D&D 5e Discussion

daniant

Questions of money aside, Wizards is undoubtedly trying to snag the people that still won't play 4e because they loved 2 or 3 or 3.5 sooooo much. Unfortunately, by cobbling all these people's ideas together for 5e, they will still run into the problem of people who won't switch because they love 4e soooo much.

You can please some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time, but you can't please people who still use THACO.

On the plus side, maybe this means that the offline 4e character builder will no longer be something they are interested in financially and will give it over to common property. One can only hope.

Also, I find it hilarious that they are still beta-testing their fucking virtual table for 4e, while simultaneously designing 5e. It's as if Wizards is that GM you have that gets a campaign going and then a few months in, when you're really starting to get into some juicy character development, he stops planning games. And then says that he wants to "try out" a new system.

Oh, wait, that probably describes every person currently working at Wizards.

Matev

Gonna hide out in the Tomb of Horrors with my square grids and dice, ain't no WotC gonna take them away from me.

I can kinda sorta see why they made this move if I squint and tilt my neck a lot, but honestly, I'm not digging it.

Lezta

What I'd like to see (but fear may be impossible to reconcile with the way 4e is) is a more freeform approach to powers. Everything is so mechanical sometimes, which is great for balance but sometimes I'd like to see players doing more inventive things with them/encounters. Not that they *never* do, but it'd be nice to move away from 'I move to x square and use y power to do z damage and daze enemy' and back to 'I'm gonna move over here, jump off the ledge, grab a vine and swing into him with both feet out, trying to knock him down so Dave can shiv him'. Because whilst in 4e you CAN do that, nothing encourages it and it makes me sad. If there's any description, it's for dailies and sometimes encounter powers. And that's usually only the first couple of times they're used - after that they begin to realise they're just doing the same thing over and over.

I love how 4e really made balance a *thing*. I love how I can, 90% of the time, make an encounter and know that it's going to be exactly as challenging or easy as I intended it to be. I love how the combat is interesting and tactical. But somehow it all feels so... sterile. It somehow manages to turn my group from a set of roleplayers who'll describe some really awesome things and come up with clever solutions in any other game (including 2e and 3e) to people who sit there crunching numbers during the combats. Don't get me wrong, I love 4e, but if they could bring back thinking outside the box with your spells and abilities, that'd be brilliant.

As it is, the only person I feel has benefited from 4e is me, the DM. The players have lost out a little and they're beginning to realise it.

DMAC

I agree with that. Our group pretty much always plays within the clearly laid-out tactical rules of 4e. There's very little roleplaying during combat, we're basically just playing it as a tactical battle game.

It's very good at that but it does lose a little of the storytelling aspect of earlier editions.

DevoutlyApathetic

DMAC wrote:

I agree with that. Our group pretty much always plays within the clearly laid-out tactical rules of 4e. There's very little roleplaying during combat, we're basically just playing it as a tactical battle game.

It's very good at that but it does lose a little of the storytelling aspect of earlier editions.

Iron Heroes had a pretty good take on "Stunts in Combat" with reasonable rules for resolving it. The biggest issue with not clearly laid-out actions is that they are most likely to be utterly horrible or fantastically effective. One of those will never be attempted again while the other will be used as often as an At-Will. Really balancing that kind thing is tough if you try and assign "realistic" effects.

Tox

DMAC wrote:

I agree with that. Our group pretty much always plays within the clearly laid-out tactical rules of 4e. There's very little roleplaying during combat, we're basically just playing it as a tactical battle game.

It's very good at that but it does lose a little of the storytelling aspect of earlier editions.

The trick is to think tactically...in character. If you do that, and you choose powers that line up best with your character's concept, personality, and style, you can actually do a lot more roleplaying than you think you are.

As an aside example, my party's thief will frequently stop attacking the guy my warlord is GIVING HIM CA against, just to go after someone who just did more damage to an ally than the thief himself had as-of-yet managed to do. He doesn't like to be upstaged, and when someone does upstage him, well, it's time to knock that thing down a peg or two.

Aegof

I hope they get the math figured out early on. Having all the monster math figured out makes it so easy to improvise, I love it. Ideally, they could figure out what they want PCs to be capable of at given levels, striker damage benchmarks, for example, and balance all sorts of crazy flavorful mechanics around those. I don't mind the AEDU power structure at all, but the uniformity is a problem for a lot of people. Essentials classes showed some signs of dealing with the problem, but then stuff like the Vampire and Bladesinger show up, who are both pretty bad at their jobs.

Der Waffle Mous

The thing with 4e combat role playing was that I pretty much dismissed any of the flavor text on a given power and came up with awesome stunts based on what happened in the hit and effect lines.

DMAC

"I dart towards the orc and flourish my rapier at him... slyly." (Eyebrow wiggle)

Der Waffle Mous

I will never get tired of that one bard at-will where you fight with hurtful language.

DevoutlyApathetic

Der Waffle Mous wrote:

I will never get tired of that one bard at-will where you fight with hurtful language.

Extra points if you do the mildly cheesy "Flame weapon as implement" if only so that your insults can literally burn somebody to death....ya know, with your sick burns.

deadonthestreet

I am absolutely terrified of returning to a time where you shouldn't even bother showing up to the table if you aren't a wizard because you're just not going to be doing anything.

DevoutlyApathetic

I'm just so happy we'll be back to a game that has like twenty optional systems that you'll have to run through while you try and figure out what game it is you're actually playing.

I have trouble imagining the people who would look at GURPS and go "That's the ticket!"

DMAC

Yeah, I can see it working if there's a default version of the game that 90% of people use and some "plug-ins" for things like mass combat or diplomacy heavy games or vehicle combat. The idea of having each DM build their own D&D out of a toolkit sounds a bit confusing.

Tox

I once described Misdirected Mark to somebody thusly: "Basically, you attack the guy, then point an ally and say 'he did it.'"

poshniallo

I don't play RPGs much at the moment, but I still have plenty of 4e books in the cupboard, and at the very least I plan to play it with my daughter when she's old enough.

I'm very unlikely to even look at the new edition, and I think WOTC really mismanaged 4e. It had a great start (from my POV, I've no idea, or interest, in how much money it was making for them), and then suddenly transmuted into Essentials and died.

I might pick up an old Basic book for the nostalgia. That's about it.

Vanir

Wow, I gotta say I did not see this coming. I knew they'd be planning it eventually but this seems quite soon. I just hope they get the math correct right from the get go this time.

DevoutlyApathetic

"I’d love to just call it Dungeons & Dragons and leave the edition numbering behind.” - Mike Mearls.

Stop being a fucking idiot Mearls. It's going to have a name and if you don't give us a nice appropriate handle then you'll see how the mob rule of the internet really works.

Damn it, and I was just thinking nice thoughts about Iron Heroes too, I probably should have pointed out that the game was a fucking mess mechanically.

"the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset. He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.” - Mike Mearls.

.....because when I think of the Battle of Agincourt I think about how the French would have been fucked without their ninja detachment.

Dextolen

Judging from Mearl's and various guest blog posts at WOTC, it's going to be stripped down, miniatures optional with the power given back to the DM. My probably unfounded fears: Things like flanking and backstabbing bonuses will go to the person who can narrate their attack the best, with the DM having the option to whimsically say you can't because his plot wants to go a different way. This may please the 'old school' DMs that I couldn't stand in high school and college. The ones that spent 2 hours gloating how powerful they were and how insignificant the players were before anyone rolled a dice.

I'm 40 with a job and kids and don't have time for that shit anymore. Gimme my map, my tokens, my feats and dailies.

DevoutlyApathetic

"Power given back to the DM" = "Designing games is hard so we're just going to go with saying do what you want."

That attitude amazes me and it isn't the first time I've heard it from a professional game designer.

Brainleech

I liked how parts of 4e worked and there were others I could not figure out how to use them. One of the problems I keep running into is I would like to play but there are some real creepy people into it around here

Vanguard

Prediction: It's going to be called Dungeons & Dragons Infinity.

MagicPrime

Dextolen wrote:

Judging from Mearl's and various guest blog posts at WOTC, it's going to be stripped down, miniatures optional with the power given back to the DM. My probably unfounded fears: Things like flanking and backstabbing bonuses will go to the person who can narrate their attack the best, with the DM having the option to whimsically say you can't because his plot wants to go a different way. This may please the 'old school' DMs that I couldn't stand in high school and college. The ones that spent 2 hours gloating how powerful they were and how insignificant the players were before anyone rolled a dice.

I'm 40 with a job and kids and don't have time for that shit anymore. Gimme my map, my tokens, my feats and dailies.

Those DMs aren't old school. Those DMs are bad DMs. Yes, there were bad DMs even back during 1st and Adv. DnD.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote:

"Power given back to the DM" = "Designing games is hard so we're just going to go with saying do what you want."

That attitude amazes me and it isn't the first time I've heard it from a professional game designer.

Isn't this the White Wolf design philosophy?

texasheat

So 2 questions

First, do we know anything about the actual system? Or is it just the annoucement that there will be a new one, but were not saying what it is yet kinda thing?

Second, can i sign up for play testing? Has anyone ever done that for WotC before? Please share your experience in said test.

Dextolen

You can sign up for playtesting. Check out the WOTC D&D site. Nothing has come out yet beyond the welcome message.

DevoutlyApathetic

Aren't they looking to do the open playtest thing that Pathfinder did?

For a company that hasn't exactly been engendering goodwill among the fan base that seems like much less of a good idea.

texasheat

I'm sorry, even I have to balk at this one...WTH is "engendering"? I mean, I can't even pronounce that. I can't even figure out what your were trying to say based on sentence structure. Could you please clerify?

Mojo_Jojo

texasheat wrote:

I'm sorry, even I have to balk at this one...WTH is "engendering"? I mean, I can't even pronounce that. I can't even figure out what your were trying to say based on sentence structure. Could you please clerify?

Engendering present participle of en·gen·der (Verb)
1) Cause or give rise to (a feeling, situation, or condition).

daveNYC

I'm not getting this at all. The differences between 3.5 and 4E are huge, so I'm not sure what exactly a 5E 'bridge the differences' is going to do. Worst case is that it pisses off all the 4E fans, but doesn't win back any 3.5/Pathfinder peeps; and I think the worst case scenario is a heck of a lot more likely than the best case scenario.

Vanguard

texasheat wrote:

I'm sorry, even I have to balk at this one...WTH is "engendering"? I mean, I can't even pronounce that. I can't even figure out what your were trying to say based on sentence structure. Could you please clerify?

It would've taken you less characters to do a google search than type your response.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engender

Welcome to the internet.

ShadaXoraN

I wonder how widely shared the following sentiment is:
Okay, WotC/Hasbro, you have one more chance with me. I'm being worn down into thin cynicism by the seemingly constant reboots. I will give D5D (Dungeon5 & Dragon5?) my last shred of sympathy. I will buy it, I will try it, but if you "Reboot it" in fewer than 10 years, ta ta forever.

DMAC

There is no way that won't happen.

DevoutlyApathetic

texasheat wrote:

I'm sorry, even I have to balk at this one...WTH is "engendering"? I mean, I can't even pronounce that. I can't even figure out what your were trying to say based on sentence structure. Could you please clerify?

Gygax is axially rotating in his perpetual internment site.

Wassermelone

ShadaXoraN wrote:

I wonder how widely shared the following sentiment is:
Okay, WotC/Hasbro, you have one more chance with me. I'm being worn down into thin cynicism by the seemingly constant reboots. I will give D5D (Dungeon5 & Dragon5?) my last shred of sympathy. I will buy it, I will try it, but if you "Reboot it" in fewer than 10 years, ta ta forever.

Why?

What is wrong with releasing a new edition in 5 years?

tastydonuts

Wassermelone wrote:

ShadaXoraN wrote:

I wonder how widely shared the following sentiment is:
Okay, WotC/Hasbro, you have one more chance with me. I'm being worn down into thin cynicism by the seemingly constant reboots. I will give D5D (Dungeon5 & Dragon5?) my last shred of sympathy. I will buy it, I will try it, but if you "Reboot it" in fewer than 10 years, ta ta forever.

Why?

What is wrong with releasing a new edition in 5 years?

You can't fight neo grognardism. Don't bother.

Vanguard

DMAC wrote:

There is no way that won't happen.

Exactly. 4th Edition was WOTC attempting to have a WoW-level of success with a product that simply does not have the market to support it. What matters more than anything in the RPG (and tabletop gaming market for that matter) is loyalty. If you give your customers reasons to look for other options and they grow attached to them, you will have a hard time winning those people back once they know how you might treat them.

I began playing in 3rd, picked up the 3.5 update, read the 4th edition books and decided to pass. I took a break for a few years, and, once I decided to come back to gaming, took one look at Pathfinder and knew it was what I wanted. Unless WOTC puts out an edition that signifies a veritable renaissance in game design, I don't see myself replacing my fantasy game of choice with their product.

Inquisitor

This announcement comes right around when I was feeling like throwing in the towel in 4th ed and switching to Pathfinder for my dungeon crawling fix anyway, so, that's kinda convenient.

I never was a very big fan of 4th ed, in truth. When it first came out I got pumped for it but ultimately it just never excited me in the way 3.5 did. Yeah, 3.5 had a lot of issues, but it was an exciting game to me. 4th ed felt so dry and clinical by comparison. The reduced multi-classing and power selection system ended up feeling like a straight jacket to me. And skill challenges, good god let us not even talk about those.

I'll keep an eye on 5th, because, who knows, maybe it will be crazy awesome. But 4th didn't do a whole lot for me and my group has been trending away from dungeon crawl systems towards things like Call of Cthulu and Dark Heresy anyway.

DMAC

Pathfinder has gone down a very different route than recent editions of D&D. They put out one or two core books a year and the rest of their products are adventures/setting books.

D&D 4e has more or less put out all of the rule/class/race/monster books anyone could want in 4 years and they've decided that adventures/setting books aren't profitable. Unless the new system is incredibly well received and/or they totally revise their business model, the only way to make the game profitable again in 4-5 years is to get players to buy those core books again by changing the system.

MagicPrime

Paizo also has great Digital Distribution. Aside from the entire rule-set being free online. I can get a .pdf of any of their books and adventure paths on the cheap (comparatively).

Kingmaker is probably one of the best Adventure Paths I've ever played.

Green Dream

I'm really interested to see what they roll out for 5e. I cut my teeth on 3.5, and learned 4e last year to DM a game, and just recently a new friend I met has taken me all the way back to learn Original/Basic D&D for a game he's DMing. Having learned and worked at least a little with these different systems, it is really surprising how their construction thows light on the strenths and pitfalls of each other.

I'm really liking OD&D right now, and I think it may steal my heart away from 3.5 and 4e, in spite of the fact that your options in character creation are much more limited and that your character does not start off at level 1 having awesome powers. There is a way in which, I think, less can be more, and the trend since AD&D seems to have been to offer more choice, more options, more accuracy, more certainty, and more wow-factor by expanding and tinkering with the mechanics. If there is a way that they can strip the D&D mechanics down to a bare-bones that leaves as much as possible up to the interaction between thoughtful player imagination and well-intentioned DM guidance, AND THEN gives you sensisble and useful options to scale up the role of mechanics to (for lack of a better word) mechanically determine how elements of the game world work, then they would be well on their way to creating what it sounds like they want to do. That kind of sounds ridiculously hard, but perhaps it is worth trying.