Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey Gang, I was raised on 2nd edition D&D for 12 years DMing it when 3.5 was even around as the original people getting me into the game were vehemently opposed to using it. We played so many campaigns and has so many good times the rules were simple and it gave the DM power to twist and change the rules as needed saying something simple like "Dexterity check" to run across small bars hovering over hot coals while trying to elude a monster. As the years past i became a very immersible and happy role-player giving my friends endless memories of games. Yet, as time went on I did start to hate that compelling characters were so redistricted if they choose not to be human (levels, ect) having enough uniformity I tried out 3.5 and was amazed it was like returning to 2nd ed all over again, but as time went on i started seeing new issues... namely races, rules and single rolls killing players after months of adventuring. When i started 3.5 i was glad i did it made the game more vibrant but i heard of 4th ed coming and though if they improved it this much I should give it a chance.


I was sadly dissapointed, i bought the book i gave it a long and hard try over the years, I DID HAVE AMAZING STORIES but this was due to my friends and their roleplay not the system. I started seeing a world i spent years developing to be a enactment of the dark ages, magic was seen as an oppressor to religion and women have to worry about meeting men in dark places. Turned into a zoo, Dragonborn, Deva, Shifters, goliaths, and options for nearly limitless other races but because of feats and powers and endless "magic card" systems i gave up ANY HOPE of ever keeping up with the game. I never saw the programs they promised and to top it off the game became to universal that players started to argue with rules rather than simply understand they were a role-playing tool. I hated it, it ruined a lot of my love of the game it made it SO EASY to munchkin your character and changed so much of the lore of D&D that even though I was capable of playing a large part of my love of the game died.

Were-wolves not giving lycanthropy, vampires standing out in daylight, hell even simple things like gold to platinum conversions or the usage of spells. It became a simple playground with confusing reasoning why a rogue had to act the way he did, or druid the way they did until even someone who pours 12 years of his life GMing the games writing his own unique world ... just saw no point... a ruined valley of my imagination. I am confident 5th edition will not change, it will simply be more lies, and no apologies.

I don't hate WOTC but are too buisness minded for their own business; TSA and Gygax understood how to run the franchise was to treat it like an art museum a low admission for vibrant rewards you made it appealing not an investment! I don't think i will return back to WOTC but to those who say we arrest development with our desires my only response to it is simply "If you ever found someone who wasn't interested in the game that is a much better circumstance than despising it. I understand a need for rule changes but they had all the time in the world to get it right, instead they rushed, made promises and outsourced... tactics that didn't have been employed for the bottom line we all would have been fine waiting a few more years of 3.5 to have reached 4th properly. Instead now it is the unspoken and rubbish edition to be hated for all renditions of the game assuming 5th is better."

Skriker wrote:It is interesting that with all of the complaints and moans about 4th edition that WotC has documented that it has actually sold better than earlier editions of the game.

Where did they say that? That goes against what the WOTC insider who wrote the Escapist magazine articles and enworld blog said... and he worked in management in WOTC on both editions IIRC. Supposedly the preorders were strong but then leveled off significantly.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: I tried out 3.5 and was amazed it was like returning to 2nd ed all over again, but as time went on i started seeing new issues...single rolls killing players after months of adventuring.

How did that happen? I could understand if the characters were facing monsters who had a really high CR over the PC's level but games shouldn't have issues like that if the DM is planning the game appropriately.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: I tried out 3.5 and was amazed it was like returning to 2nd ed all over again, but as time went on i started seeing new issues...single rolls killing players after months of adventuring.

How did that happen? I could understand if the characters were facing monsters who had a really high CR over the PC's level but shouldn't have issues like that if the DM is planning the game appropriately.

Save or die effects mostly.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: I tried out 3.5 and was amazed it was like returning to 2nd ed all over again, but as time went on i started seeing new issues...single rolls killing players after months of adventuring.

How did that happen? I could understand if the characters were facing monsters who had a really high CR over the PC's level but shouldn't have issues like that if the DM is planning the game appropriately.

Save or die effects mostly.

So long as D&D includes such things as hold person, petrifaction, disintegrate, deadly poisons, very large boulders, death spells or gorgons (what they call a medusa, not what they call a gorgon) then there will be save or die. Directly or indirectly.

3/3.5 gives good save modifiers. I remeber the sample game in the old AD&D DMG. The cheap commonplace giant spiders if they bit you caused you to save at +4 or die. Sure it was a +4 save, it was noted as 'easy', yet with 1st and 2nd level characters an easy save meant dying there and then on IIRC a 12 or less on d20, and the bastards could still bite you again next round. You had to level up quite a ways before you had a 50% chance of surviving a saving throw, and by that stage saves were at a minus for the tougher monsters, 'save at -2 or die' was not uncommon..

1st and 2nd edition were horribly deadly, save or die is not a new issue, its a very old one and much reduced in 3/3.5. In fact with regards to poison I don't think there are any direct save or dies for poison anymore, you 'just' take heavy stat damage instead.

Orlanth wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote: I tried out 3.5 and was amazed it was like returning to 2nd ed all over again, but as time went on i started seeing new issues...single rolls killing players after months of adventuring.

How did that happen? I could understand if the characters were facing monsters who had a really high CR over the PC's level but shouldn't have issues like that if the DM is planning the game appropriately.

Save or die effects mostly.

So long as D&D includes such things as hold person, petrifaction, disintegrate, deadly poisons, very large boulders, death spells or gorgons (what they call a medusa, not what they call a gorgon) then there will be save or die. Directly or indirectly.

3/3.5 gives good save modifiers. I remeber the sample game in the old AD&D DMG. The cheap commonplace giant spiders if they bit you caused you to save at +4 or die. Sure it was a +4 save, it was noted as 'easy', yet with 1st and 2nd level characters an easy save meant dying there and then on IIRC a 12 or less on d20, and the bastards could still bite you again next round. You had to level up quite a ways before you had a 50% chance of surviving a saving throw, and by that stage saves were at a minus for the tougher monsters, 'save at -2 or die' was not uncommon..

1st and 2nd edition were horribly deadly, save or die is not a new issue, its a very old one and much reduced in 3/3.5. In fact with regards to poison I don't think there are any direct save or dies for poison anymore, you 'just' take heavy stat damage instead.

Fair enough. I probably never ran into issues like that myself because of how I ran things. I probably sub consciously overlooked those effects.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:I don't hate WOTC but are too buisness minded for their own business; TSA and Gygax understood how to run the franchise was to treat it like an art museum a low admission for vibrant rewards you made it appealing not an investment! I don't think i will return back to WOTC but to those who say we arrest development with our desires my only response to it is simply "If you ever found someone who wasn't interested in the game that is a much better circumstance than despising it. I understand a need for rule changes but they had all the time in the world to get it right, instead they rushed, made promises and outsourced... tactics that didn't have been employed for the bottom line we all would have been fine waiting a few more years of 3.5 to have reached 4th properly. Instead now it is the unspoken and rubbish edition to be hated for all renditions of the game assuming 5th is better."

I am confused, because everything you complained about was easily within your control to fix as a GM and with adding in Roleplaying. Yes many groups turned from Roleplaying to Rollplaying with 4th edition and I hated that too, but now running the game myself I have control and the game is run as I have always run games: Story drives the action and not the other way around. The 4th edition rules are a good set of tactical rules that you can add as much or as little roleplaying on to as you like. You are also free to control the races in your campaign and so on. I don't know GM yet who hasn't said "I don't like race X so they are not available". Running a game in a world populated solely by humans then player is human. QED. I disliked 4th edition because I got annoyed with combat encounters being the end all of every aspect of the game for groups. Banging out encounters in a Con setting is one thing, but being groused at for not completely 2 or more encounters every game session when I was enjoying roleplaying my character during that time was too much for me.

As a LONG time player of D&D in its varied forms (for the last 35 years or so now), I have come to actually like the 4th edition rules for their simplicity to a certain level. Essentials took that too far to the extreme, but I am liking the current level in 4th edition. I like it simply because of the fact that the rules work, but more importantly they don't get in the way anymore. All characters now can have a lasting and effective impact on combat and as someone who generally dislikes systems that increase hit points with levels I *LOVE* the fact that if an ancient dragon takes a dislike to a 10th level character they will can be dead in pretty short order. Even Kobolds are challanging opponents to fight now. There are enough power paths to follow that your group have have 3 players with the same class, but completely different focus and powers in that class as opposed to *every* fighter being the same in combat with the only difference really being the weapon they used.

I think you are giving too much credit to TSR and Gygax. While Gary Gygax may have wanted to keep the game "pure", and even that is debateable. TSR turned it solidly into a massive cash cow. The first thing I really still dislike with 4th edition is that there is much less fluff now. The books just aren't as captivating or interesting to read anymore for me. I find them useful, but no longer find buying a new D&D book an adventure in itself. I also really dislike the Gamma World setting they released that has very limited long term uniqueness to it. Finally I think Essentials is really what killed the 4th edition concept. That said, given what 4th edition is I don't see how waiting any more time would have made it "better" in your eyes. It would still be what it is, but would have just come out later. It would have changed the same ways as it did. Time wasn't the issue here. It was a different direction that was chosen specifically to *be* different.

I still have practically the entire catalog of AD&D and D&D versions from version 2.0 back in PDFs purchased and downloaded from WotC so can still play them whenever I want and do often go back to 2nd ediiton.

Skriker

http://geeksdreamgirl.com/2012/01/27/ddxp-2012-report-the-first-glimpses-at-the-new-edition-of-dungeons-dragons/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GeeksDreamGirl+%28Geek%27s+Dream+Girl%29

fyi

an interesting read, that Article, reds8n.

I came into DnD via my wife with 4th ed. (well, it was really 4th ed. because our GM, my buddy, had the materials to run 4th ed. stuff with us)

From what I understand of previous editions (through explanations by the wife, so I really dont know much), I think that 5th ed. DnD could be quite good. I know that most of our group enjoyed the character sheet setups, it was pretty easy to access what we needed when we needed it. Our group actually did prefer the approach of "roleplaying sets up the action" which did lead to quite hilarious fights, wizards who tried to convince the party that the large spiders were infact, corporeal zombie dire bears, and a rogue who seemed to always get the best shots in on the enemy.

I seems like most people form an attachment to the D&D edition that they first used in a long term campaign. I played a few games of 2nd but THACO and the rest of the rules just seemed counterintuitive at times; it didn't click for me till 3rd and that version has become "my" d&d. I could easily see people saying the same thing about 3rd if they were introduced in 4th.

The thing I'm most hopeful for (but still incredulous) is that the modular difficulty plugins work. In my last campaign, we had a wife of a regular player join us who had little to no experience with RPGs. She chose a two-weapon ranger build and we had to make a sheet for her in plain english with the bonuses listed for each weapon. A modular system that would decrease those 5-6 rolls and differing bonuses would have been a godsend in her eyes.

I came into the Dnd setting when I first entered high school and there was a group of guys and a teacher that ran a game. Classic stuff. We mostly used Adnd books but our campaign had a few differences, like Striker said, he hated Halflings, so they were out.

This was in about 2008 and 4th was starting at the time. Even though we loved the game and I loved my stupidly good healer, when we got hold of the 4th Ed books we never looked back. Our characters migrated with us as they found new ways to reflect their place in the group.

I'm looking forward to the new edition. I want to start fresh, enter a new world filled with the new lands and encounters. You guys have got it wrong. The rules are not what are important, it’s the experiences. Rules can be rewritten. What you experience with your friends will never fade away.

warboss wrote:I seems like most people form an attachment to the D&D edition that they first used in a long term campaign. I played a few games of 2nd but THACO and the rest of the rules just seemed counterintuitive at times; it didn't click for me till 3rd and that version has become "my" d&d. I could easily see people saying the same thing about 3rd if they were introduced in 4th.

The thing I'm most hopeful for (but still incredulous) is that the modular difficulty plugins work. In my last campaign, we had a wife of a regular player join us who had little to no experience with RPGs. She chose a two-weapon ranger build and we had to make a sheet for her in plain english with the bonuses listed for each weapon. A modular system that would decrease those 5-6 rolls and differing bonuses would have been a godsend in her eyes.

This is all my opinion, of course, but 2nd (which I started with) suffered from too many bolt-on bits and diverse symptoms. Every character had Non Weapon Proficiencies that were essentially toggles to allow attribute checks for various specialties, but then there were Thief Skills that used percentages, psionics that were a 'roll-low' on a d20 while everything else encouraged roll high, etc.

2nd also had massive numbers of settings: Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, spellJammer, Planescape, Ravenloft, and more.

3rd wasn't perfect, but at least integrated all of that weirdness.

Lots of 3rd party setting support. I don't know if I consider this 'good' or not. Some was good, some was bad. A lot of games forced a d20 version of a classic systems with various levels of success.

4th has had some neat ideas and is a good system, but the numbers get wacky at certain read, and the setting support has not really been great for me.

I'm hopeful 5th doesn't turn into a mess due to too much customization. An idea I have heard and liked is that the base 'system' is kept clean, but characters can choose to either stay on the 'normal' path or take more complex paths as part of the leveling process.

For example, a lvl 1 character has a choice of a race and core class (the D&D core of fighter, wizard, thief, and cleric) and is relatively 'clean' at level 1. Maybe a single 'feat' choice. 4th edition Powers are minimized or nonexistent.

Then at level 5 or so the fighter can stick with Fighter (and remain relatively "simple") for those that don't want the extra effort, or can choose from a lot of the more complex 3rd and 4th style options such as Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc. Take Warlord and get some 'command' abilites, but don't progress as a fighter as quickly.

The trick, of course, would be to balance that out...

Balance wrote:
For example, a lvl 1 character has a choice of a race and core class (the D&D core of fighter, wizard, thief, and cleric) and is relatively 'clean' at level 1. Maybe a single 'feat' choice. 4th edition Powers are minimized or nonexistent.

Then at level 5 or so the fighter can stick with Fighter (and remain relatively "simple") for those that don't want the extra effort, or can choose from a lot of the more complex 3rd and 4th style options such as Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc. Take Warlord and get some 'command' abilites, but don't progress as a fighter as quickly.

The trick, of course, would be to balance that out...

I think that fighter, wizard, thief and cleric would not allow very diverse starting parties. Personally, I like most of the 1st level "standard" character classes that exist in 4th. I know that I am not alone in saying that if they did away with most of the classes, it would kill the game; I wouldn't be a very big fan of a system that only allowed me to play a Monk as a "prestige class"

Speaking of prestige classes (I am assuming that this is what you are on about), I think that the principle is cool and would be cool to not necessarily expand on that, but round it out, i guess is a better term... For instance, if a character made a "ranger" at lvl 1, they could eventually prestige into a druid or something similar (in my mind the druids should be more of a ranger with natural wizard-like spells, not a healer type)

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I think that fighter, wizard, thief and cleric would not allow very diverse starting parties. Personally, I like most of the 1st level "standard" character classes that exist in 4th. I know that I am not alone in saying that if they did away with most of the classes, it would kill the game; I wouldn't be a very big fan of a system that only allowed me to play a Monk as a "prestige class"

Speaking of prestige classes (I am assuming that this is what you are on about), I think that the principle is cool and would be cool to not necessarily expand on that, but round it out, i guess is a better term... For instance, if a character made a "ranger" at lvl 1, they could eventually prestige into a druid or something similar (in my mind the druids should be more of a ranger with natural wizard-like spells, not a healer type)

It's an idea I have heard, not my own, and it's intended to be a bit different (and possibly not exclusive with) Prestige Classes.

The idea as I understand it is that levels 1-5 are basically getting to know thew character and, in thinking about it, the first 'big step' might be better served at level 3. A Monk might be a 'fighter' for a couple levels, and many campaigns might just start at 3 or 5 anyway... But the idea is that Bob that wants to play a 'basic fighter' can pick Fighter, stay with Fighter as long as they want, picking feats or equivilent that a re 'basic fighter' stuff like enhancing charges. Chad can take Fighter and the Unarmed Combat feat at level 1, then at 3 (or 5, whatever) move into Monk and gains abilities and complexity: A lot of the Monk specials won't work in heavy armor, for example.

The main thing is that a core D&D 'thing' is that players often identify with characters heavily by class/race. It's not "Bob, Warrior from the North" but "Bob, Fighter with Shield Bash and Cold Resistance." Stripping things back to a very core list of classes (and maybe go from 4->8 to allow a few more base classes) might encourage players to build around concept first, stats second. The classes as presented above become more iconic and replace the not-well-liked 'roles' from 4th and fulfill the goal of being simpler... There's a subset of gamers who want 5th edition to be more like 1st, including removing a number of non-core classes and races

Not that every gamer does this, of course.

Personally, I'd like to see Prestige Classes return in some form, ideally as something a character earns not just qualifies for. I'd rather see Prestige Classes like "Knight of the Western Reaches." These should be either from a specific setting (So Knights of Solamnia from Dragonlance, for example, would possibly be a collection of classes) but an opportunity would be to publish some generic ones. The player doesn't choose these: they are awarded as rewards. It means the mechanical requirements can be a bit lower and makes them a bit more 'special.' Hopefully less Prestige Classes like 'Gladiator' that are optimized versions of a job any fighter could do, more like the original Blackguard that 'rewarded' a very specific turn to evil.

Balance wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see Prestige Classes return in some form, ideally as something a character earns not just qualifies for. I'd rather see Prestige Classes like "Knight of the Western Reaches." These should be either from a specific setting (So Knights of Solamnia from Dragonlance, for example, would possibly be a collection of classes) but an opportunity would be to publish some generic ones. The player doesn't choose these: they are awarded as rewards. It means the mechanical requirements can be a bit lower and makes them a bit more 'special.' Hopefully less Prestige Classes like 'Gladiator' that are optimized versions of a job any fighter could do, more like the original Blackguard that 'rewarded' a very specific turn to evil.

I think that Prestige classes can be written in as they were in 4th ed. A basic "choice" for the gamer, if they meet the prereqs. for the class. I think that this is a case where the DM/GM needs to be the DM/GM, and with proper planning can be a very characterful way of bringing the players further into the story they are playing. For instance, at a decent point in a campaign, the GM can ask their players to think ahead to that 11th level, and tell them earlier on (say, 8 or 9) what Prestige class they want, if any, and work it into the campaign so that they do earn it, rather than just select.

According to the WOTC website, this is the character classes available at lvl. 1 (currently): Druid, Invoker, Psion, Ranger, Seeker, Warlock, Wizard, Barbarian, Battlemind, Fighter, Paladin, Sword Mage, Warden, Ardent, Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Runepriest, Shaman, Warlord, Assassin, Avenger, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, Vampire.

Obviously, that is a HUGE amount of classes available from the get-go, and when I read the descriptions of some of them, they are often the "same" thing with different abilities. I would like to see these as starting classes: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Monk, Wizard, Warlock, Paladin (its too iconic NOT to include here), Warden, Shaman, and Barbarian. This way players can have a fairly good selection of options for their first level, and if you join another game and are allowed to emigrate your character (such as Encounters or something) you run less risk of having a duplicate of the same class in the party.

I don't think the game needs to strip down to 4 or 5 absolute basic classes, but I dont think they need the 20 or however many that is above (especially when, as I said, many appear to work the same way, with very little variation between abilities).

Balance wrote:This is all my opinion, of course, but 2nd (which I started with) suffered from too many bolt-on bits and diverse symptoms. Every character had Non Weapon Proficiencies that were essentially toggles to allow attribute checks for various specialties, but then there were Thief Skills that used percentages, psionics that were a 'roll-low' on a d20 while everything else encouraged roll high, etc.

2nd also had massive numbers of settings: Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, spellJammer, Planescape, Ravenloft, and more.

3rd wasn't perfect, but at least integrated all of that weirdness.

Lots of 3rd party setting support. I don't know if I consider this 'good' or not. Some was good, some was bad. A lot of games forced a d20 version of a classic systems with various levels of success.

Yeah, 2nd had a ton of stuff thrown together ala Palladium Books but that was the norm back then as unified systems didn't really become common till the 90's (shadowrun was the first one I played that had it). 3.5 was probably a mistake as it didn't really change much but invalidated alot of 3rd party material for games stores as well as players. If anything, pathfinder should have been 4th edition and WOTC should have skipped 3.5 IMO. As you said, the key to this modular system is balance within the same class, not necessarily between the classes. 4e felt like the classes were well balanced between each other because they all felt like they played with similar mechanics. This modular system seems like it has the possibility of solving the issue. I guess we'll find out in another month or two.

Where 4th fell down for me was a lack of compelling settings. Because 3.0 and 3.5 were more "open source" they had stuff like the Swords and Sorcery Ravenloft setting, which is still one of my all time favourite settings (perhaps because of my group_ and planescape was pretty much underwritten into the main setting so that it was easy to do. Eberron was not always popular with folk, but I loved it, and we still had tonnes of Forgotten Realms for folk who like their fantasy a little more generic.

4th on the other hand has had only 1 or 2 really strong setting books- underdark and darksun. I also felt that the artwork and flavour text in 4th was too much of a departure from the gritty fantasy roots of D'n'D, something that Pathfinder has successfully capitalised on. The "feel" is a big deal for roleplayers- the less reflective will react to a feel they don't like first, before looking at the actual mechanics and gameplay. If the feel is wrong, they will not give the game a good chance, not taking it seriously and so on.

I'm running a 4th edition Darksun game at the moment, online. I do think that it slightly discourages creativity in some ways- my players (who I GM'd in 3.5) seem to come up with fewer wacky ideas for whatever reason. I've restructured skill challenges, and will be trying to convince them that they can do other wacky stuff in combat too, if they like. But the base rules seem to have made them complacent, whereas in 3.5 they were much more creative.

3.5 was definitely broken past level 14, but it was a lot of fun for that "sweet spot" from level 3 up to 10. Some of my best gaming memories are from it, and I guess if I went back to running it it would fit like a glove. I intend giving 4th a good run though, at least until my guys get bored. I am not enthusiastic about 5th. If the "feel" is right, I will buy in, but if it seems lacking in that regard I won't, simply because my 100+ euro investment in 4th has only just paid off after 3 years.

I'm not sure if thishas been talked about already, but the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast focused on 5th ed in their last episode. Apparently, form what they'd heard/been told, people will be able to run different edition rules during the same game - i.e., one player with THACO, another with power cards, another with whatever rules made 3.5 special.

Any thoughts?

Also, I'd like to say one good thing about 4th - I do happen to own the 3 PHBs, the DM's Guide, MM1, and the rules update book. The game was incredibly useful for getting non-rpg playing people into trying D&D, thanks to the powers.

infinite_array wrote:
Also, I'd like to say one good thing about 4th - I do happen to own the 3 PHBs, the DM's Guide, MM1, and the rules update book. The game was incredibly useful for getting non-rpg playing people into trying D&D, thanks to the powers.

I did like the "streamlining" that went on with the character abilities and whatnot. To our gaming group (of which a couple of us had never done any RPGs before), it should have allowed the game to progress more smoothly (however, it didn't due to party members not paying attention during encounters)

I did like the ability to run various campaigns with more or less "grimdark" in them during 4th with the various expansions, ie. post-spell-plague Forgotten Realms was a much more hazardous place than "standard DnD", and I would hope that if 5th ed. does not reproduce many of those books, that we can at least use them in 5th (I personally love the Book of Shadow, since it has my new favorite player race, the Vryloka)

infinite_array wrote:I'm not sure if thishas been talked about already, but the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast focused on 5th ed in their last episode. Apparently, form what they'd heard/been told, people will be able to run different edition rules during the same game - i.e., one player with THACO, another with power cards, another with whatever rules made 3.5 special.

Any thoughts?

Just that this is highly unlikely. There is a huge difference in the likelihood of getting multiple levels of intricacy working for the same class using the same system of rules compared with getting it to work using vastly different base mechanics. I suspect people are taking the whole "play d&d your way like any edition" marketing speak a bit too literally. You might be able to use THACO as a group with the system via a rules plugin of sorts but having multiple rulesets on the same tabletop with different mechanics (one rolling high to pass, another rolling low, etc) would be added complication for little to no benefit.

Found an interesting transcript of a seminar from the 5th edition team that might be if interest:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-skills-ability-scores.html

Some good things, some bad things to my taste. Overall, a lot of it is still far too sketchy for me at the moment.

I do think the new 'skill' system will be interesting. No "hard" list of skills everyone has. However, there will be ways to get skills as part of classes/races/themes/feats/whatever. So a Thief would get a +2 (or whatever) to Sneaking, which would be applied to a normal Dex roll to sneak. So anyone can sneak, and possibly even be competent, but the thief will be better at it (likely by a lot, as the Thief combines an already good dex with the bonus). Skills could be highly specific (History of the City) or generic (Acrobatics) and there's room to negotiate with the GM on them, I'd guess.

Themes sound interesting, too. So for 'Fighter' you might have choices from 'Gladiator', 'Soldier', etc. Not as detailed as Prestige Classes, but available from day 1. Dark Sun uses something like this, and I guess it's been well received.

I'm not sure if I like some comments I've seen that the system may go to opposed rolls for combats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:

infinite_array wrote:I'm not sure if thishas been talked about already, but the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast focused on 5th ed in their last episode. Apparently, form what they'd heard/been told, people will be able to run different edition rules during the same game - i.e., one player with THACO, another with power cards, another with whatever rules made 3.5 special.

Any thoughts?

Just that this is highly unlikely. There is a huge difference in the likelihood of getting multiple levels of intricacy working for the same class using the same system of rules compared with getting it to work using vastly different base mechanics. I suspect people are taking the whole "play d&d your way like any edition" marketing speak a bit too literally. You might be able to use THACO as a group with the system via a rules plugin of sorts but having multiple rulesets on the same tabletop with different mechanics (one rolling high to pass, another rolling low, etc) would be added complication for little to no benefit.

It looks like there's some mention of modular sub-systems, like Tactical Combat being a 'modular' plugin that can be used. I like tactical combat (except when it bogs down) so I'm hoping it doesn't get broken if GMs want to sue it for big fights but not for little ones.

Balance wrote:
Themes sound interesting, too. So for 'Fighter' you might have choices from 'Gladiator', 'Soldier', etc. Not as detailed as Prestige Classes, but available from day 1. Dark Sun uses something like this, and I guess it's been well received.

Sounds like it should be an interesting concept, and I wonder how far theyd take that? Perhaps, certain 'themes' lock or unlock certain prestige classes (I would think it'd be safe to assume that they lock or unlock certain abilities, as they are focusing on different things)

I'm not sure. The Themes might all essentially replace prestige classes.

I get the feeling they're stepping back from the 3rd and 4th edition 'everything must have a rigid game rule' with things liek the more free-form skills. I wouldn't be surprised if this applies to Themes and classes as well.

The swedish version of DoD by Riotminds was by far more interesting and engaging than the English version in my opinion. Its a real shame that it wasnt translated into multiple languages before the company went under last year.

Da Boss wrote:Where 4th fell down for me was a lack of compelling settings. Because 3.0 and 3.5 were more "open source" they had stuff like the Swords and Sorcery Ravenloft setting, which is still one of my all time favourite settings (perhaps because of my group_ and planescape was pretty much underwritten into the main setting so that it was easy to do. Eberron was not always popular with folk, but I loved it, and we still had tonnes of Forgotten Realms for folk who like their fantasy a little more generic.

But do you really need a specific book to run in a setting? I have been playing and running D&D for a long time. I am well versed and familiar with all the settings I like, by now, and can easily port whatever I need into whatever version of the rules I am using. Heck my last Ravenloft campaign was run using the 1st edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, so it wasn't even a D&D ruleset.

4th edition has left a lot of open space in the settings they have released: Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron and the Shadowfell (Ravenloft). I can see where this can cause panic for those who are less experienced as GMs, but the simple fact is you can go back and grab whichever previous version of the settings you like and fill in all the gaps in story and background just fine. In some instances it is easier, as with deities where it really doesn't matter what their specific "spheres" are anymore because that isn't what determines a speciality priest's spells anymore. Most of the creatures you need or want to use are already ported over in one form or another (for dragonlance fans, draconians can be found in the metallic dragons draconinomicon book). It isn't too hard to create up a list of powers for one of the Who's damned of Ravenloft either.

The classes are generic enough in 4th ediiton that any specialty classes can be created. A fighter with the heavy armor proficiency feat can easily fit as a dragonlance Knight of the Crown or Rose. A Knight of the rose could also be created using a warlord. A knight of the sword would be a paladin easily enough. Same can easily be done with other classes. Campaign world specific races can be fit into the system as well. Kender can easily be created using current halfing rules, maybe giving them a bonus with thievery or giving them training in thievery for free.

4th edition is completely open eneded at this point and can allow just about anything to be represented. The classes are not specific to the campaign world so can cover them all.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

infinite_array wrote:I'm not sure if thishas been talked about already, but the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast focused on 5th ed in their last episode. Apparently, form what they'd heard/been told, people will be able to run different edition rules during the same game - i.e., one player with THACO, another with power cards, another with whatever rules made 3.5 special.

Any thoughts?

That sounds like typical "let's make everyone happy!!" BS that, if implemented, would pretty much make it impossible for them to finish a new rules version because they just won't join up anymore. Not to mention that the concept of THAC0 just doesn't even apply anymore now that armor class is cumulative and gets higher the better it gets. Something to be said for the direct and intuitive relationshp that exists now between armor class and the to hit roll. THAC0 was just the mechanic that was necessary to enable the silly system where the better your armor the lower your AC.

I also can't imagine too many GMs not expecting players to play on whichever level they want to run the game on and given that if I prefer the THAC0 based system I can already play 2nd ediition. If I like the power cards and 4th ediiton I can play that. If I prefer the way 3rd ediiton does things I can play that. I don't need a new version of D&D that does them all at once. I can already do all of them.

Also dislike the concept of only having "core" classes. Yes some of the classes play the same, but that is because there are only 4 core combat roles for characters. I find the specific powers and mechanics as to how the classes fulfill those roles to be more interesting and different. Strikers cause damage, so all strikers are going to focus on causing damage. Controllers, Leaders and Defenders all fill their roles, but while the classes that fill those roles are *similar* they are not exacte duplicates of each other.

Of course, unless something magical happens, which I don't expect to be the case I am not buying 5th edition anyway, so who cares??

Skriker

I love my 4e but I'll give 5th a look before making any investments into it.

Be the envy ..( ?) of your fellow party members !


http://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/333

infinite_array wrote:I'm not sure if thishas been talked about already, but the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast focused on 5th ed in their last episode. Apparently, form what they'd heard/been told, people will be able to run different edition rules during the same game - i.e., one player with THACO, another with power cards, another with whatever rules made 3.5 special.

Looks like this is officially NOT the case according to WOTC. You will apparently be able to emulate the feel of one of the previous editions but not use characters from all of the pseudo-editions together. You pick one and run it...

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120206

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this. I feel like 4th edition really strove to clear out some junk and moved the 'Player vs. GM' pendulum to a point where there was very little 'GM Ruling'... The GM for the game I'm in pointed out that if you're running pre-written modules the GM is practically passive as the rules are so complete. Maybe selecting this was a result of looking at the 'Knights of the Dinner Table' adversarial Player-GM relationships, but it perhaps went too far.

From what I'm hearing, 5th looks to crank that back a notch. The GM is encouraged to allow improvisation and other fun stuff. I'm hopeful they can keep that aspect without bringing back some of the boring parts of previous editions.

Some things I don't want to deal with again: 15 minute dungeon work day. Monsters who primarily exist to allow the removal of annoying equipment, powers, or player characters. The expectation that everything in the entire game world wants my character dead. Tracking numbers that aren't interesting (I like abstracting ammo, rations, and even treasure to a point!). Systems with uneven complexity (A variant of the linear-fighter/quadratic-wizard problem, in that in many versions of D&D wizards have whole subsystems to manage while fighters have very simple combat options).

Balance wrote:I'm still cautiously optimistic about this. I feel like 4th edition really strove to clear out some junk and moved the 'Player vs. GM' pendulum to a point where there was very little 'GM Ruling'... The GM for the game I'm in pointed out that if you're running pre-written modules the GM is practically passive as the rules are so complete. Maybe selecting this was a result of looking at the 'Knights of the Dinner Table' adversarial Player-GM relationships, but it perhaps went too far.

Not sure I agree with your GM, there. It isn't as if the GM has no role in pre-written encounters or modules. You can't force a change in the adversarial player-GM relationship with rules changes if it exists in a group. When I run I run as players vs. environment, but some poorer GMs definitely run it as players vs. themselves and do whatever they can to "win", even at the expense of player enjoyment. That is a *big* fail on the side of the GM. Pre-written modules have existed in every version of D&D and AD&D that has existed and while they take a lot of the adventure building out of the hands of the GM, they don't run the game for the GM. The GM still needs to make that pre-written module come to life. They still make all of the decisions for any NPCs/opponents, and have to work the combat encounters the same way. Pre-written modules definitely save time outside of the game sessions by not requiring the GM to make up everything themself, but they really take none of the efforts off of the GM's shoulders inside game sessions.

Some GMs run pre-written modules exactly as written. I have to admit I haven't run a pre-existing module as completely written in decades. Seldom do those modules exactly fit my own desires as a GM so I pick and choose what I include and what I change. This also keep those who may have seen a given encounter before who tries to capitalize on that information from being able to take advantage of their previous experience.

Skriker