So, WOTC has announced D&D 5ed. Enworld was one of several other news mediums selected to be the first to try out the new system.

Here is the link for the summary of what is known and will be updated as they find out more.

Here is "Gaming Tonics" post on being invited, and going, to WOTC HQ for this announcement.

Update 1/12/12: Enworld has included a list of news outlets who have reported on the 5e news.

The system is meant to speak to fans of all editions. So if you liked 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e or 4e...then by their words, you should be able to play the rules you want.

No real word on what the system is actually like.

More announcements will be made at Gencon 2012.

For those play WarmaHordes: They plan on releasing more info at GenCon 2012...which is when PP will be announcing IKRPG, correct? WOTC said "Forgotten Realms" will be the launch setting and more info is to come about the "OGL & GSL" stuff. Will they be the same system? Even if they are not, based on what WOTC has said you should be able to play 3/3.5ed IKRPG.

Sweet baby jesus, and here I thought they finally stopped spamming 4thed books.

So glad I play pathfinder instead, and dark heresy/deathwatch

Looks terrible, I'm allergic to change.

Hopefully it'll be better than 4th.

LoneLictor wrote:Hopefully it'll be better than 4th.

4e had its drawbacks but it really was easier to run.

Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

I've yet to see any real reason to leave 3.5/pathfinder.

Necroshea wrote:I've yet to see any real reason to leave 3.5/pathfinder.

QFT. Paizo's doing a bang-up job with the OGL, and it's got a larger player base than 4E now.

Of course, WotC has apparently recruited Cook to help write 5E, so we'll see how it turns out.

Da Boss wrote:Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

And that evidence would be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:QFT. Paizo's doing a bang-up job with the OGL, and it's got a larger player base than 4E now.

[citation needed]

In this area there are probably 4 4e players to every 1 Pathfinder.

Also, did you know there is actually a forum for RPG's on Dakka and that we have been talking about this for a day already?

ProtoClone wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Hopefully it'll be better than 4th.

4e had its drawbacks but it really was easier to run.

Pathfinder is not hard to run.

4th feels like an MMORPG without the computer. 4th ed seems to have been produced to lure more 12 yr olds into the game, they made it less complex so I had no interest in it.

3.5/Pathfinder has complexity and not overly so. I run a Pathfinder game and its easy to adjust to the PC's abilities. Of course I played 2nd ed and 3rd ed was quite the change, but for the better.

Laughing Man wrote: Also, did you know there is actually a forum for RPG's on Dakka and that we have been talking about this for a day already?

I did not know, I thought I looked and didn't see it...must be going blind.

If a mod could delete this with a link to the already existing thread, please...thank you!

Bah, too much Oregano!

ProtoClone wrote:
The system is meant to speak to fans of all editions. So if you liked 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e or 4e...then by their words, you should be able to play the rules you want.

No real word on what the system is actually like.

Well obviously if it will be perfect for fans o 4+ editions over 30+ years then I see no problem here

I assume it will have rules for Cthuhlu and Elric right? Otherwise I ain't buying.

Ahtman wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

And that evidence would be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:QFT. Paizo's doing a bang-up job with the OGL, and it's got a larger player base than 4E now.

[citation needed]

In this area there are probably 4 4e players to every 1 Pathfinder.

Also, did you know there is actually a forum for RPG's on Dakka and that we have been talking about this for a day already?

Is that personal statistic any better as evidence than what Da Boss said? In my area there are probably 10 pathfinder players for every 1 4E player. Its not a lie, so does my superior number outweigh yours in the argument? Everyone has their own experience regarding the subject. Dungeons & Dragons is more than just a brand name now. The game is what you make of it, whether you are using Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons. I know you disagree with me and you are a name brand guy. I get that and have seen it in probably 5 other threads.

The thing is 5E is too soon, but not soon enough IMO. I am loyal to the Dungeons & Dragons game but not to these chaps that are handling it now. I will give the 5E a good read and a chance to bring me back in, but if they drop the ball on this one, I might as well stick to 3.5.

DeathReaper wrote:

ProtoClone wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Hopefully it'll be better than 4th.

4e had its drawbacks but it really was easier to run.

Pathfinder is not hard to run.

4th feels like an MMORPG without the computer. 4th ed seems to have been produced to lure more 12 yr olds into the game, they made it less complex so I had no interest in it.

3.5/Pathfinder has complexity and not overly so. I run a Pathfinder game and its easy to adjust to the PC's abilities. Of course I played 2nd ed and 3rd ed was quite the change, but for the better.

You have it backwards, MMO's are just RPG's on computer. I also like this idea that RPG's are only for mature adults and not those kiddy 12 year olds. I suppose the irony of the statement is that most of the people saying it are playing Pathfinder becuase they played 3/3.5 when they were 12 years old and they hate change. See, silly generalizations are easy to make!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Scythican wrote:Is that personal statistic any better as evidence than what Da Boss said? In my area there are probably 10 pathfinder players for every 1 4E player

My god, it is almost like my point was that anectdotal evidence wasn't usefull and just saying something won't make it true!

Lord Scythican wrote:I know you disagree with me and you are a name brand guy.

You are 50% right, whcih last I checked is an F, so you failed I guess. You act like you have read my posts, but your response illustrates why I think you don't understand them. Also, you do realize Pathfinder is a name brand right? It isn't some guys home brew in a three ring binder. They filed legal papers and everything!

Lord Scythican wrote:I get that and have seen it in probably 5 other threads.

I have my doubts. You have seen me defend 4e against baseless and silly arguments, but I would do the same for Pathfinder.

Lord Scythican wrote:I might as well stick to 3.5.

I get the impression that you wouldn't leave 3.5/PF for any reason. You'll say if it is good enough you will play it, but I doubt that anything ever will be.

I'll probably buy the core books and give it a go, whether I actually use I can't say until I try it.

Ahtman- I'm basing my statement on the assumption that if 4th was doing well, they would have kept going with it a while longer. I run a 4th edition game and think that it's a good system, but I think it was marketed poorly and didn't catch on with many in the community because of that.

To be honest I have gone back to original Redbox D&D.

I found a box with my old books, maps and notes from back in the eighties, and am relaunching the original campaign i started when I was 11 with my sons and a few of their friends.

What it lacks in detail it makes up for in retro charm and purity of play.

Ahtman wrote:[blah blah blah

And here we go again ahtman. You twist my words just the same. Honestly I think the tension of the pathfinder vs. D&D debate makes both of us just as pissy.

As for leaving PF/3.5...well I left 1st edition for second edition. I even tried 2.5 for awhile but I was a bit late and 3rd edition was right around the corner. I moved up from 3rd to 3.5 and then from 3.5 to 4E. I then decided to take a step back and play 3.5 since I liked the system better and had a lot more books. Adopting the PF rules was pure logic for anyone playing 3.5.

But defending all that seems like I am fighting against a baseless and silly argument as well. I don't ignore too many people here on dakka, but you are worth clicking that little button. Honestly dude, go get you a fresh bowl of wheaties and stop eating out of the one you have.

i quit dnd a long time ago when i realized they had this method of sales... i'd still rather play with my 2nd ed ADnD books with the 3rd ed combat system...

Who doesn't love THAC0?

frgsinwntr wrote:i quit dnd a long time ago when i realized they had this method of sales... i'd still rather play with my 2nd ed ADnD books with the 3rd ed combat system...

Who doesn't love THAC0?

Well it isn't as bad as people say. If I did play 2nd edition I would love to change the THAC0 to be more like the 3rd edition system with the positive numbers. Teaching newbies to plat with THAC0 is tough.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I assume it will have rules for Cthuhlu and Elric right? Otherwise I ain't buying.

I'd settle for minis.

George Spiggott wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I assume it will have rules for Cthuhlu and Elric right? Otherwise I ain't buying.

I'd settle for minis.

You could always go with this:

http://paizo.com/products/btpy855z?RuneQuest-Elric-of-Melnibone-Dream-Realms

Ahtman wrote:You have it backwards, MMO's are just RPG's on computer. I also like this idea that RPG's are only for mature adults and not those kiddy 12 year olds. I suppose the irony of the statement is that most of the people saying it are playing Pathfinder becuase they played 3/3.5 when they were 12 years old and they hate change. See, silly generalizations are easy to make!

That is the point. 3.5 did not feel like an MMO (you had no pure tank, everyone could be a damage dealer, no way to mark the enemy and debuff him if he didn't attack you, and attacked the healer instead) 4th ed feels like an MMO with Tanks, DPS and Healers.

3.5 was released in 2003 (8 yrs ago) so I did not play 3.5 when I was 12, we played 2nd ed.

If you know anything about 2nd ed you realize that the switch to 3rd ed was a big difference, they introduced feats, changed multiclassing added D20 based skill checks, and a ton more changes.

I never said "that RPG's are only for mature adults and not those kiddy 12 year olds"

I said "4th ed seems to have been produced to lure more 12 yr olds into the game, they made it less complex so I had no interest in it."

I stuck with 3.5 because it was more complex and did not feel like an MMO.

I have no problem with them marketing to 12yr old's, I think it was a smart move to sell more books, but I have 3.5 and pathfinder books and have no interest in getting the 4th ed books.

Ahtman wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

And that evidence would be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:QFT. Paizo's doing a bang-up job with the OGL, and it's got a larger player base than 4E now.

[citation needed]

In this area there are probably 4 4e players to every 1 Pathfinder.

Also, did you know there is actually a forum for RPG's on Dakka and that we have been talking about this for a day already?

Actually Pathfinder has outsold D&D last year

Lord Scythican wrote:

Ahtman wrote:[blah blah blah

And here we go again ahtman. You twist my words just the same. Honestly I think the tension of the pathfinder vs. D&D debate makes both of us just as pissy.

The fact you think that is what the debate is about boogles my mind. You are here, you are reading, and yet multiple times you come to the some oddball conclusion that it is PF vs D&D.

@Deathreaper: I'm not going to address every point, but many of the complaints you lodge at 4e are the same that 2e players made when 3.0 came out. I also noticed you used the word 'feel' to add wieght to your argument. It doesn't matter if you 'feel' that way anymore than there are people who 'feel' that 4e was a good system and didn't like the idiosyncrasies of 3.5. 3.5 can feel just as much like an MMO as 4e any day of the week.

@chocolategork: Considering there are no hard numbers for sales that is a tough statement to back up and stems from a public statement made by an officer at Paizo that they outsold D&D for a month or two. The numbers, at best, were based on Amazon sales which did not include brick and mortar sales, online sales not Amazon, ebook sales, or DDi subscriptions. Neither give overall sales numbers so actually don't know who is doing better. Not that it matters that much becuase numbers rarely mean much to quality and is usually used as an argument when there isn't much else to argue. If I had to guess I would say they are both doing about the same, but that over the last 6 months D&D has probably dropped a bit becuase the whole Essentials line was a bit confusing and odd. A separate system using the same system that is technically a different system? They can be combined but only sort of?. I appreciate what they were trying to do but I think it was handled poorly. It was a good opportunity for Paizo and I think they took it by releasing their starter box, which is as good a starter box as there is. Also, they actually have minis atm whereas WotC does not.

The real question is how long after 5e comes out will Paizo come out with a tweaked 4e to sell to the people that love 4e so much they can't bear to part with it?

Gah! Now I'm gonna be up all night statting out Cthulhu for 3.5

Y'know, in the name of sanity I think I'm going to move this to News and Rumors and close the new thread there.

And AAAAAWAAAAY we go!

As long as I can still play a Gnoll character, thats all that matters to me really.

Yo dawg, i heard you liked closing and redirecting threads...

Ouze wrote:Yo dawg, i heard you liked closing and redirecting threads...

You know I just wanted to show off my Cthulhu scan!

As I was about to say in the other thread before KK decided to play Musical Forums, I view 4th Edition the same way I see C&C 4, Saints Row 3, 40k 4th-5th edition codices... it's disappointing when the creators of a sequel don't see fit to retain the things that I find fun. The most compelling character I've ever played started life as a whimsical build combining Body Outside Body, Incantatrix and Persistent Spell to make a one man pike phalanx. Scrap the mix & match nature of character building and I would never have created the character, and would never have had my best ever roleplaying experience.

juraigamer wrote:Sweet baby jesus, and here I thought they finally stopped spamming 4thed books.

Actually, there's been a lot of complaints that the release schedule for 4th has been pretty anemic for a year or two. Several books were canceled, and the outlook for 2012 looks thin.

Meh. I bailed out when 3rd Edition hit because of the 'feats'. No desire to play a pen & paper video game.

Crap, and here I am with my barely two-months old 4e books.

Still, I'm excited enough. Hopefully the change is for the better.

i'll undoubtable give the core books a read through, but i'm fairly happy with pathfinder and the ff stuff i have for now.
but who knows, 5th could be all kinds of awesome

About 5 people at my FLGS play 4th ed...



About 40 play pathfinder...


Neither of these include GMs or Pathfinder society days... they do; however, include 4th Ed D&D game days...


I'm not surprised at this news... I am surprised at how long this took.

The one saving grace 4th ed did have for it, was get my girlfriend into gaming... but as soon as she tried Pathfinder, she never looked back at 4th ed.

In 2010 I got back into D&D after a LONG layoff.

How long?

Well, I decided to get back in playing the game I originally played - so now I have a semi-regular gaming group that plays AD&D, you know, 1st Edition!

I am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with for 5E.

If it is good - fantastic!

If not, there's always 1E!

Well, for me there's that and my now in planning WFRP 2E game as WFRP 3E isn't for me...

(Wait... I'm sensing a trend here!)

Alpharius wrote:In 2010 I got back into D&D after a LONG layoff.

How long?

Well, I decided to get back in playing the game I originally played - so now I have a semi-regular gaming group that plays AD&D, you know, 1st Edition!

I am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with for 5E.

If it is good - fantastic!

If not, there's always 1E!

Well, for me there's that and my now in planning WFRP 2E game as WFRP 3E isn't for me...

(Wait... I'm sensing a trend here!)

I too am excited to see what they do. While 4e was not one of my favorite editions, it still wasn't bad. It brought a lot to the game that was needed but also let go of things that I really liked...but isn't that the case with ever new edition.

I am hoping that it will be flexible enough to allow for character individuality and growth.



Also, to clarify, PP will be launching their own system that is not connected to D&D. So it appears IKRPG will be it's own thing with some mechanics being the same from WarmaHordes.

Ahtman wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

And that evidence would be?

How about ICV2 retailer polls placing Pathfinder as the top selling physical book RPG? How about Essentials coming out 2 years after 4E and now this announcement of 5e less than 2 years after Essentials? How about Amazon listing the Pathfinder book as #2 in gaming while the Player's Handbook is #18? Or that Paizo stuff has 6 of the top 10 slots on Amazon to WOTC's two? WOTC will never put out a public statement that says 4e wasn't as successful as they had hoped but there is plenty of other 3rd party data if you just open your eyes... unless you're saying that the marker for success is LOSING the top RPG selling spot they've held for 30 years? Regardless of whether or not you personally like the system, it hasn't been received very well by large swathes of gamers to an extent that makes the previous edition wars look like border skirmishes; the new 5E PR focus on inclusive gaming and playtesting is a result of the very fractured playerbase D&D has now.

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

And that evidence would be?

How about ICV2 retailer polls placing Pathfinder as the top selling physical book RPG? How about Essentials coming out 2 years after 4E and now this announcement of 5e less than 2 years after Essentials? How about Amazon listing the Pathfinder book as #2 in gaming while the Player's Handbook is #18? Or that Paizo stuff has 6 of the top 10 slots on Amazon to WOTC's two? WOTC will never put out a public statement that says 4e wasn't as successful as they had hoped but there is plenty of other 3rd party data if you just open your eyes... unless you're saying that the marker for success is LOSING the top RPG selling spot they've held for 30 years? Regardless of whether or not you personally like the system, it hasn't been received very well by large swathes of gamers to an extent that makes the previous edition wars look like border skirmishes; the new 5E PR focus on inclusive gaming and playtesting is a result of the very fractured playerbase D&D has now.

Pretty good evidence if you ask me.

corpsesarefun wrote:I'll probably buy the core books and give it a go, whether I actually use I can't say until I try it.

+1 to this. I always like going back to D&D and seeing what the new rules are like.
Still have all my books from the original Red box to 4E and have played them all.

warboss wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Seems a bit soon, but fairly solid evidence that 4th was not the success they hoped for. I will probably not buy in.

And that evidence would be?

How about ICV2 retailer polls placing Pathfinder as the top selling physical book RPG? How about Essentials coming out 2 years after 4E and now this announcement of 5e less than 2 years after Essentials? How about Amazon listing the Pathfinder book as #2 in gaming while the Player's Handbook is #18? Or that Paizo stuff has 6 of the top 10 slots on Amazon to WOTC's two? WOTC will never put out a public statement that says 4e wasn't as successful as they had hoped but there is plenty of other 3rd party data if you just open your eyes... unless you're saying that the marker for success is LOSING the top RPG selling spot they've held for 30 years? Regardless of whether or not you personally like the system, it hasn't been received very well by large swathes of gamers to an extent that makes the previous edition wars look like border skirmishes; the new 5E PR focus on inclusive gaming and playtesting is a result of the very fractured playerbase D&D has now.

WOTC has a much more corporate-marketing-driven business philosophy compared to Paizo, one that pushes the "new" and "improved" over the last release. This is pretty much a standard practice for large corporations that have lost the basic idea of "if it's not broken, don't fix it." Personally, I've found 4e to be very enjoyable, at it's core simplifying the complexity that earmarked 3/3.5/PF and returning to it's roots in a way. It got my wife to start playing and more importantly, ENJOYING, an RPG so I'm happy for that.

I still own all my 1st and 2nd edition AD&D books, as well as my original Red and Blue Box D&D sets. I love reading them for the nostalgia and have run games for my son using the systems that I grew up with. He likes them just as much as 4e.

I think Alph hit the nail on the head for me - I hope 5e is good, nay great, but if it's not I have more than enough prior editions to refer to for rules and can always get the new books for source material and toilet reading.

Deffinitely seems like WotC trying to revive interest in the franchise after 4e bombed. I know a lot of people that got into RPGs (and many that got back into RPGs) becuase of 4e that had no interest before, but most of the people that had played for years hated it. It's too bad, 4e had a lot going for it, but I always felt it was marketed completely wrong. It focused too much on combat and not enough on characters actually roleplaying to truly be D&D, it felt too much like an MMO. That said, for every gamer that gave it an honest shot and still disliked it, there were 10 that hated it without even trying it. I worked at an FLGS when it released and it's amazing how many people just refused to even try it when we'd run demo days, just based on what they'd heard about it.

4e is actually a really fantastic game, however. The real problem was that 4e should never have been called 4e, it should have been D&D:tactics or D&D: Battles or something similar. It's not an RPG so much as a skrmish miniatures game with a story. Played as a narrative skirmish miniatures game, it's an AMAZING system, and it has a lot of appeal to wargamers looking for a deeper level of depth to their battles. Treat it like a Mordheim campaign with a far more in depth system and you'll enjoy it a lot more, I guarantee it. It's also rediculously easy to run compared to old editions, far easier than even 3.5/pathfinder. But as a proper RPG? not even close to older editions.

We'll see what happens with 5th. The public playtesting sounds good. Even if it's only because they're so out of touch with the roleplayers now, I'm always in full support of game designers putting an unfinished product in the hands of the gamers for a few months and using the feedback to make a better game.

Kalamadea wrote:Deffinitely seems like WotC trying to revive interest in the franchise after 4e bombed.*************4e is actually a really fantastic game, however.

While I'm more than willing to disprove the "success" of 4e (see my earlier post), I just as willingly would jump on the claim that it "bombed". Saying that (even though you actually like the system) just gives the WOTC apologists ammunition. It's still the gateway drug for plenty of new gamers into the tabletop RPG world simply due to brand recognition and (combined with DDI revenue) probably turns a substantial profit that would make any game company other than WOTC/hasbro and GW happy. The problem is that D&D is judged on a corporate toy scale as part of hasbro as opposed to an RPG scale and decisions at WOTC are made not on IF a product is successful/profitable but by HOW profitable/successful it is. When the D&D minis line was being cancelled, there were occasional frank posts by ex and current developers (who later echoed similar comments on the Star Wars line) that the products weren't making ENOUGH money. For example, a hypothetical line that took 8 full time people to develop and keep going but made $3 million in profits (after all costs) were not deemed a success as the company could develop other products that used the same resources and made $10 million; decisions to cut the former in preference for the later were made even though they were still making money on both. We've actually been discussing this in the RPG subforum on dakka with some links to industry insider articles in that thread.

Perhaps saying 4e "bombed' was a bit of an extreme term, but it certainly fell flat with many long time roleplayers. I can't speak for other stores or for the national market, but aside from the initial sales frenzy when it first released it sold terribly at my shop compared to 3.5 (which wasn't even truly a new edition). We sold about 3 times as many 3.5 core books on release as we did 4e. In the years after the initial rush we used to keep 4 copies of 3.5 in stock and still occasionally sold out even ordering twice a week. After 4e died down we only kept 2 copies of the core books in stock and very, very rarely sold both before we got a restock in.

Not the biggest test market, I admit, and gaming in general took a hit with the economy, but 4e simply didn't resonate well with the majority of gamers, and while it brought in a lot of people that had never been interested before, it wasn't as many as the people that went on to pathfinder or back to older editions. That had to have happened on a larger scale than just my shop since Essentials was released so fast and now a whole new edition. It had it's downsides, but I love 4e for what it is and it was nearly impossible to convince older gamers it was a good system.

Edit:
Penny Arcade has a pretty good response to the announcement that almost perfectly sums up my experiences playing with people fresh to D&D in 4e and my reaction to the intended goals of 5e. I've seen the same thing in 5th edition 40k, which i truly despise despite a few very solid improvements. But people that started with that edition love it and don't understand what I hate in it, any more than I understood what all the 2nd ed players hated about 3rd when I started. People tend to focus on changes they hate and it often overshadows the good changes, and people that are fresh into it don't have any former prejudice. it's just the way the game is to them. Bang-on with the "you can't please all the people all the time" remark, that part scares me a bit with the announcement.

Necroshea wrote:I've yet to see any real reason to leave 3.5/pathfinder.

Agreed. Its been a few years since I played D&D, but the 2 games I was in were Pathfinder & 3.5.

Hopefully this time around, the spiel about actually wanting playtest opinions to mean something will actually be true. Interesting tidbit from the article below about the efforts of one playtester and the results:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons

Previous editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

Where did Mearls admit that all the plastering feedback for 4th was ignored?

Alpharius wrote:Where did Mearls admit that all the plastering feedback for 4th was ignored?

He's interviewed for the article in the link.. whether he said that there or elsewhere, not sure. It's not written as a direct quote but more of a comment.

Alpharius wrote:Where did Mearls admit that all the plastering feedback for 4th was ignored?

Greg Tito on the Escapist reported that one, seems when he did a big interview over at WotC last month, they fessed up.


Personally, Pathfinder is second only to 40k in my hobby expenses, so as far as I'm concerned, WotC can go feth itself. I've never forgiven them for closing Dragon Magazine as part of their marketing for 4th ed, and frankly, this whole thing stinks of them doing another 'idea reaping' where they get all the fans to write in their ideas and take them as WotC's own IP, to avoid paying for creative writers.

Well thats awesome while I wish I could have played 4th ed some more, it just had this stigmata from the internet and everyone was quick to damn it. 4th had its problems like rituals completely sucking and had no flavor at all but for the most part classes were useful.

warboss wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Where did Mearls admit that all the plastering feedback for 4th was ignored?

He's interviewed for the article in the link.. whether he said that there or elsewhere, not sure. It's not written as a direct quote but more of a comment.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Where did Mearls admit that all the plastering feedback for 4th was ignored?

Greg Tito on the Escapist reported that one, seems when he did a big interview over at WotC last month, they fessed up.


Personally, Pathfinder is second only to 40k in my hobby expenses, so as far as I'm concerned, WotC can go feth itself. I've never forgiven them for closing Dragon Magazine as part of their marketing for 4th ed, and frankly, this whole thing stinks of them doing another 'idea reaping' where they get all the fans to write in their ideas and take them as WotC's own IP, to avoid paying for creative writers.

Well, +1 for honesty, I suppose.

And -1,000,000 for bad PR.

And it is doubly so when in the same breath they're saying that they want playtesting input (No really, we mean it this time!) to help design the new edition...

I'd still like to see Scott Rouse, the (former?) brand manager burned alive...

He is one of the few beings for whom I hold more hatred than Matt Ward...

Unfortunately, this whole try 5E out and give us feedback is just a marketing stunt.

There's very little that the public could do to influence the rules. Indeed, I think the more input from the fans, the worse the game will be.

Are there smart fans who come up with good ideas? Yeah. My grappling system for 2E is the exact same that Monte came up with in 3.0/3.5. ( I used to hang in a chatroom pre 3.0 with skip williams and sean reynolds...hmmmm lol)

Are there fans who come up with really dumb ideas or things that could ruin the game? Of course.

What's needed is a restrained approach to the game that won't let players abuse the system (pun pun for example, or the kensai class). Letting players chime in would be a disaster.

What we need is Hasbro or WotC to give the rights to Paizo. But that's not too likely.

Seems like 4th just come out ...

KGatch113 wrote:

Unfortunately, this whole try 5E out and give us feedback is just a marketing stunt.

There's very little that the public could do to influence the rules. Indeed, I think the more input from the fans, the worse the game will be.

Worst case scenario is that they put up polls about stuff that they're already planning on changing to give players the illusion of power. Best case scenario is that they actually take ideas freely submitted by fans to improve the game and use them.

Hm? Didn't they just release 4th edition?

Oh, wait...what year is it again? Time is too quick.

KGatch113 wrote:Are there smart fans who come up with good ideas? Yeah. My grappling system for 2E is the exact same that Monte came up with in 3.0/3.5.

That is nice, but can you give us an example of a fan with a good idea?



My 3.5 fighter is a grapple fighter.

BaronIveagh wrote:What we need is Hasbro or WotC to give the rights to Paizo. But that's not too likely.

That is a bad idea. I know they idea of rehashing 3.0/3.5 until we die is comforting but if the license goes away from WotC (and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea) it should go somewhere that will give it a completely different take on the material. I'm a firm believer that if you are going to go through through the trouble of redoing something, and announcing it to the world, it should actually be different and not just tweeks. I would rather see them go head first into a wall with some radical and interesting ideas then shoot for mediocrity and nostalgia. Listening to fans is usually a no win for creative endeavors. If you go by trying to please fans you end up with Spider-Man 3*, not the Dark Knight. If the studio hadn't forced Raimi to put in Venom to make the fan base happy I think it would have been a very good movie, and if Nolan had listened to fans Ledger never would have been Joker. They need to have a vision and direction, not try to build it by committee from one of the most diverse and asinine groups out there. I have heard PF people say that Paizo didn't listen to much of the beta test feedback either, but I can only imagine some of the goofiness that any game company would get in their suggestion box. They shouldn't put it out there and pretend to take feedback becuase like others, I doubt it will be more than an illusion of inclusion. Do what GW did (or didn't) leak a play test and see what happens.

I find the idea that "fan ideas ruin everything, companies should never listen to the man on the street!" quite amusing. Especially in games with so much house-ruling as D&D. But hey, if it makes you happy...

Ahtman wrote:
That is nice, but can you give us an example of a fan with a good idea?

Hmm... Ed Greenwood? You know, creator of Forgotten Realms?

Ahtman wrote:
That is a bad idea. I know they idea of rehashing 3.0/3.5 until we die is comforting but if the license goes away from WotC (and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea) it should go somewhere that will give it a completely different take on the material. I'm a firm believer that if you are going to go through through the trouble of redoing something, and announcing it to the world, it should actually be different and not just tweeks. I would rather see them go head first into a wall with some radical and interesting ideas then shoot for mediocrity and nostalgia. Listening to fans is usually a no win for creative endeavors. If you go by trying to please fans you end up with Spider-Man 3*, not the Dark Knight. If the studio hadn't forced Raimi to put in Venom to make the fan base happy I think it would have been a very good movie, and if Nolan had listened to fans Ledger never would have been Joker. They need to have a vision and direction, not try to build it by committee from one of the most diverse and asinine groups out there. I have heard PF people say that Paizo didn't listen to much of the beta test feedback either, but I can only imagine some of the goofiness that any game company would get in their suggestion box. They shouldn't put it out there and pretend to take feedback becuase like others, I doubt it will be more than an illusion of inclusion. Do what GW did (or didn't) leak a play test and see what happens.

If you're opposed to game design by committee, you obviously need to stop playing the following right away: D&D (going back to 1st ed), Anything by GW, anything by FFG, anything..well, pretty much anything in print and a whole lot of stuff that is OOP. There's one guy with his name in big letters, but if you open the book and look, you'll find that there are a bunch of other names after that who are the other writers of the book, though sometimes they just get a 'Special Thanks To...' (which, btw: SUCKS.)

Paizo is actually one of the few for whom this is an exception, not the rule for their products, with, IIRC, only the Core books for Pathfinder having been done that way.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
That is nice, but can you give us an example of a fan with a good idea?

Hmm... Ed Greenwood? You know, creator of Forgotten Realms?

Ahtman wrote:
That is a bad idea. I know they idea of rehashing 3.0/3.5 until we die is comforting but if the license goes away from WotC (and I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea) it should go somewhere that will give it a completely different take on the material. I'm a firm believer that if you are going to go through through the trouble of redoing something, and announcing it to the world, it should actually be different and not just tweeks. I would rather see them go head first into a wall with some radical and interesting ideas then shoot for mediocrity and nostalgia. Listening to fans is usually a no win for creative endeavors. If you go by trying to please fans you end up with Spider-Man 3*, not the Dark Knight. If the studio hadn't forced Raimi to put in Venom to make the fan base happy I think it would have been a very good movie, and if Nolan had listened to fans Ledger never would have been Joker. They need to have a vision and direction, not try to build it by committee from one of the most diverse and asinine groups out there. I have heard PF people say that Paizo didn't listen to much of the beta test feedback either, but I can only imagine some of the goofiness that any game company would get in their suggestion box. They shouldn't put it out there and pretend to take feedback becuase like others, I doubt it will be more than an illusion of inclusion. Do what GW did (or didn't) leak a play test and see what happens.

If you're opposed to game design by committee, you obviously need to stop playing the following right away: D&D (going back to 1st ed), Anything by GW, anything by FFG, anything..well, pretty much anything in print and a whole lot of stuff that is OOP. There's one guy with his name in big letters, but if you open the book and look, you'll find that there are a bunch of other names after that who are the other writers of the book, though sometimes they just get a 'Special Thanks To...' (which, btw: SUCKS.)

Paizo is actually one of the few for whom this is an exception, not the rule for their products, with, IIRC, only the Core books for Pathfinder having been done that way.

Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

EN World Article wrote:Settings

The Forgotten Realms will be supported from the start, and a video game art studio from China has been hired to fully detail the Realms.

Can't say this fills me with a ton of confidence. There is already so much out there for the Forgotten Realms setting. I just hope that it doesn't end up too manga/Final Fantay-ized. Not that there is anything wrong inherently with those styles, I just don't want to see it in the Forgotten Realms.

KGatch113 wrote:Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean.



I would love to see a good return to Athas and the Dark Sun setting. That was one of my all-time favorite settings for D&D. It was very different at the time, and the artwork by Brom is still some of my favorite.

~Eric

Neat. Probably not enough to get me back into the game, but should be cool.

What are they supposed to do with all the existing 4th edition books? Will they work this edition? I know that almost all 3rd edition books didn't work with 4th..

Personally I've always hated Forgotten Realms' setting.

The fact that there are already a high number of high level characters who pretty much have already done everything makes it pretty much clear that all you are is a waterboy and anything you do is something they really can't be asked to do.

I loved Eberron because it was still developing and you as a player could still influence it. That's important in this sort of game as you really want your players to feel that they matter and are important. Players are the 'stars' of the show as it were so the whole FR setting just grates horribly for the amount of Deus Ex within.

Forgetten Realms at it's best was a pretty good 'catch all/alternate earth[/i] setting. By catch-all, I mean that it could conceivably have everything in it without any real issue. For the other side of this, take Dragonlance. Messing with Dragonlance's magic 'rules' such as adding Warlocks would be messy as there would be a need to explain where the new magical tradition comes from. in the Forgotten Realms, it's a lot more 'open' that Warlocks could be a new method of accessing magical powers.

Personally, I'd like to see WotC support 2 settings at a time in 'detail' for 5th. One should be FR or possible Nettir Vale (the setting that was originally called 'PoLand' that is the setting implied in 4th edition books). This should be kept very open and is designed as a loose setting for material that can be slotted into other settings easier.

For the second setting, I'd like each year or two to have one setting that is created (or revived) and given an intense series of books that has a plotline. Dragonlance in the 80s would have been perfect for this. Don't do "Adventure int he Dragonlance world.' Do 'Adventure during the War of the Lance.' Make the 2nd setting an event focused hybrid of the 'adventure paths' and traditional setting books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FR at it's worse could get bogged down with novel characters and other big NPCs, but in general "don't use them" is a way for GMs to deal with that problem.

I remember when 4e released... Myself and 4 buddies all booked the day off and bought the 4e rulebooks, read through them and gave them a play through... we played for two weeks before promptly returning back to the 3.5 system (I had the Paizo Pathfinder Beta book so we played that).

We had a new member join the table and he bought the 4e books so we decided to give it another, honest shot.

After 2 months of playing, we quit it entirely - our dm didn't mind it so much, but did agree it felt better on play by post / online vs at a table with people.

The problem we all had with it is you were very pigeon holed into your role based on the class you chose. The variation and selection of "abilities" was awful. You could chose 1-3 spells / abilities that were super powerful at that level, and the rest that were extremely bland, so every character playing that class would end up taking the exact same thing just to stay competitive.

When Pathfinder core rulebook came out, I snatched that right up, and that is a hefty tome, it is what a handbook should be. 4e books felt double spaced, large font ... something a high school kid would do to make it look more complete, whereas Pathfinder felt very engaged and detailed.

I appreciate Paizo also made taking full 20 level progression in a core class VERY appealing vs the class / prestige class dipping and optimizing that wotc's 3.5 had. I can make the character I WANT without being limited to abilities. Gish's seemed impossible in 4e whereas in Pathfinder, it's extremely easy to make multiple gish builds and have them fun to play at all levels.

When 5e drops, I'll thumb through it, but 4e left a very, VERY sour taste in my mouth and aside from abandoning the "D&D" name, I have no regrets sticking to Paizo.

KGatch113 wrote:Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

Ok... yeah, can you elaborate on that?

Breotan wrote:Meh. I bailed out when 3rd Edition hit because of the 'feats'. No desire to play a pen & paper video game.

Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

DeathReaper wrote:

Breotan wrote:Meh. I bailed out when 3rd Edition hit because of the 'feats'. No desire to play a pen & paper video game.

Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It's going to be impossible now for them to regain the trust of the players they've alienated. For the record, the term "Power gamer" is, and always has been, derogatory.

D and D will always be red, blue and green box for me.

I began with the old school color box, but started with one of my old pals with his blue/black colored book when they first started selling it in a box.

I'm not a real fan of the way in which D and D was mutated into the conglomerate BS that it became.


Stripped down, easy to play, and easy to get into with a few pals with a couple of cases of Jolt and a fare DM were a good weekend that can never be touched by adding on bells and whistles.


wish them well, but won't even give it a look.

As with others, a return to what was right is all thats needed for D and D.

Red Box. Dungeon masters guide, Players guide, Monster manual 1 and 2 and Fiend Folio. the other boxes were fine, but really not needed. Excellent game, I miss it alot.


Pardon me while I go crank up some RUSH, and kick a hole in my wall.

BaronIveagh wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:Ed Greenwood and Forgotten Realms represents everything that is wrong with the game.

Ok... yeah, can you elaborate on that?

Seems like someone's character was pwned by a DM using Drizzt's stats.

Seriously, if you think the high level characters are a problem in a game with a history like that in Forgotten Realms you have the problem not the game. Many of those characters are PCs from games that have been going on longer than most of the kids that have been alive. Salvatore still meets with his RPG group once a month to play characters like Drizzt. That is just the way it is.

It would be like someone complaining about roleplaying a Jedi character in the Star Wars D6 game when Luke is still alive. If they want their character to be top dog then they need to work their way up in power through many game sessions or fast forward the game 500 years to where everyone else is dead.

Ahtman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It is neither.

I have played D&D since 2nd ed, and 3rd ed did not seem like playing a video game in comparison to 2nd ed.

4th Does feel like playing a video game, since they have tank classes that can mark enemies, which debuffs the enemy if they do not attack the tank. they have a dedicated healer taht can not do much in the way of damage, they have strikers which are your DPS etc. 3rd did not have any of this, all characters could deal good damage, and no one was forced into any one role based on what class you were playing.

DeathReaper wrote:4th Does feel like playing a video game...

For me personally, it's worse. It feels like playing a minis game with MMO design aesthetic that borrows CCG mechanics, which is frankly what I think they were ultimately going for. While that sounds great and quite profitable in theory, it didn't seem to resonate with a large portion of their existing player base. I simply wanted an RPG and it didn't deliver for anyone in my varied group of gamers (with 1-15+ years of tabletop experience). The breaking point for us was a WOTC published adventure where we took on several 30-40hp kobolds plus minions in one encounter lasting over an hour and a half... there was no way barring extremely unlikely rolls that we would have lost but no way for us to win after 1.5 hours unless we put in another 30-40 minutes.

Normally, being the sort of GM into TPK, I'd like 4e, but I don't. Anything that forces players into dedicated rolls (and yes, that was both derogatory and deliberate) rather than being a 'squad of ultimate badasses' I feel is a waste of time. I mean, seriously, 4e discards rule 0.5 of roleplaying: Have Fun. If the party wipes because I will it, that's one thing. If the party wipes because no one wants to play a cleric because you don't do anything other then spam group heals the entire time, that's another ball game.

DeathReaper wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It is neither.

I have played D&D since 2nd ed, and 3rd ed did not seem like playing a video game in comparison to 2nd ed.

Well whoopty do, so have I. Started with the original Red Box and went from there. That is neither here nor there. So it is delusion, thank you for the prompt response.

BaronIveagh wrote:Normally, being the sort of GM into TPK, I'd like 4e, but I don't. Anything that forces players into dedicated rolls (and yes, that was both derogatory and deliberate) rather than being a 'squad of ultimate badasses' I feel is a waste of time. I mean, seriously, 4e discards rule 0.5 of roleplaying: Have Fun. If the party wipes because I will it, that's one thing. If the party wipes because no one wants to play a cleric because you don't do anything other then spam group heals the entire time, that's another ball game.

That's the biggest load of crap ever. "Discards the rule of have fun"? Freaking REALLY? Just because YOU don't like it that doesn't mean it isn't fun. I've gotten plenty of people into 4e that loved it who had never looked twice at roleplaying before. Many of them later got into other "real" RPGs. 4e is a fantastic game, it's just not D&D. THAT is the only true problem with 4e, it simply isn't an RPG worthy of being called a new edition of D&D, it should have been marketed as a completely different game. It's a miniatures game with a hefty story element. That doesn't make it a bad game, it just makes it a bad successor to the title. Huge difference.

And that thing about "dedicated rolls" is just flat out wrong. You had healers and a tanks and strikers in 3.5 just as much as you do in 4e, the only difference is that in 3.5 you picked a basic class and built them to fit that role via feats and equipments and spell choice. 4e you do it by picking a particular class with that role predetermined. You pick the class that matches what you want to do instead of molding a more generic character into that role. That makes it easier to play, but I'll admit a large part of the fun for most people is customizing your character to match what they should do in your mind's eye, and customizability is something 4e severely lacks compared to "proper" RPGs.

Ahtman wrote:
Well whoopty do, so have I. Started with the original Red Box and went from there. That is neither here nor there. So it is delusion, thank you for the prompt response.

Your ignorance is yet again only rivalled by your completely unneccessary aggression as you gloss over the salient points in his posts in favor of trolling with insults. If there is any delusion in this thread, it is your own inability to see the obvious MMO/video game influences on 4e.

warboss wrote:Your ignorance is yet again only rivalled by your completely unneccessary aggression as you gloss over the salient points in his posts in favor of trolling with insults

Oh please, if you are going to get on your high horse at least attempt to not do the thing you are arguing against.

warboss wrote:as you gloss over the salient points in his posts in favor of trolling with insults

Did you not read the posts? The inability to recognize they are making the same arguments that 4e people make when 3.5 is accused of being video game like as well. When 3e was launched it was accused of being to much like a video game as well. Don't be made becuase I see the humor in history repeating itself.

warboss wrote:(similar to earlier in the thread where you claimed no evidence of 4e being anything but a success).

If you are going to bring it up at least get it right. I didn't respond becuase I felt it best just to let the whole thing drop. Did you know that sometimes people don't post on the internet becuase they can't be arsed, not just becuase they think they are wrong? Since you want to bring it back up though, the only one that was all useful was the store owners stat, but that still doesn't tell everything. The rest were bits and pieces of information that are positive individually but don't tell the whole picture, like blind men feeling an elephant. Knowing that PF outsold D&D for a month on Amazon only tells us about one month and on Amazon, not every online source. What if that month D&D outsold PF on Troll and Toad? They also didn't take into account alternate revenue streams like DDi subscriptions. In the end though we can't know overall the comparison becuase the overall numbers aren't released. Saying with certainty that PF is absolutely outselling D&D is not something we know, unless you have insider knowledge of both companies. You also seemed to miss where I said, especially after Essentials, that I thought PF was probably doing better on book sales.

warboss wrote:If there is any delusion in this thread, it is your own inability to see the obvious MMO/video game influences on 4e.

They have had as much influence on PnP as PnP has had on them. The delusion is pretending that it impossible to see how video games influenced 3e while frothing at the mouth that they may have influenced another system. I also don't understand why being influenced by something is the most hellish thing in the world. Everything is influenced by something.

The other pattern is that people act like defending 4e from silly arguments must mean that one thinks that 4e is beyond criticism and that they must hate 3.5/4e. It doesn't mean that at all, but it is a common mistake. I don't mind people not liking any system as they aren't all for everyone. I have heard good criticism of 4e, and I've leveled some at it myself, but I haven't seen any in this thread. Most of the arguments boil down to "herp derp MMO" and "It isn't 3.5".

Ahtman wrote:Did you not read the posts? The inability to recognize they are making the same arguments that 4e people make when 3.5 is accused of being video game like as well. When 3e was launched it was accused of being to much like a video game as well. Don't be made becuase I see the humor in history repeating itself.

I did read them as well as your initial one line trolling response that you chose to follow up with *surprise!* another one line trolling response. Only now after being called out are you finally bothering to explain your opinion as well as address the issues brought up in that post (something you should have done in the first place if you're bothering to respond). The proper response to an opinion you disagree with is not calling the person delusional but to state your own with something to back it up.

And to mimic your own tone and posting style... where is the evidence that there was a general feeling of 3.5 being like a video game or are you simply just delusional? I've been active on the internet since Netscape had its beta and actively followed D&D forums during 3/3.5's releases and don't remember frequent comments like that. If anything, videogames changed to mimic 3rd edition more than the reverse with the popularity of d20 and OGL licenses. Once in a while a 2nd edition or earlier grognard might have commented on that but there was never anything close to a general consensus of it feeling like a video game let alone an admission that they were a major influence.

I only started playing a month ago, so all I know is 4th edition. I'm interested to see how my friends who have been playing for years react to this news.

The Dark Saga wrote:I only started playing a month ago, so all I know is 4th edition. I'm interested to see how my friends who have been playing for years react to this news.

Let us know what they think about next year's probably change over (especially if they actually buy books instead of the common nowadays pirating of pdfs).

Kalamadea wrote:
And that thing about "dedicated rolls" is just flat out wrong. You had healers and a tanks and strikers in 3.5 just as much as you do in 4e, the only difference is that in 3.5 you picked a basic class and built them to fit that role via feats and equipments and spell choice. 4e you do it by picking a particular class with that role predetermined. You pick the class that matches what you want to do instead of molding a more generic character into that role. That makes it easier to play, but I'll admit a large part of the fun for most people is customizing your character to match what they should do in your mind's eye, and customizability is something 4e severely lacks compared to "proper" RPGs.

And therein is part of the problem. Before calling them 'tanks' or 'strikers' was considered, at least in my area, derogatory, and grounds to be pelted with dice. It was 'roll' playing instead of 'role' playing.

If you wanted to be a fighter-cleric-mage-thief in 3.5 you could do that (IIRC they were called 'Adventurers' and were a prestige class in either Dragon or some other supplement). 4e was about limitations and forcing people into a role. Previous editions were far more flexible then that.

As far as fun goes: most of the groups I've talked to in the PA-NY-VA-WV area have said the same thing: 4e was not fun. Dealers told me: 4e does not sell. Convention goers told me: Hey, check out Pathfinder (which I had started subscribing to as soon as Dragon closed due to my outstanding subscription).

So, yeah.

BaronIveagh wrote:If you wanted to be a fighter-cleric-mage-thief in 3.5 you could do that (IIRC they were called 'Adventurers' and were a prestige class in either Dragon or some other supplement).

The easiest way to play that sort of character is the Factotum base class from Dungeonscape (cowritten by the guy who writes the Order of the Stick webcomic) but like you say, there's nothing stopping you mixing and matching base classes and prestige classes to get what you want.

As far as fun goes: most of the groups I've talked to in the PA-NY-VA-WV area have said the same thing: 4e was not fun. Dealers told me: 4e does not sell. Convention goers told me: Hey, check out Pathfinder (which I had started subscribing to as soon as Dragon closed due to my outstanding subscription).

I started working at a hobby shop just a few months after 3.5 hit the shelves, and finally left just before the 4e essentials hit. In those 6 years selling RPGs, miniatures and board games I played in quite a few groups of all those systems (and others) both privately and at the shop. I ran more than a few D&D games days for 3.5 and later 4e, and a few short campaigns. 3.5 was extremely popular until 4e hit, go back and read my old posts where I talked about how much more 3.5 we sold than 4e, and how much more Pathfinder sold when it finally released. You say you talked to dealers? To different groups? I saw those numbers first-hand, I did the ordering for it, i talked to those players as they bought it and pre-ordered supplements. I know exactly what RPGs sold best and worst and which supplements sold more: I had to restock the shelves. I was on the phone with distributors and looking through release catalogues trying to get an idea of how many to order. 3.5 in it's heyday was hands down more popular than 4e is, and later PF 1is also hands-down more popular. Old news.

But you keep arguing that 4e wasn't fun because it was less popular, and that is just flat out asinine and WRONG. The fact is that it continued to sell, just not as well as 3.5 had. What you actually mean when you say "it's not fun" is that YOU don't like it, and the people YOU hang out with don't like it. You ignore the fact that you don't and can't talk to every gamer out there. I saw a lot of hatred for 4e and the worst vitriol came from people that never even tried it. That's perfectly fine, you don't have to like it at all. But we also had a LOT of customers that love 4e. You can't say that something is not fun at all just because it is less popular. Popular is NOT the same as universal, and 4e is NOT universally despised. Different strokes for different folks. All those people you talked to that didn't like 4e? They weren't the target audience. New players were the target audience, and IT WORKED. New people got into that had no interest before, and they had FUN. When 4e first released quite a few of our Magic: the Gathering players decide MTG was too expensive to keep up with, and since 4e was brand new (and from same company, gotta love brand loyalty) they gave it a shot. Some of them played in groups at the shop, some at home. They thought it was fantastic and I know at least 2 of those groups are still playing it.

PS- I find you calling them roll-players incredibly hilarious, you had me in tears the first time you wrote that. The very first time I ever heard someone call them roll-players instead of role-players, it was a guy that had just put a 3.5 PHB back on the shelf in disgust, complaining that rolling dice for social skill checks like diplomacy and sense motive had no place in a roleplaying game. I'm still not sure if I find your misplaced elitism funnier, or his. He made me aware of the term, but you have such delicious irony that it's almost palpable.

Kalamadea wrote:
But you keep arguing that 4e wasn't fun because it was less popular,

... the rest of it I'll let stand more or less, as you do have a point to a degree. However, this part you have (continuously) gotten backwards. It didn't sell because quite a few people found it not fun.

Let me try this comparison: 4e is like being visited by a dominatrix. Some people enjoy it, but most people would probably not find it as stimulating without a big bag of cocaine first.

BTW: that guy that put it back must have missed 2e as well. Since, IIRC those originally came about in one of the 2e source books.

warboss wrote:I did read them as well as your initial one line trolling response that you chose to follow up with *surprise!* another one line trolling response.

What is sad is I know that you know that trolling and disagreeing aren't the same thing, yet here you are getting all weak at the knees and losing your composure and doing just that. You don't like what I am saying so it must be trolling? Grow up.

warboss wrote:Only now after being called out

What are you, twelve years old all of a sudden?

warboss wrote:are you finally bothering to explain your opinion as well as address the issues brought up in that post (something you should have done in the first place if you're bothering to respond). The proper response to an opinion you disagree with is not calling the person delusional but to state your own with something to back it up.

No, my friend, you seem to be cherry picking to suit your desired feeling. I have had this discussion multiple times over multiple threads including this one and you keep harking back to one comment, that was deserved, and ignoring all context around it. You can pretend it is the only post made and ignore if you choose to. It doesn't make you look very good, but you can do that if you want.

warboss wrote:where is the evidence that there was a general feeling of 3.5 being like a video game or are you simply just delusional?

Well it was expressed here for one, before and after your post. The fact you either didn't read enough of the thread to see it or just choose to ignore it speaks volumes.

warboss wrote:I've been active on the internet since Netscape had its beta and actively followed D&D forums during 3/3.5's releases and don't remember frequent comments like that.

Saying you have been on the internet for a long time so you must know everything on a subject is a new argument. Not a very good one, but new. I'm not new to these interwebs either and I remember the schism caused by the release of 3rd edition. It wasn't as polarizing as when 4e but it still happened. If you either glossed over the arguments or ignored them doesn't mean they didn't happen, and considering you seem to have done that in this very thread it wouldn't suprise me at all that you had done the same in the past. The internet wasn't as populated at that time either so it wasn't a very good measure of much of anything. The arguments were there though.

warboss wrote:If anything, videogames changed to mimic 3rd edition more than the reverse with the popularity of d20 and OGL licenses.

Balderdash. Third Edition wasn't so popular that somehow developers were dashing to mimic it. Even the most popular RPGs (Baldur's Gate), limited to PC only of course, were based on 2nd edition. It wasn't till later you got NWN and 3rd edition translation. It was also still a very niche hobby at the time as well. It wasn't as if RPGers were considered nerds in 2nd but then all of a sudden 3rd came around and everyone wanted to be next to the cool kids who played 3rd is a bit odd. While we are now at a point where the stigma of being a gamer doesn't hold the negative context it used, it isn't becuase 3.0 was so cool people wanted to get with it.

warboss wrote:Once in a while a 2nd edition or earlier grognard might have commented on that but there was never anything close to a general consensus of it feeling like a video game let alone an admission that they were a major influence.

I have seen practically the same arguments made against 3e by other players as I have against 4e by 3e players. It has been over a decade since the change from 2e to 3e and people have made peace with it genreally and so it isn't the hot button topic it used to be. Again, while not as dramatic a shift as to 4e, there was derision and edition wars just the same. There are probably several reasons for this: rise of internet, change in fan base attitude, first time competing against itself, ect. This most recent one is a doozy, though it is a bit lopsided as 4e players seem more content to play their game while 3e/PF want to spend more time complaining. They are the guy that say they have a new girlfriend (PF) but then spend all their time talking about their ex (D&D). Spend less time talking about your ex, everyone knows you don't like her, but she isn't a horrible person just becuase you don't like her anymore, and spend more time with your current lady.

There are also people that started with 3rd edition that absolutely ador 4e so it isn't as if playing 3.0/3.5 absolutely precludes one from liking it. It only seems like all 3.0/3.5 players hate 4e becuase they are the most annoying and the most vocal, just refusing to let it go and move on with their lives and let people enjoy a different game.

Since, IIRC those originally came about in one of the 2e source books.

Some things were added with splat books, but skills as we know them came about in 3rd.

To add to Kalamadea's comments I'd bet dollars to donuts that 4e brought more people into the hobby than PF. PF kept the hobby base but 4e grew it, especially with female players. Going to a lot of conventions I met so many people that got into the hobby through 4e, and many of them from backgrounds that were not normal to hobby gaming. It was a great gateway drug into the hobby.

Ahtman wrote:
Some things were added with splat books, but skills as we know them came about in 3rd.

To add to Kalamadea's comments I'd bet dollars to donuts that 4e brought more people into the hobby than PF. PF kept the hobby base but 4e grew it, especially with female players. Going to a lot of conventions I met so many people that got into the hobby through 4e, and many of them from backgrounds that were not normal to hobby gaming. It was a great gateway drug into the hobby.

NWPs date all the way back to the original OA for 1st ed. All 3e did was split them in into feats and skills and give Skills a new resolution mechanic.

Hmm... let's see... currently on Amazon' top 10 Fantasy Gaming Best Sellers: Pathfinder (Corebook is 1 Bestiary 3 and Bestiary 1 at 2 and 4 respectively with Beginner box, advanced players guide and GM's screen taking up additional slots), D&D 4e (Redbox and PHB at 5 and 9, respectively) it gets worse if you go out to their top 20, with 10 positions occupied by Pathfinder and only 5 by D&D 4e. (Sadly, FFG only holds one)

Hmm... Corebook at #1, PHB is at #9...

ICv2 reported the following at free rpg day 2011:

"This year Pathfinder surpassed D&D. We ran out of the Pathfinder module three quarters of the way through the day but still had a few of the D&D sourcebook at the end. While still strong, D&D is not selling nearly as well as Pathfinder and this reflected in our customers' choices in the free offering. Of those customers not taking both, D&D was the book they chose to forgo. Unlike what happened with the two previous edition changes of D&D, this time, customers are voting with their dollars (and Free RPG Day choices) for Pathfinder."

So, can't even GIVE IT AWAY.

BaronIveagh wrote:Normally, being the sort of GM into TPK, I'd like 4e, but I don't. Anything that forces players into dedicated rolls (and yes, that was both derogatory and deliberate) rather than being a 'squad of ultimate badasses' I feel is a waste of time. I mean, seriously, 4e discards rule 0.5 of roleplaying: Have Fun. If the party wipes because I will it, that's one thing. If the party wipes because no one wants to play a cleric because you don't do anything other then spam group heals the entire time, that's another ball game.

But clerics in 4e don't do that... From my groups experience (and I recognize we're both throwing anecdotes at each other) 'Cleric' was the annoying class someone had to take in 3rd much more than 4th.

In 4th, everyone has some limited self-healing (Second Wind) and many classes have powers to augment this with more healing: The Warlord is a well-known example, as well as several "cleric-ish" class like the Rune Priest, Invoker (I think, I'm writing from memory), etc. At least in 4th, a lot of the Cleric powers are "Heal a friend AND do something neat" instead of just spamming cure whatever wounds.

This argument seems a bit weird as 3.0 (and 2nd, and 1st...) all have had issues where 'Hit Points' is a limited resource 'consumed' by adventuring. Clerics are a mobile source to replenish it as an alternative to consumable magic items (healing potions) or resting. This is unchanged at a high-level in 4th, although there is a bit more ping-ponging (taking damage and recovering being a bit more common). A group without someone that can replenish is going to have trouble in heavy combat... Much like 3rd and earlier.

Additionally, the "MMO Roles" aren't really 'new.' I heard variants of the term in RPGs in the 80s! I think 'Brick' or 'Meatsheild' was a bit more common than 'Tank' but the basic concept certainly existed. It's a simplification of a tactical need.

4e isn't perfect, but I do really like that it resolves a lot of issues that earlier editions kind of hand waved. A killer GM who really wanted to be nasty should ideally target the squishy support characters first, and there was little in core 3.0 to really stop this other than 'GMs not being annoying' or similar. Fighters would stand up front, but other than physically blocking a corridor, there's nothing to prevent attacks on the squishy wizard types in the back.

In addition the whole linear fighter/quadratic wizard thing. I like that 'add some spell lists' isn't the core of many advanced class as it was in 3rd.

No offense Balance, but if your clerics in 3rd edition where just spamming cure spells, your entire group was playing the game wrong

Back on the WOTC forums there were hundreds of threads showing the math on how healing COULD NOT keep up with the damage output from monsters, so it became a game of damage mitigation. When monsters could hit 2-3 times in a single turn and do 150-200 points of damage by mid to late teens, "Heal" with its 150 hp heal cap became hardly useful.

Healing became a mechanic you would do in a pinch if necessary in combat to keep somebody alive 1 more turn, but would likely die the next turn. Healing was more of an "out of combat" feature which let the party rest up and continue on with their day without having to spend the full 8 hours resting.

How combat typically played out was damage mitigation and battlefield control. Locking down opponents, debuffing, buffing, all became more important than "you get hit, they get hit" combat. It was more important to completely avoid that crushing 200 damage hit vs taking it than getting healed 150 points and still being -50. I had a character for 8 years (98 to 2006) and played with the same group of guys, I ended up getting him to level 46 before retiring him and found the game ended up becoming how it started - you found enemies (epic enemies...) that could kill you in 2-3 swings , just like 1st level and it was terrifying (but very very fun lol... like play dark souls on a table top).

Oh yeah, and my character was a cleric (evil) and I don't think i EVER memorized a healing spell

Cryage wrote:No offense Balance, but if your clerics in 3rd edition where just spamming cure spells, your entire group was playing the game wrong

We mostly stuck to lower-levels... 3rd broke down a bit for us as characters had too many options of arguable value (In a high-level campaign my ranger with a prestige class ahd two separate spell lists... Both if which were mostly useless as the 'real' spell casters had the utility spells covered and had real 'artillery.')

Cryage wrote:Oh yeah, and my character was a cleric (evil) and I don't think i EVER memorized a healing spell

In 3rd memorizing cure spells wasn't worth it due to the rule to allow them to dump memorized spells for cure spells anyway...

I'm not sure why you are posting all this as a response to something you never address either, the role of 4e in bringing more players into the hobby.

BaronIveagh wrote: All 3e did was split them in into feats and skills and give Skills a new resolution mechanic.

So what you are saying is that it was a different system done differently, which seems to go support the point that they didn't do it that way before. Not only that, but I already stated there were other systems but that 3e introduced them as we know them today. It wasn't a minor change like 4e distilling the skills down to broader catgories but keeping the same essential mechanics, it was a completely different approach.

BaronIveagh wrote: Hmm... let's see... currently on Amazon' top 10 Fantasy Gaming Best Sellers: Pathfinder (Corebook is 1 Bestiary 3 and Bestiary 1 at 2 and 4 respectively with Beginner box, advanced players guide and GM's screen taking up additional slots), D&D 4e (Redbox and PHB at 5 and 9, respectively) it gets worse if you go out to their top 20, with 10 positions occupied by Pathfinder and only 5 by D&D 4e. (Sadly, FFG only holds one)

Hmm... Corebook at #1, PHB is at #9...

We could save time if you would read the posts you pretend to be responding to. I have stated the problem with using Amazon as an indicator of overall sales as well as specifically stating that I believed that PF was selling better over the last few months, especially in light of the Essentials debacle.

With this announcement of 5e coming out I expect D&D book sales to drop even further.

BaronIveagh wrote: ICv2 reported the following at free rpg day 2011:

"This year Pathfinder surpassed D&D. We ran out of the Pathfinder module three quarters of the way through the day but still had a few of the D&D sourcebook at the end. While still strong, D&D is not selling nearly as well as Pathfinder and this reflected in our customers' choices in the free offering. Of those customers not taking both, D&D was the book they chose to forgo. Unlike what happened with the two previous edition changes of D&D, this time, customers are voting with their dollars (and Free RPG Day choices) for Pathfinder."

So, can't even GIVE IT AWAY.

This is still anecdotal evidence and doesn't really give a good overall picture. Free RPG day doesn't really generate a lot of new players as much as it caters to exiting players. I went to two separate stores that day and both of them were out of PF as well, but both store owners also told me that got a much smaller number of PF books than they did D&D books. It was something like 8 PF to 25 D&D. Having a few D&D left over wouldn't really be that much of a shock now would it? I know at one store they said the PF Society showed up early and grabbed all the free FreeRPG Day PF books. As for voting with their wallets, it again goes back to the stores as well as alternative revenue streams. Physical sales, some areas are more PF heavy and some are more 4e heavy. If you have a DDi subscription there isn't a huge need to own the books at all. Having the physical copy isn't as necessary as it used to be. This is again also not looking at the effects of piracy on the gaming landscape.

Balance wrote:But clerics in 4e don't do that... From my groups experience (and I recognize we're both throwing anecdotes at each other) 'Cleric' was the annoying class someone had to take in 3rd much more than 4th.

It really wasn't. Clerics and Druids were handy to provide some out of combat healing, but in combat everyone was far better off if they spent their time smashing things (and they were really good at it - there's a reason the term "Cleric-or-Druid-zilla" came into existence). The only exceptions were classes like Crusaders and Hellreavers who could smash things and heal people at the same time.

Ahtman wrote:
What is sad is I know that you know that trolling and disagreeing aren't the same thing, yet here you are getting all weak at the knees and losing your composure and doing just that. You don't like what I am saying so it must be trolling? Grow up.

No, my friend, you seem to be cherry picking to suit your desired feeling. I have had this discussion multiple times over multiple threads including this one and you keep harking back to one comment, that was deserved, and ignoring all context around it. You can pretend it is the only post made and ignore if you choose to. It doesn't make you look very good, but you can do that if you want.

Here is the complete sequence of interaction with DeathReaper prior to me chiming in (with your posts in bold for clarity).

Ahtman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Feats are not like a "a pen & paper video game"

Like anything they took a little getting used to, but overall they were a good change.

now, 4th ed, that is "a pen & paper video game" Tanks, DPS, and Healers, its crazy.

I can't tell if this is satire or self delusion.

It is neither.

I have played D&D since 2nd ed, and 3rd ed did not seem like playing a video game in comparison to 2nd ed.

4th Does feel like playing a video game, since they have tank classes that can mark enemies, which debuffs the enemy if they do not attack the tank. they have a dedicated healer taht can not do much in the way of damage, they have strikers which are your DPS etc. 3rd did not have any of this, all characters could deal good damage, and no one was forced into any one role based on what class you were playing.

Well whoopty do, so have I. Started with the original Red Box and went from there. That is neither here nor there. So it is delusion, thank you for the prompt response.

The above is not adult disagreement but instead just pointless trolling. You simply chime in and accuse another poster of mental defect, then engage in an epenis standoff, and revert back to name calling. That's it. No point made... Nothing to clarify your feelings on the matter (like if you disagree with 3e being compared to video games, 4e compared to video games, both, or starting a sentance without a capital letter.. NOTHING!)... you simply just ignore the points made in the second post and reiterate your "u so crazy!!" theme. I'm not cherry picking anything but instead responding to the entirety of your "contribution" to that part of the thread prior to my focusing on it. Only after I commented did you actually present a counterpoint (an incorrect one with no basis in fact that you've since bactracked from but at least you tried). Take your own advice and grow up. The ignorant cyberbully routine may be par for the course in your usual hangout of the offtopic forum but not out in wider Dakka.

Ahtman wrote:
Saying you have been on the internet for a long time so you must know everything on a subject is a new argument. Not a very good one, but new. I'm not new to these interwebs either and I remember the schism caused by the release of 3rd edition. It wasn't as polarizing as when 4e but it still happened. If you either glossed over the arguments or ignored them doesn't mean they didn't happen, and considering you seem to have done that in this very thread it wouldn't suprise me at all that you had done the same in the past. The internet wasn't as populated at that time either so it wasn't a very good measure of much of anything. The arguments were there though.

There is a difference between people not liking 3rd edition when it came out (what you're NOW arguing) and not liking 3rd edition when it came out because it felt like a video game (which you earlier claimed). Plenty of the former existed (although not to the extent of 4e) in people who were invested in 2nd edition and had legitimate gripes about the magnitude of the changes but I've never heard of someone claiming the latter until this thread. Multiple times in this thread you've objected to other people's points and clamored for evidence to prove it (and then whined about the ONLY evidence around being anecdotal or not long term despite having nothing to contradict it) so I asked you to hold yourself to the same standard. Of course, you've since moved the goal posts now that you've found the position untenable (and clarified it from being "delusional" to not think of 3e as a video game style RPG to now just calling the edition not as "polarizing" as 4e).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlexHolker wrote:

Balance wrote:But clerics in 4e don't do that... From my groups experience (and I recognize we're both throwing anecdotes at each other) 'Cleric' was the annoying class someone had to take in 3rd much more than 4th.

It really wasn't. Clerics and Druids were handy to provide some out of combat healing, but in combat everyone was far better off if they spent their time smashing things (and they were really good at it - there's a reason the term "Cleric-or-Druid-zilla" came into existence). The only exceptions were classes like Crusaders and Hellreavers who could smash things and heal people at the same time.

I didn't have that particular experience as a cleric and actually found the class very enjoyable to play. The cleric (IIRC from some early 4e design notes on wotc's site and comments by 3e developers years after they were let go) was actually purposely built more powerfully than the other classes to make up for the fact that you spent your own actions healing others instead of directly contributing to the fight. You had part of the ranged area devastation of a mage and a heft portion of the combat ability of a fighter depending on which domains you picked and spells prayed for. If anything, I'd say my old cleric was the 2nd most powerful character I ever ran especially after adding in all the later splat books like complete divine 1&2.

What i think about this: 4th was great, presented a ruleset for combat and killing action, that worked with ease and balance. The real problem with it was the total lack of fluff, wich made the game looks like a MMORPG, and dont worked very well to intruduce new players into the real RPG...

I hope 5th come with a great mechanic, but put some effort on the fluff, this is all...

Ahtman wrote:
This is still anecdotal evidence and doesn't really give a good overall picture. Free RPG day doesn't really generate a lot of new players as much as it caters to exiting players. I went to two separate stores that day and both of them were out of PF as well, but both store owners also told me that got a much smaller number of PF books than they did D&D books. It was something like 8 PF to 25 D&D. Having a few D&D left over wouldn't really be that much of a shock now would it? I know at one store they said the PF Society showed up early and grabbed all the free FreeRPG Day PF books. As for voting with their wallets, it again goes back to the stores as well as alternative revenue streams. Physical sales, some areas are more PF heavy and some are more 4e heavy. If you have a DDi subscription there isn't a huge need to own the books at all. Having the physical copy isn't as necessary as it used to be. This is again also not looking at the effects of piracy on the gaming landscape.

Here we go again... you discount the ONLY evidence we have as anecdotal yet present nothing to support your own view other than PFS people picking up free books (which only proves the success of Pathfinder and doesn't support 4e being a success in any way, shape, or form). If 4e was truly a success, we wouldn't have had 4.5/essentials two years later with the complete discontinuation of further 4e specific support. If 4.5/essentials was a success, we wouldn't have the announcement of 5e playtesting less than two years later either. In the end, success for gamers is that they're having fun and plenty of people have fun with 4e. Success for a company is sheer number of sales and in that regard 4e is certainly not a success since it accomplished what no other edition prior did... losing 1st place in RPG sales and perceived popularity to another related game. It may not have bombed and probably is profitable but it's certainly not a success when you drop to #2 in the only indicators available for the first time in 30 years. The fact that the new edition announcement is pretty much phrased as a mea culpa and acknowledges the fragmentation of the fanbase (albeit couched in 1st-4th edition terms) should be enough to convince all but the most thick skulled readers that 4e was not all that WOTC was hoping it would be.

Also, why bring up piracy? Do you think that pathfinder books somehow get pirated less often than WOTC ones? If anything, piracy would affect Paizo more since they don't have a DDI interface bringing in monthly subscriptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:What i think about this: 4th was great, presented a ruleset for combat and killing action, that worked with ease and balance. The real problem with it was the total lack of fluff, wich made the game looks like a MMORPG, and dont worked very well to intruduce new players into the real RPG...

I hope 5th come with a great mechanic, but put some effort on the fluff, this is all...

I think the biggest issue for me personally would be whether or not they keep the CCGish "power" mechanic for all the classes in 5th edition. One of my biggest gripes about the system was that all the characters felt like they played the same with the almost exact amount of complexity as a result of focus on interclass balance. I also always felt like I should be tapping my cards sideways after using a power which made me feel like I was playing a CCG and not an RPG. While I haven't played since prior to the introduction of the collectible effect/power cards WOTC has made, their existence just reinforces my dislike for the whole mechanic.

I'm just gonna leave these here, if it's okay with everyone





Also, Aeofel lives.

Ahtman wrote:I'm not sure why you are posting all this as a response to something you never address either, the role of 4e in bringing more players into the hobby.

The games themselves have little to nothing to do with 'bringing in new players'. It's the groups that they game with. A game that's both well made and fun will keep a group playing it. One that is not will either be ignored or given up on in favor of some other game in short order. Games that deliver on what a gaming group desires in it's games will outsell those that do not.

Ahtman wrote:
So what you are saying is that it was a different system done differently, which seems to go support the point that they didn't do it that way before. Not only that, but I already stated there were other systems but that 3e introduced them as we know them today. It wasn't a minor change like 4e distilling the skills down to broader categories but keeping the same essential mechanics, it was a completely different approach.

No, I'm saying it was the same system, split into two different categories based on use. 'Skills' went back to the older version from OA where the player 'trained ranks' while 'Feats' stayed closer to many of the ones found in AD&D's 'Players Option'. All it did was combine the previous editions, add one or two minor tweaks, and tie it to the d20 like everything else in 3e. They way you seem to be trying to portray it makes it sound like it suddenly became GURPS, when no such thing happened.

Ahtman wrote:
We could save time if you would read the posts you pretend to be responding to.

Ahtman wrote:
To add to Kalamadea's comments I'd bet dollars to donuts that 4e brought more people into the hobby than PF. PF kept the hobby base but 4e grew it, especially with female players. Going to a lot of conventions I met so many people that got into the hobby through 4e, and many of them from backgrounds that were not normal to hobby gaming. It was a great gateway drug into the hobby.

Achem: that is what I was responding to. And, tooling back through this thread, perhaps I missed it, but I did not notice you disprove Amazon's nor ICv2's Q1-2 2011 reports that said basically the same thing, but with enough numbers that people wold ignore the post as a wall of text.

Ahtman wrote:
If you have a DDi subscription there isn't a huge need to own the books at all. Having the physical copy isn't as necessary as it used to be.

Yes, because I love you hear WotC executives karaoke to Dire Straits 'Money for Nothing'. Let me put it this way: Books last thousands of years, if properly maintained. The information from DDI will be lucky to last 15 years. This doesn't even begin to head down the Orwellian nightmare that is likely coming for the internet.

Coffee STILL 35 cents.


Edit:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

I've been to all of those but the mouse skulls one. Mine had dice shaped like little chunks of barbed wire.

I'm looking forward to 5th edition. I certainly hope they learn the lessons of 3.x and 4th -- interesting choices are good, and streamlined rules are good.

I think the biggest lesson is that, despite their braying, most people don't really care too much about inter-class balance as long as they can do interesting or flavorful things. Many of the skills and feats in 3.x were absolute pants, while a handful were must-takes for any hard-core campaign -- but in the end, who cared? As long as your group was all on the same page, you could all have been playing elven unarmed fighters who filled every feat slot with Toughness and still have a fun, challenging game.

What I like a lot about 4th/essentials was its cleaner ruleset. D+D as a whole is a mess, ruleswise, but many of the worst offenders were cleared up in 4th. The number of rule-now-and-look-it-up-later cases have been far fewer in my essentials campaign than they were in either my 3.x or Iron Kingdoms campaigns.

Another reason I like the (relative) simplicity -- my wife could get on board. 3.x was a little too intimidating for her.

Mewens wrote:Another reason I like the (relative) simplicity -- my wife could get on board. 3.x was a little too intimidating for her.

QFT !!

While 4th may not be the BEST ruleset, I found it to be the EASIEST ruleset* to get my wife and some non-RPG-playing friends into the game. ( *Along with the D&D Boardgames.)

Yes, the game has evolved and I can understand arguements from both sides of the "Edition Fence". But I found that, if I wanted to play with the people I chose to play with, I needed to evolve and not stick so adamantly to my vision of the game. I'd rather play a different version with friends rather than stick to an older version that no one I knew was playing. (And, No, that's not me avoiding a new social setting, it's simply me making a choice to maintain and play with people already in my life when that life steals what little time I have to spend with them).

To each his own ...

Looks like they're planning on releasing some modular type of ruleset. If they can get that to actually work well with a semblance of balance, that would be great. I'm just hoping that the extra modules take away stuff from the general ruleset to offset any of the modules' benefits.

"......this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120116

I really hope 5th ed will be more fair to Monstrous Race PCs than either 4e or Pathfinder. I hated that.

Mr Hyena wrote:I really hope 5th ed will be more fair to Monstrous Race PCs than either 4e or Pathfinder. I hated that.

I dunno what your experience was like, but I loved the Minotaur Fighter I played. Dealt tremendous damage (executioner's axe specialist), had great debuff effects (marking, caused prone effect on successful bull rush), and worked great in a 3-player game alongside a rogue and a monk - both "strikers".

Despite our group having no healers, we were all capable of self healing and the DM enabled consumables to be readily available in the large city we adventured in. Our first 4e group had a cleric and a warlord (my character) and had no lack of healing ability, all free actions that were useable IN ADDITION TO any combat or support actions we'd take. My wife played the cleric and initally thought she'd have to stay in the back healing until realizing almost all her powers were close combat enabled - she'd hit something with her mace and heal a nearby ally or increase AC.

While 4e did assign roles for characters to play, it by no means introduce this concept! 1st edition was played essentially the same way, but by the time 4e was introduced the concepts of tank, healer, DPS, and AOE had been further established in MMO/video games.

The friends I play with look at the upcoming 5th edition with some hope, some trepidation, and some cynicism. We've got some great ideas (we think anyway) to present to WOTC, but without knowing what kind of ruleset they plan to use, it makes it difficult to determine how to incorporate those concepts.

Mr Hyena wrote:I really hope 5th ed will be more fair to Monstrous Race PCs than either 4e or Pathfinder. I hated that.

Indeed. That was the best thing about 3e/3.5 was how easy it was to take nearly any monster (within reason) from the monster manual and use it as a PC or turn it into an NPC and level it up. My favorite supplement book of all time was Savage Species. It was never updated to 3.5 but worked with some small conversions. It broke down certain powerful monsters essentially into racial classes so that you could start at level 1 and play an Astral Deva if you wanted or a bugbear or a centaur etc. ECL sucked in 3.5, especially for a caster, but it was fun as hell playing these off the wall characters even if they often weren't as powerful as the standard race/classes. They made up for it in flavor, and the occasional fun ability.

As nice as it is in 4e just having a monster that you can turn to that page and launch at the players instead of having to build NPC monsters with class levels, but I often missed the freedom that gave you to have cool players and villains. Making them "elite" was never quite the same, and you really had to fudge things a lot ot turn them into PC races, or just use a human and say it's something else.

Kalamadea wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:I really hope 5th ed will be more fair to Monstrous Race PCs than either 4e or Pathfinder. I hated that.

Indeed. That was the best thing about 3e/3.5 was how easy it was to take nearly any monster (within reason) from the monster manual and use it as a PC or turn it into an NPC and level it up. My favorite supplement book of all time was Savage Species. It was never updated to 3.5 but worked with some small conversions. It broke down certain powerful monsters essentially into racial classes so that you could start at level 1 and play an Astral Deva if you wanted or a bugbear or a centaur etc. ECL sucked in 3.5, especially for a caster, but it was fun as hell playing these off the wall characters even if they often weren't as powerful as the standard race/classes. They made up for it in flavor, and the occasional fun ability

Savage Species was updated to 3.5 if you had E-Tools. Code Monkeys updated it before WotC told them to go to Hell and, according to some sources, sent them a computer virus to make sure.

BaronIveagh wrote:Savage Species was updated to 3.5 if you had E-Tools. Code Monkeys updated it before WotC told them to go to Hell and, according to some sources, sent them a computer virus to make sure.

I may completely disagree with WOTC policies as they cancelled all 4 lines of products over 2 years that I used to spend $2000/year on... but I'm not ready to put the tinfoil hat on just yet with this one. If they were really tech savvy enough to engineer a virus and distribute it specifically to one company, they wouldn't have screwed up so royally with DDI and continue to ignore the PDF marketplace.

Oh boy, this is what I get for holding out on buying any 4e books until recently.

I liked 4th. Was very easy to run with it's online tools, and very easy to learn and play. Was super easy to get people not use to Traditional games into it.

Was a great PnPRPG "gateway drug".


I hope that's something 5th ed can still do. I like the fact it was realy simple and straight foreword, so as a DM I could concentrate more on the story then worrying about the combat.

I dunno what your experience was like, but I loved the Minotaur Fighter I played.

In 4e they pretty much told those who use Gnolls as PCs 'Go feth yourself!'. I havent really used a Minotaur so I don't know how they got on.

So I'll probably be staying with 3.5e until I hear word on monstrous species.

When it comes out ill see if I can find a group thats using it locally (lot of 3.5 players around here from the sign on sheets I can see) and decide if I want to invest into DnD again or not.

Mr Hyena wrote:

I dunno what your experience was like, but I loved the Minotaur Fighter I played.

In 4e they pretty much told those who use Gnolls as PCs 'Go feth yourself!'. I havent really used a Minotaur so I don't know how they got on.

So I'll probably be staying with 3.5e until I hear word on monstrous species.

They also said in many online articles that if there's something you like and want to include in a game to go ahead and include it, making up the rules yourself or replacing the names of one thing with another so long as they're reasonably similar.

Admittedly, I never played a gnoll in 3.5 or any other monstrous race as I preferred the traditional player character races. My minotaur was a fluke - I found an old Magic card and really liked the idea I got for a character after reading the flavor text for the Hurloon Minotaur.

I have to admit that the online tools for 4e was a significant selling point for me, or rather the initial client they used rather than the completely browser-driven junk that they switched to.

The more and more I think about it and hear things, 5e is turning in to the "Mr. Potatohead" of RPGs.

As someone who still plays 1E, hearing about Gnoll and Minotaur characters, and then hearing WoTC say that in 5E we can all play the edition we like... at the same time. Together?

I have to admit, I cannot wait to see how they pull this off!

Alpharius wrote:As someone who still plays 1E, hearing about Gnoll and Minotaur characters, and then hearing WoTC say that in 5E we can all play the edition we like... at the same time. Together?

I have to admit, I cannot wait to see how they pull this off!

I think Penny Arcade said it artfully in their comic a few days ago.

warboss wrote:
I may completely disagree with WOTC policies as they cancelled all 4 lines of products over 2 years that I used to spend $2000/year on... but I'm not ready to put the tinfoil hat on just yet with this one. If they were really tech savvy enough to engineer a virus and distribute it specifically to one company, they wouldn't have screwed up so royally with DDI and continue to ignore the PDF marketplace.

It wasn't that they made one at all, it's that they deliberately emailed one that already existed to Code Monkeys. It's not that hard, particularly if the target has no reason to suspect they're opening a virus.