finally killed Dragon Lance for me.

Point being, I really hope that whatever settings they support (whether is just the Realms for the foreseable future or not) is player driven and not NPC/author driven. Golarion will keep a lot of people in Pathfinder.

I just have a bad taste in my mouth with what happened there and hope they can rebound somehow. I know in this new edition they have done away with the Spell Plague, that's certainly a good start.


To me, the biggest flag of concern is that they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet. The world books are going to have to be their main bread and butter for actual revenue to support the system if they are going to avoid rules bloat, and they haven't even figured out a working idea of how to do them. I applaud them for not overpromising, but this seems like paralysis to me, which is just as bad. Not even having a rough date or quarter where something is going to be launched is problematic when it comes to a critical book. If they can't even pin down to a three month period something like that, how are they going to expect people to wait while they pin down support for other worlds, rules options, and the other stuff they are tentatively promising?


I agree with your assesment. There's people out their that are fine using homebrew and there are people out there that love to play in a giant sand box or simply don't have the time to create all their own stuff.

To me, announcing a Campaign Setting properly is great marketing and can serve to energize your customer base.

Granted, it IS early.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
To me, the biggest flag of concern is that they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet.

This is utterly baseless. A lack of announcement in no way implies a lack of vision or intent. They've decades of experience in business let alone tabletop gaming or even Dungeons and Dragons. It is much more likely they, in fact, do have a roadmap for the settings and certainly so for one of their largest to date.


Buri wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
To me, the biggest flag of concern is that they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet.
This is utterly baseless. A lack of announcement in no way implies a lack of vision or intent. They've decades of experience in business let alone tabletop gaming or even Dungeons and Dragons. It is much more likely they, in fact, do have a roadmap for the settings and certainly so for one of their largest to date.

Not according to Mearls himself. In a thread on Enworld about that topic, he stated that while they do plan to publish such a book, they were still trying to figure out exactly how to do it. They may very well have very rough plans, but clearly nothing that would be considered a working outline that would allow them to go forward on the project tomorrow. For what is likely to be one of the key books beyond the core books, that's not comforting. It means that either they have virtually no resources to work with when it comes to the system itself and/or that so many people are so afraid of the risk of failure they are effectively paralyzed and unable to do much of anything on their own. Neither scenario is good. If they can get an OGL off the ground, a lot of pressure will be off their shoulders, but that's still at least late next year before they could see any benefits from that area, assuming they get one off the ground at all. In the meantime, the lack of even a generic placeholder quarter (not even day, but a three month period) for a key book is not promising and evidence that key parts of the development of that book haven't even started yet is going to hurt WotC in the long run. Launching a great set of core books, and backing them up with nothing but a few adventures (even if they are high quality adventures) for at least several quarters beyond that is going to create yet another failed opportunity that WotC cannot afford.


If true, that's amazing. Do you have a URL to the thread?


Mearl's response is here. While I applaud them for being careful, this strikes me as being almost too careful, and if this is how they are approaching a key book, people looking for support of less important books are going to be in for a long haul.

Shadow Lodge

Mearls wrote:

The original tweet doesn't capture the full story - we're not working on an FRCS right now because we are putting the bandwidth available for such a project into thinking about how to do an FRCS.

If you think of how we created fifth edition, we probably put more time and effort into determining what it needed to be (playtest, etc.) than into actually writing the final product.

The DMG is also still in the works - we won't even consider engaging in our next big RPG project until that is out the door, everyone has taken a vacation, and we're ready to tackle another huge project.

This does not equal:

sunshadow21 wrote:
...they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet.

The PHB just came out. The MM is coming out soon. The DM guide is still in the works but coming out in November. When a new edition of D&D comes out does the campaign setting typically come out at the same time as the PHB? I don't remember it ever being like that. Also, I would imagine that putting together a campaign setting from already existing source material takes much less time than designing a new game. I think your statement is an overreaction.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just got to read my PHB for 5e today, and I have to say that I'm pretty pleased. The classes all feel pretty unique, with Clerics, Bards, and Monks jumping out as having some pretty cool stuff they can do, though everyone feels pretty unique. The rules are REALLY simple, and I like that. I don't have to go online and look up the EXACT rules for how distance factors into perception and stealth checks, how X works in Y circumstance, but not in others. It's all highly simplified and up to DM interpretation, and it's about dang time.

I haven't played yet, but just looking over the book it seems solid, simple, and fun.


Hmm... even so, sunshadow21, I must agree with the sentiment in that thread that the Sundering reverting most of 4e's changes makes 3rd edition material extremely relevant. Some places might have changed, some people dead from old age, but it's largely the same. The region map of the Sword Coast North in Hoard of the Dragon Queen is almost identical to the 3rd edition FR fold out map. As a setting, nothing is needed.

It's not like Golarion where a place hasn't been covered so new material is an urgent need. Rather, and especially so with FR, it's just an evolution on an already established place. New material is always nice, absolutely, but simply supplying adventures in the mean time will do without Wizards needing to over commit resources. Depending on what they want to do with the setting, I would wager a simple 'Welcome to the Realms' style gazetteer that simply highlights changes could do well instead of a full setting book trying to explain everything from scratch yet again.

Seeing what they've done with 5e, I certainly hope they give the settings a full treatment. However, because they're so well known and supported already, it's far from required. You can get all those settings books new from amazon for about $20-30 each. That's very reasonable to get up to speed on the setting of your choice.

What 5e needs more than anything else is adventures. Settings are already largely known.

Sovereign Court

Buri wrote:
What 5e needs more than anything else is adventures. Settings are already largely known.

This. 5E looks good so far but I need it to develop more before I can dive in. Right now my players like character options and adventures. What they dont like very much is learning new systems. 4e faced the same opposition and never really created the right environment to grab us. To be fair, PF came along and ate 4E's lunch on that front. I think 5E is close enough in playstyle to be interesting enough to get us to try. Cool adventures and campaigns go a long way towards exciting my players and I, so they will be a must for 5E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Conversion guides for 1e/2e, 3.x, and 4e would be enough to make the previously released material on all their existing worlds useable.


I am not terribly concerned with the lack of a campaign setting book. All of the DnD settings are well supported by books from the previous editions (and presumably online sources).

We'll get one for at least a few settings, but if they are trying a lower output approach, than it might be better to save for a 2015 release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KaiserDM wrote:

All I know is they have about wrecked the Realms beyond repair (my opinion). I'm tired of every edition bringing "cataclysmic" changes to the campaign setting, I.E., Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc. In my opinion, the same kind of "earth shattering" events and pantheon shake-ups is what finally killed Dragon Lance for me.

Point being, I really hope that whatever settings they support (whether is just the Realms for the foreseable future or not) is player driven and not NPC/author driven. Golarion will keep a lot of people in Pathfinder.

I just have a bad taste in my mouth with what happened there and hope they can rebound somehow. I know in this new edition they have done away with the Spell Plague, that's certainly a good start.

For what it's worth, 5E Realms seems to be doing everything in its power to bring the setting back to its roots. While they aren't ignoring everything that came before, everything I've heard points towards it being less a soap opera of the Gods and their Chosen (even though it is precisely that plot device that's bringing about this detachment) and more an age of exploration and high adventure for the mortal races again.

Then again, it is the Realms we're talking about. They'll probably have 18 more RSE out the door before this time next year.


Well, I have to say, I think I am in love.

While I really liked certain aspects of 4th edition,and I will play 3.5 and Pathfinder; 5th looks like a game I actively want to run campaigns for.

I certainly want to play some 5th, as character concept after character concept jumps out at me as I read.

To say that I actively want to run it is actually a big deal, as I really dislike running 3.5, pathfinder and 4e. But having run a little 5th, and read a bit more, I find myself in a position where it looks set to join Call of Cthulhu and Fate, as a mainstay of my gaming life.


Kagehiro wrote:
KaiserDM wrote:

All I know is they have about wrecked the Realms beyond repair (my opinion). I'm tired of every edition bringing "cataclysmic" changes to the campaign setting, I.E., Time of Troubles, Spellplague, etc. In my opinion, the same kind of "earth shattering" events and pantheon shake-ups is what finally killed Dragon Lance for me.

Point being, I really hope that whatever settings they support (whether is just the Realms for the foreseable future or not) is player driven and not NPC/author driven. Golarion will keep a lot of people in Pathfinder.

I just have a bad taste in my mouth with what happened there and hope they can rebound somehow. I know in this new edition they have done away with the Spell Plague, that's certainly a good start.

For what it's worth, 5E Realms seems to be doing everything in its power to bring the setting back to its roots. While they aren't ignoring everything that came before, everything I've heard points towards it being less a soap opera of the Gods and their Chosen (even though it is precisely that plot device that's bringing about this detachment) and more an age of exploration and high adventure for the mortal races again.

Then again, it is the Realms we're talking about. They'll probably have 18 more RSE out the door before this time next year.

It's worth a lot honestly. I miss the setting of my childhood to be sure. And regarding not needing a whole campaign book, I agree with this to an extent, but I would still suggest a soft cover gazetter or something that presents some flavor/fluff information for NEW players as well as old.


In the end, for me at least, I'm just not seeing anything worth spending money on. I'm not seeing any PR moves that hurt WotC thus far, and the system is solid, but I'm also not seeing anything that generates a feeling of massive excitement. Maybe in a year or so after we see what WotC can pull together after the core books, but right now, I'm feeling just enough interest to give WotC half a chance, and that's it. I suspect a lot of people are going to be in the same boat. I'm hearing a lot of the same talk I always do, but am still seeing in large part the same paralysis, indecision, and lack of long term commitment that has marked their actions since 4E stumbled. A solid core system and good adventure support are good first steps, but the lack of anything concrete to follow up on those initial successes is going to slow down any momentum gained by those successes. I easily see room for optimism, but not unbridled excitement; there's still too many steps they need to take to show that they have both a solid plan for development and support and the capability to actually implement it.


sunshadow21 wrote:
In the end, for me at least, I'm just not seeing anything worth spending money on. I'm not seeing any PR moves that hurt WotC thus far, and the system is solid, but I'm also not seeing anything that generates a feeling of massive excitement. Maybe in a year or so after we see what WotC can pull together after the core books, but right now, I'm feeling just enough interest to give WotC half a chance, and that's it. I suspect a lot of people are going to be in the same boat. I'm hearing a lot of the same talk I always do, but am still seeing in large part the same paralysis, indecision, and lack of long term commitment that has marked their actions since 4E stumbled. A solid core system and good adventure support are good first steps, but the lack of anything concrete to follow up on those initial successes is going to slow down any momentum gained by those successes. I easily see room for optimism, but not unbridled excitement; there's still too many steps they need to take to show that they have both a solid plan for development and support and the capability to actually implement it.

Just curious here, did you see anything about Pathfinder that generated a felling of massive excitement when it came out? If so, what? To be clear, I am a fan of Pathfinder and 5th edition D&D (so far).


I saw more than adventures, that's for certain. I saw active effort being put into world support, with several supplemental lines and articles sitting alongside the adventures in the AP. I saw active work being done on expanding the core book very early on, with announcements of major upcoming products coming very quickly, even if the details and dates didn't all get filled in right away.

With 5E, I see ... adventures in a world that frankly doesn't interest me. That's pretty much it. Not even a rough timeline or any specifics of what they expect to include in future material beyond a few adventure arcs. It's disappointing, and leads to one of several concerning conclusions. One, the team for the system itself is so small, that expecting much of any support at all for any world beyond FR is at least two years out, a long time for a brand that touts it's many IPs as a major selling point. Two, they didn't trust in the success of the core system enough to be comfortable anything else aside from a few adventure arcs. Frankly, neither is a good scenario for the prospects of the long term support the system will need to overcome 4E's stigma.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am incredibly excited personally. I love what I've seen so far, it's rules light D&D with the ability to move and full attack on the run, better balance between casters and martials, magic items that are rarer and special with no WBL, and lower level monsters and NPCs that remain relevant for much longer while bosses have cool and special powers.

It's everything I ever wanted!!!!


Personally I'm not too worried about a lack of initial content-- I'll be trying the system out in a sand-box world idea I've had for some time.

A lack of early campaign books shouldn't be much of a problem. Players looking to play in a setting like FR or Darksun have 2nd/3rd/4th material to draw upon.

5th being a very simplified system makes converting things extremely simple. If you look at a 3.x/PF creature you can identify things like "High AC", "Low HP", or "Acid Spray Attack" and then plug in appropriate values for other creatures around that level. Things like advantage/disadvantage can often replace the fiddly modifiers everywhere.

I will agree that getting some Adventures out there would go a long way towards helping the system. Actually putting out several free adventures online would be a loss leader that could really drum up some excitement for the system and give players a real incentive to adopt 5th.

Right now I'll likely be playing PF or the IKRPG for my next game (and finishing a RotRL campaign with several new players). I know for sure 5th will be the next edition I DM.

[Edit: changed "switch" to "adopt"-- there's no reason players can't play multiple systems]


sunshadow21 wrote:

I saw more than adventures, that's for certain. I saw active effort being put into world support, with several supplemental lines and articles sitting alongside the adventures in the AP. I saw active work being done on expanding the core book very early on, with announcements of major upcoming products coming very quickly, even if the details and dates didn't all get filled in right away.

With 5E, I see ... adventures in a world that frankly doesn't interest me. That's pretty much it. Not even a rough timeline or any specifics of what they expect to include in future material beyond a few adventure arcs. It's disappointing, and leads to one of several concerning conclusions. One, the team for the system itself is so small, that expecting much of any support at all for any world beyond FR is at least two years out, a long time for a brand that touts it's many IPs as a major selling point. Two, they didn't trust in the success of the core system enough to be comfortable anything else aside from a few adventure arcs. Frankly, neither is a good scenario for the prospects of the long term support the system will need to overcome 4E's stigma.

My impression is that WotC has been waiting to see if 4E killed the D&D brand permanently before committing more resources and manpower to it. I don't know if that's necessarily a terrible strategy, given that they seem to have largely ceded Pathfinder's fanbase to Pathfinder rather than trying to compete with it directly.

I would imagine that if the game turns out to be the hit it currently appears to be (No. 1 in books at Amazon, strong early reviews, positive word of mouth, etc.), we'll see WotC begin its attempt to seduce Pathfinder players with a more robust slate of releases. Remember, Paizo is only in the tabletop RPG business; they could never afford to wait out the competition. WotC has other revenue streams it can count on if D&D were to fold, meaning it can afford to see if 5E has legs and is worth supporting going forward.

All of which is to say that while your skepticism isn't unwarranted, optimism isn't unwise either. Now, if we don't see a more robust slate of books announced around the time the DMG hits, that'll be cause for alarm.

Grand Lodge

Hated the playtest, was meh about 4th, and I sure as hell did not want a revision of 1st/2nd (played both as a kid, still have the scars). That being said, I love the new PHB and the system itself. I have a metric ton of Paizo material at home and the pdfs to match, but I'm burnt out and fed up with Pathfinder for a multitude of reasons. It'll be a nice, welcome change of pace for a while and I'm looking forward to what else comes down the pipeline.


Ffordesoon wrote:
All of which is to say that while your skepticism isn't unwarranted, optimism isn't unwise either. Now, if we don't see a more robust slate of books announced around the time the DMG hits, that'll be cause for alarm.

I did note that my sticking point was the unbridled enthusiasm, not optimism in general when taken in realistic doses. It's a far better system with a far better rollout than anticipated. I just hope for their sake that they had stuff lined up that could be brought online and released quickly if the core books proved to be successful. I would hate to see such a positive release lose momentum because they weren't able to sustain the effort in the crucial time period immediately after the core books released.

51 to 100 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Explain the excitement over D&D Next All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.