PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Alejandro
2012-01-09, 10:09 AM
The Mod Wonder: This is me, hijacking Alejandro's OP. Per the one topic, one thread rules, please direct all conversation about announcements regarding 5e/D&D Next to this thread. If there are other 5e threads in the Roleplaying Section (including subforums), please report them and we'll combine them.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hpw

Matthew
2012-01-09, 10:23 AM
It is also already up on the WotC website: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109



Charting the Course for D&D: Your Voice, Your Game
Legends & Lore
Mike Mearls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may have read in the New York Times, it’s an exciting time for Dungeons & Dragons. We are happy to announce today that we are developing the next iteration of D&D, and will be looking to the legions of D&D fans to help shape the future of the game along with us.

Our mission is to ensure that D&D enters its next 40 years as a vibrant, growing, and exciting game. By listening to the needs of the D&D community, we can meet this goal. As part of our increased efforts to engage with the player-base, we launched a series of weekly articles in early 2011, including Rule of Three and Legends & Lore, to give you a voice in our work. We’ve listened to both praise and criticism from all D&D fans, regardless of their edition of choice, and we’ll continue to do so.

That is why we are excited to share with you that starting in Spring 2012, we will be taking this process one step further and conducting ongoing open playtests with the gaming community to gather feedback on the new iteration of the game as we develop it. With your feedback and involvement, we can make D&D better than ever. We seek to build a foundation for the long-term health and growth of D&D, one rooted in the vital traits that make D&D unique and special. We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.

D&D is more than just a set of rules for fantasy gaming. It launched an entire gaming genre and played a pivotal role in creating the entirety of the gaming industry, both analog and digital. The game has lived and thrived because it has awoken a spark of creation, visions of daring adventure, wondrous vistas, and untold horrors that pull us all together as a community of RPG fans. It is the countless players and DMs who have brought it to life over the years. The game is at its best when it is yours.

For that reason, we want your participation. The goals we have set for ourselves are by no means trivial or easy. By involving you in this process, we can build a set of D&D rules that incorporate the wants and desires of D&D gamers around the world. We want to create a flexible game, rich with options for players and DMs to embrace or reject as they see fit, a game that brings D&D fans together rather than serves as one more category to splinter us apart.

We have begun obtaining feedback from a limited Friends & Family playtest consisting of internal employees and their gaming groups and soon we will be expanding that group to consist of members from our existing body of playtesters. Then at the D&D Experience convention in late January, Wizards of the Coast will conduct a special playtest of ideas currently in development. The D&D Experience will be moving to Gen Con in 2013, so as a convention special this year, we will be offering show attendees a first-look at a draft of the new set of rules. Then beginning sometime in the spring, we will begin open playtesting. Through our web site, we will release a growing set of rules, classes, monsters and other materials for your study and feedback. We seek to reach as many people as possible, from the gamer who just started with D&D last week to the gaming group that has been together since the early-1970s. For this process to work, we want to give a voice to all D&D fans and players of all previous editions of the game.

The next year is going to be an exciting one. There is a lot of work to be done, and I’m hoping you have the time, energy, and inclination to pitch in. We sure hope you do, as we seek to make gaming history by shaping the future of D&D, together.


And some discussion: 5E? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549&page=34)

Novawurmson
2012-01-09, 11:13 AM
Thought I would share for anyone who missed it (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share).

What would you most want to see in a completely new edition? What would you most want WotC to avoid? Would you ever consider switching from your favorite edition?

I'm a little too in love with Pathfinder at this point to be too excited, but I'll be keeping an eye on it.

Fax Celestis
2012-01-09, 11:21 AM
Pretty sure people know what I want. *points at signature*

Metahuman1
2012-01-09, 11:23 AM
Can I PLEASE get a game that still gives Magic and Psionics power but allows Melee to have options and relevancy Ala the Tome of Battle Classes, and allows for a better laid out and possibly powered up version of Magic of Incarnum?

CTrees
2012-01-09, 11:31 AM
Oooh man, I'm glad I got to this before the edition war debates started...

Honestly? 4e's balance and polish with regards to combat (except rebalanced to allow for PvP), 3.5's flexibility, options, and mid-career multiclassing, crunch for roleplaying at least on the order of PF's skill system (though hopefully more on the order of what some other games bring), the return of the OGL, PDFs for every book released, removal of 4e's constant churn of erratta, and the return of THAC0 and lower AC being better (purely for nostalgia's sake). Oh, and a better system for playing monsters/monstrous races. Also, fully detailed and updated setting books, with splat support, for Planescape and Spelljammer.

Never happen, but I can wish!

Metahuman1
2012-01-09, 11:33 AM
Oh, and a better system for playing monsters/monstrous races.

This part I Like!

Edit: Now that I think about it, some of the neat things Pathfinder did, like expanded rules for early fire arms for more pirate/steam punk games, and Wizards having Item Familiars and Paladins have special sword/lance that upgrades with them, would be pretty sweet.

Aron Times
2012-01-09, 12:28 PM
I am excite! :cool:

INITIATE ANTI-EDITION WAR SHIELD!

JackRackham
2012-01-09, 01:09 PM
4e's balance and polish with regards to combat (except rebalanced to allow for PvP), 3.5's flexibility, options, and mid-career multiclassing, crunch for roleplaying at least on the order of PF's skill system (though hopefully more on the order of what some other games bring), the return of the OGL, PDFs for every book released, removal of 4e's constant churn of erratta. Oh, and a better system for playing monsters/monstrous races.

This pretty much sums up my feelings (I removed the offending call for Thaco). I would also like the melee classes to be closer to TOB in terms of the options they have in a given situation, if not necessarily the actual mechanics.

LordBlades
2012-01-09, 01:20 PM
This pretty much sums up my feelings (I removed the offending call for Thaco). I would also like the melee classes to be closer to TOB in terms of the options they have in a given situation, if not necessarily the actual mechanics.

Also, PCs and monsters that function by the same rules, for the sake of world consistency please:smallcool:

Tvtyrant
2012-01-09, 01:23 PM
I would like it to have neither 4.0s "every class does different things, but in the same way" and 3.5s "every class does the same thing, but in different ways." Legitimately distinct classes without the constant overlap would be nice.

Vknight
2012-01-09, 01:28 PM
I don't really care. I'll check it out but just like people that still play 3.X I think I'm going to stick with my 4e.
Now if 5e plays like delicious Cream Soda then I may change over systems but probably not

Seerow
2012-01-09, 01:31 PM
Also, PCs and monsters that function by the same rules, for the sake of world consistency please:smallcool:

Seriously I really hope not. The way 4e handled monsters (in terms of ease of use) is one of the best things that WotC did in 4e. It makes things infinitely easier on a DM trying to figure out what his party can and cannot handle, and it's also much easier and faster to run monsters with only a couple of powers vs monsters with a full PC stat block. The only change I'd want to see is in the core math, where monsters typically have a little too much HP and too little damage, particularly at higher levels. The benefit of getting PCs who can play as monstrous races is dubious at best. While strange/exotic races are relatively popular on the internet, my experience is that the vast majority of gaming groups don't like them even if they are perfectly balanced.

CTrees
2012-01-09, 01:36 PM
(I removed the offending call for Thaco)

Heh, even I will acknowledge that what 3.0 introduced accomplishes the same thing as 2e's to hit system, but in an objectively better manner. However, THAC0 was the biggest thing which tripped me up about 3.0, and is one of the few early edition things that just hits major nostalgia for me. I don't actually understand it. It's like how githyanki are my favorite race - why? Dunno, I just like 'em.

Douglas
2012-01-09, 01:42 PM
A) Rules that are consistent with the concept of being a world simulator. Not as in the DM having to work through rules to figure out everything that happens in the world, but in the sense of the world making logical sense if the rules are taken literally as the game world's version of physics.
B) Complex and varied options and interactions, in both fluff and mechanics.
C) A simple reliable metric for character (and monster) power, such that knowing this one number (character level, challenge rating, or equivalent) is enough for DMs to judge likely encounter difficulty, possibly with caveats about the presence or absence of particular abilities.

Yes, these requirements (particularly B and C) place conflicting and opposing demands on the nature of the rules system that are difficult to resolve. Resolving them anyway is WotC's job and doing it successfully would justify a high price for the game.

MeeposFire
2012-01-09, 01:47 PM
The question is whether it is going to be more like 3e and 4e which were big departures or will this be closer to 1e and 2e which were more like taking the previous material and tweaking it.

Starbuck_II
2012-01-09, 01:54 PM
Can I PLEASE get a game that still gives Magic and Psionics power but allows Melee to have options and relevancy Ala the Tome of Battle Classes, and allows for a better laid out and possibly powered up version of Magic of Incarnum?

Ooh, can we bring back Exp for Treasure too? Monsters give less Xp to account for that.
Focus game on exploration and looting (like the old editions).

So while you can fight (even rogues with their maneuevers*), you get more bang for the buck just looting and running.

*Yes, I think all class should have maneuvers like ToB but not the way 4E did it. But the way Sublime Way/ToB does it (with rechargable maneuvers whether like swordsage or Warblade).
4E decided no recharging in battle (well, later they had Prc to get around that, but you know what I mean) unlike ToB.

Aron Times
2012-01-09, 01:54 PM
I can has sorcerer in the Player's Handbook 1, and not have to wait a year for the Player's Handbook 2?

Mando Knight
2012-01-09, 02:01 PM
The question is whether it is going to be more like 3e and 4e which were big departures or will this be closer to 1e and 2e which were more like taking the previous material and tweaking it.

Or 3.0 to 3.5.

One interesting thing about the official Wizards article: Mike never mentions the phrasing "5th Edition" anywhere, just "the next iteration." They might choose to officially number this one 4.5 or something.

Yora
2012-01-09, 02:03 PM
Somewhere they stated that they are still deciding how to name it.
But I guess with everyone calling it 5th Edition now, they probably won't come up with something different when they present more details in three weeks.

Urpriest
2012-01-09, 02:03 PM
Seriously I really hope not. The way 4e handled monsters (in terms of ease of use) is one of the best things that WotC did in 4e. It makes things infinitely easier on a DM trying to figure out what his party can and cannot handle, and it's also much easier and faster to run monsters with only a couple of powers vs monsters with a full PC stat block. The only change I'd want to see is in the core math, where monsters typically have a little too much HP and too little damage, particularly at higher levels. The benefit of getting PCs who can play as monstrous races is dubious at best. While strange/exotic races are relatively popular on the internet, my experience is that the vast majority of gaming groups don't like them even if they are perfectly balanced.

It's tough to make monsters with the same rules as players, but from everything I've heard Legend has pretty much nailed it. Have you taken a look at what they're doing?

Seerow
2012-01-09, 02:06 PM
It's tough to make monsters with the same rules as players, but from everything I've heard Legend has pretty much nailed it. Have you taken a look at what they're doing?

Yes, I have, and have voiced my displeasure with their system in the Legend thread. I like the rules for PCs, but 4 tracks worth of abilities for an average enemy is too much junk to keep track of, especially if you want any sort of encounter diversity. I liked 4e's monsters because I could have a diverse group of opponents filling different roles with different abilities, and still have it be easily manageable both to balance and run. Legend in my opinion is even worse as far as enemy complexity than 3.5 is.

Yora
2012-01-09, 02:07 PM
I can has sorcerer in the Player's Handbook 1, and not have to wait a year for the Player's Handbook 2?
Now that you say it. Spell Slots would be one thing that would make me not want to play the game. I'd be fine with spell points, though.

Metahuman1
2012-01-09, 02:10 PM
If anything form 4E stays, it should be some of the Fluff. I'd like to see it merged with SELECTIVE bits of fluff form 3.5 and Pathfinder myself.

MeeposFire
2012-01-09, 02:10 PM
Or 3.0 to 3.5.

One interesting thing about the official Wizards article: Mike never mentions the phrasing "5th Edition" anywhere, just "the next iteration." They might choose to officially number this one 4.5 or something.

They might but I think calling it 5e and then make it a revision might go over better than a ".5" even if they looked exactly the same.

Tvtyrant
2012-01-09, 02:11 PM
One of the things I really liked about 4E was minions, with their ability to still be relevant in combat in large numbers, but not cause instant TPK. Other than templating the heck out of low level monsters, there wasn't a lot like that in 3.5 (you could use epic templates like Paragon to a similar effect, but that is about it).

Blisstake
2012-01-09, 02:12 PM
It's tough to make monsters with the same rules as players, but from everything I've heard Legend has pretty much nailed it. Have you taken a look at what they're doing?

That's actually one of the underwhelming parts of the Legend system in my opinion. The enemies seem to all end up similar, and have a bit too many abilities: especially when you want to make simple enemies like grunts or minions.

What I do enjoy about monster creation in 3rd edition is that you can really diversify enemies by adding PC class levels and/or items, which I think is one of the few advantages to using the same rules for monsters and players. One thing that annoyed me about 4e monsters were how enemy humanoids (who you'd expect to have similar rules/stats to players) were treated closer to monsters than players. This caused strange dfferences when PCs get NPC allies, or when enemies turn against eachother.

Person_Man
2012-01-09, 02:26 PM
Wow, this came earlier then I expected.

Anywho, my hope is that they combine the best parts of 3.5 and 4E and leave out the parts that sucked in each.

Specifically, my preference would be for a balanced template of power progression (4E or Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/)) and combine it with significant, meaningful, fun powers (3.X, 3.5R (http://forum.faxcelestis.net/index.php), Pathfinder) and leave out the cruddy minor bonuses and insignificant Feats/Powers/etc that were a feature in both games.

Also, it'd be easy to address the whole "should monsters be simple or just like PCs" issue by doing BOTH. Each monster can have a simple/balanced pre-generated set of abilities, with an optional "Track" of abilities for players who want to play that monster or DMs who want to customize and/or progress the creature.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-09, 02:29 PM
Numbered editions are so last century. They'll probably call it D&D Vista or something.

MeeposFire
2012-01-09, 02:35 PM
Numbered editions are so last century. They'll probably call it D&D Vista or something.

Actually haven't they gone back to numbers...woo windows 7.

Yora
2012-01-09, 02:42 PM
In that case, make it Dungeon & Dragons 2013.

Human Paragon 3
2012-01-09, 02:46 PM
At first, i was excited to see D&D 5e in the NYT... but reading the article, you can practically see the eye-roll at the end of every sentence.

The author is talking about a billion dollar sales figure, but the tone is one of obvious incredulity and disappointment that such a product could be successful. It's a "childish pursuit" unlike basketball, literature, and movies, which have entire sections in this newspaper...

bloodtide
2012-01-09, 02:49 PM
My dream would be for 5E to bring back the DM.

Right on the first page have a disclaimer--''This game is not Fair and Balanced. We could not make such a game even if we had 100 years. And we don't have that much time. This is a simple action adventure game created so that you can have fun.''

And then--''The DM is the absolute ruler of the game, even above the published rules. All players agree to go by what the DM says.''

And--''As a Dm you must make sure everyone has fun, and whatever your group thinks of as 'balance' is done.''

And then a bunch of pages about how the DM must take control of the game, and not just sit back and let the rolls and rules have control.

So if you have a Melee Whiner Type Group it would give advice like --''Make sure that sometimes the mage's fireball just fizzles out, but when the fighter attacks a single target his weapon 'leaps' to hit all foes in range. That way your group will like the 'options' the fighter has.''

Manateee
2012-01-09, 02:51 PM
I'd like:
Rules-light core, supplemental crunchiness, zero magic item dependence and lots of monster manuals.

My default dungeoncrawl system has been WR&M with the AD&D 2e monstrous compendiums for inspiration. It'd be nice to have continuing support for that kind of game, and to have the sort of widespread system acceptance that D&D gets.

Tenno Seremel
2012-01-09, 03:07 PM
From my view on 3.5:

Feats that work for once. Also, no super long feat chains.

Something about auto-scaled saves vs spell DCs.

Useful at wills at low levels.

Tvtyrant
2012-01-09, 03:09 PM
My dream would be for 5E to bring back the DM.

Right on the first page have a disclaimer--''This game is not Fair and Balanced. We could not make such a game even if we had 100 years. And we don't have that much time. This is a simple action adventure game created so that you can have fun.''

And then--''The DM is the absolute ruler of the game, even above the published rules. All players agree to go by what the DM says.''

And--''As a Dm you must make sure everyone has fun, and whatever your group thinks of as 'balance' is done.''

And then a bunch of pages about how the DM must take control of the game, and not just sit back and let the rolls and rules have control.

So if you have a Melee Whiner Type Group it would give advice like --''Make sure that sometimes the mage's fireball just fizzles out, but when the fighter attacks a single target his weapon 'leaps' to hit all foes in range. That way your group will like the 'options' the fighter has.''

How is this different then just posting a sign saying "homebrew your own game, give us the money!" on the inside cover? Why would I pay for a game that has as its central feature me making up the rules, when I could do that for free?

Alejandro
2012-01-09, 03:11 PM
Numbered editions are so last century. They'll probably call it D&D Vista or something.

So you're saying it will not work well with your PC?

:smallbiggrin:

Metahuman1
2012-01-09, 03:29 PM
How is this different then just posting a sign saying "homebrew your own game, give us the money!" on the inside cover? Why would I pay for a game that has as its central feature me making up the rules, when I could do that for free?

Because it gives you guide lines to work with. And it's not like that hasn't been accepted tradition in table top since 1st edition anyway.

All it does is spell it out in the book a little more clearly and give some suggestions on how to do it well.

Also, Another I second the notion of Lot's of Good Feats that Actually do things. I like the idea in Frank and K's Tome project that all feat paths should be condinsed down into one feat that scales with level. Makes something like weapons focus or Dodge witch is only taken to get into a PrC or get a much better feat later worth while in it's own right.

Ziegander
2012-01-09, 03:36 PM
I'd like:
Rules-light core, supplemental crunchiness, zero magic item dependence and lots of monster manuals.


This, this, 1000 times this. Core should be as rules-lite as D&Dly possible, and run with JUST ONE BOOK. The game should function on a tight, well-oiled, and basic game engine, with any other stuff coming from supplements.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 03:40 PM
I'm going to disagree on the "lots of feats that do lots of unique things".


If feats are everyone's primary source of cool things, then sure. But most everyone who says this ALSO wants cool abilities a la maneuvers/spells. In this case, most feats that would do something cool, would be better as a power. Why make Stand Still a feat when that would be a great buff, or immediate interrupt power? Why make power attack a feat rather than a core combat option? Why should whirlwind attack or rapid shot be feats rather than powers?


I think it would actually be pretty cool if feats could let you direct yourself towards a given role. Rather than having classes in stringent roles (something a lot of people complain about), have most classes capable of filling 2 or 3 roles via power selection, and then feats augment the passive things that make them better at that role. Things like "Upgrading a power to add a status effect is cheaper" or "When you hit a target, you can choose to make the attack apply to a small area" as controller focused feats. Standard damage increases, mobility, and power cost reductions for striker focused feats. Defense increases and things that discourage enemies from attacking allies as defending focused feats. A player can choose to mix and match the feats to taste, but are expected to choose to lean towards one role.



So basically powers = cool things, feats = passive things that increase baseline statistics or modify powers.

Tenno Seremel
2012-01-09, 03:42 PM
Why make Stand Still a feat when that would be a great buff, or immediate interrupt power?

Because you can use it over and over again, for example.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 03:45 PM
Because you can use it over and over again, for example.

So it could be an at will power, or extremely low cost power, depending on the system. Or a passive buff that's relatively cheap to put up all day. There's plenty of ways to handle it as a power in almost any system.

Eldan
2012-01-09, 03:46 PM
Well, I have a few unrealistic wishes first, but sure:

Make Planescape the core setting and hire Tony Di'Terlizzi to do all the art.

Back to reality now:

I think the game would work better with fewer classes that had more mechanical diversity. Make two dozen classes, at most, but give each of them options at every level. Like Tome of Battle's maneuver selection, a mage's spell selection and so on, for every class. Meaningful build choices at every level. And make hte mechanics diverse, so that every class is different in every relevant aspect. Power application, focus, resource management, all of them.

Less focus on combat. I'd likeat least as many, if not more, utility powers than combat powers. And I'd like these versatile. Ideally, every power would have both utility and combat applications. A fireball would also have applications in siege warfare, mining and controlled demolition. And that's just the obvious ones.

Wide power scales. I love 3.5 because a level 20 character is so massively different from a level 1 one. It's not just the numbers getting bigger and the number of powers increasing. It's the scale of things a character can affect. From raw recruit, to local hero to global warlord to planar force, 3.5 can handle all of these as players (handle them badly, perhaps, but it isn't entirely closed to the idea).

More fluff. I love books that are almost entirely fluff. Give me books of world descriptions. More Faces of Sigil, less Complete Epic Level Samurai. More Van Richten's Guide, less Monster Manual XVIII.


Edit: A few more.

Take the idea of balance behind the next shed and shoot it in the head. I'd rather have an unbalanced game that works as a world simulator and is mechanically diverse than one where no one is stronger than his team mate.

Less boring mechanics. Almost every 3.5 book seems ot have sections that are just not worth reading. More feats that give just +1 to something. I'd really love to see an edition with only a handful of numerical bonuses. No more +2 to a skill feats, or +1 to hits, or +2 intelligence items. They are boring.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 03:49 PM
I think the game would work better with fewer classes that had more mechanical diversity. Make two dozen classes, at most, but give each of them options at every level. Like Tome of Battle's maneuver selection, a mage's spell selection and so on, for every class. Meaningful build choices at every level. And make hte mechanics diverse, so that every class is different in every relevant aspect. Power application, focus, resource management, all of them.


If you're making everything down to resource management different, you probably want to keep the number of classes to about 8. Even that is pushing it. And I think if you tried to do D&D with classes that starkly limited, you'd incite rebellion.

I would however be fine with 8 core classes that are radically different at everything, and then have alternate classes in splat books that are similar to one of the core 8 in terms of resource management, but have some different class features to make the play differently.

Tenno Seremel
2012-01-09, 03:50 PM
So it could be an at will power, or extremely low cost power, depending on the system. Or a passive buff that's relatively cheap to put up all day. There's plenty of ways to handle it as a power in almost any system.

As long as you don't get a very small amount of at-wills that are useful only at low levels.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 03:52 PM
As long as you don't get a very small amount of at-wills that are useful only at low levels.

Well yes I'm not saying "I want to see a 4e clone"

Dark Kerman
2012-01-09, 03:58 PM
Hello, as i'm sure most of you have heard, there is word on the wind of 5th edition. What I wonder is what people want it to include and what you think would make it good? :smallsmile:

Maxios
2012-01-09, 03:59 PM
Get rid of the horrible balancing (it's a good idea in theory, but in practice it gets rid the ability of customising your charater to your liking), and the at-will/encounter/daily attack system.

Eldan
2012-01-09, 04:01 PM
If you're making everything down to resource management different, you probably want to keep the number of classes to about 8. Even that is pushing it. And I think if you tried to do D&D with classes that starkly limited, you'd incite rebellion.

I would however be fine with 8 core classes that are radically different at everything, and then have alternate classes in splat books that are similar to one of the core 8 in terms of resource management, but have some different class features to make the play differently.

Let's see of how many i can think.

Tome of Battle: per-encounter powers.
Warlock: At-will powers.
Vancian: per-day powers.
Psionics: points for powers, on-the-go.
Incarnum: points for stat increases and powers, usually pre-invested.
Binder: selection of power-sets, with cooldownper ability.

Hmm. That's six.

Anyway, as for alternate classes: I'd prefer those more as alternate class features. Make Paladin an alternate class feature for clerics. that kind of thing. Swap out a few abilities, keep others.

Istari
2012-01-09, 04:05 PM
Lots of alternate classes/archetypes pathfinder style.
Mechanically different classes, wizards continue to use spell slots with no metamagic, but have more ritual and magic item style abilities, and sorcerers switch to spell points, have bloodlines, default access to metamagic for example.
Warriors and Skill monkeys get combat options.
Very few Save or Xs.

4e had some things they did right, but killed immersion, made combat too movement oriented (I want to be able to play without needing a battlemap sometimes) and made the classes too similar.

CTrees
2012-01-09, 04:05 PM
Also, no super long feat chains.

Actually, I like the idea of a super long, complicated feat chain, but only if the end result is something awesome. I think that's what the designers were going for with some feats like Whirlwind attack, but they unfortunately failed (badly). I think a good example is Pathfinder's Dimensional Agility/Assault/Dervish/Savant line. It's a lot of investment, and it's arguable whether it's worth it, but the end result (teleporting around so rapidly you can flank a creature with yourself, and making attacks between teleports) is just cool - now you can finally be Nightcrawler, only with more death!

Toofey
2012-01-09, 04:09 PM
I hope it gets back to actually being dungeons and dragons. I would like to see D&D back to it's roots, with tons of optional bells and whistles and a larger selection of 'base' classes.

Excession
2012-01-09, 04:14 PM
For the most part I like 4e, but there are some things I'd like to see:


Remove some of the complexity of tracking status effects. Actually, some of the essentials classes have already done that. The Knight's aura 1 for marking as opposed to the original Fighter's "mark what you attack" for example. The Hexblade being a warlock without a curse is another good example. No complex conditions from at-will actions might be a good guideline.
I dislike the tracking required for the once per round immediate action. Again, the Knight shows that using once per turn opportunity actions works fine.
Get PCs and monsters onto roughly the same numbers. Monsters should be faster to build, but it'd be nice if the HP totals and damage output were in the same ballpark.
If they're going to continue with the most pre-built essentials style, they should have a rule that you either get a choice or a good power. No bad or highly situational stuff that you are forced to take. As an example, there's a Hexblade build where the first daily is a close burst 1 that isn't even enemies only. Why does a single target striker get a hard to use AoE for a daily?

Tenno Seremel
2012-01-09, 04:15 PM
Actually, I like the idea of a super long, complicated feat chain, but only if the end result is something awesome. I think that's what the designers were going for with some feats like Whirlwind attack, but they unfortunately failed (badly). I think a good example is Pathfinder's Dimensional Agility/Assault/Dervish/Savant line. It's a lot of investment, and it's arguable whether it's worth it, but the end result (teleporting around so rapidly you can flank a creature with yourself, and making attacks between teleports) is just cool - now you can finally be Nightcrawler, only with more death!

On the other hand that makes it so it is rare in play because of the amount of investment required. Not sure if that's a good thing.

Totally Guy
2012-01-09, 04:17 PM
I hope for a game where fights can be honestly lost as well as won without bringing the game to a halt.

Eldan
2012-01-09, 04:18 PM
Someone mentioned that feats should be numerical and passive things, and class powers new abilities.

I couldn't disagree more. Feats that are "+2 to damage" or "+3 to a skill" bore me. It's just bigger numbers, it's not anything new.

To me, the difference is that class abilities are only open to one class, while feats are open to everyone. Which means that a lot of things that are feats in D&D should really be class powers: if only fighters or people with turn undead or arcane casters can take a certain feat, make it a class power, not a feat.

A good feat, to me, should give a new ability that is open to every class, and not too tightly linked to an archetype. That's all.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 04:23 PM
Someone mentioned that feats should be numerical and passive things, and class powers new abilities.

I couldn't disagree more. Feats that are "+2 to damage" or "+3 to a skill" bore me. It's just bigger numbers, it's not anything new.

To me, the difference is that class abilities are only open to one class, while feats are open to everyone. Which means that a lot of things that are feats in D&D should really be class powers: if only fighters or people with turn undead or arcane casters can take a certain feat, make it a class power, not a feat.

A good feat, to me, should give a new ability that is open to every class, and not too tightly linked to an archetype. That's all.

1) Why does a feat need to be something new? Why can't it be something that makes you better at what you do? It's nothing new is not a valid argument in of itself unless that is all you get when you levelup. As long as you are getting class features and powers, it isn't.

2) You assume powers are available to only one class. I'd much rather spells be like they are in 3.5, where there is a lot of overlap between classes. Not a 100% overlap, but some.

3) Coming up with dozens or hundreds of unique non-passive abilities that aren't keyed to a specific class or archtype is ridiculously hard. Just try to come up with a list, see how far you get.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-09, 04:25 PM
Ideally? It'd be a bit like 3.5, but with the following changes.

Easier char creation with less fiddly bits like mundane adding for skill modifiers. Note that I LOVE complex chars myself, but copying numbers is just tedious, and some players really like simple chars. Both styles of char should be viable.

More dangerous combat/complex encounters. Even without notable optimizing, I can kinda faceroll any vaguely level appropriate encounter in 3.x or 4.

Better social rules. Holy god, do I hate diplomacy as it is written.

Better support for non-magical laden item chars. Again, I have no problem with them myself...but not everyone needs to be one.

An explicit mechanism for players/dms to negotiability affect the plot, similar to drama dice or fate points.

Smaller numbers. Seriously, a thousand xp per level, 100 xp an encounter...you can basically lop off the last digit of all that stuff. It's like tracking spell components or purchases of fishhooks. Dispense with all the pointless bookwork.

Saph
2012-01-09, 04:26 PM
More than anything what I'd like them to do is go back to including real significant variety between the classes.

In 3.5 you can play a basic melee fighter/archer, a Vancian caster, a spontaneous caster, a psionic character who casts with PP, a ToB martial adept who uses maneuvers, an Incarnum user who reallocates essentia, a factotum who uses inspiration, and a dozen other types who are all wildly different in mechanics and feel, and you can play all of those classes at any level between level 1 weaklings who go down in one blow to level 20 near-omnipotent demigods who treat the multiverse as their playground.

It's the variety that appeals to me and it's the reason that I'm still playing 3.5 despite having given up on 4e a couple of years ago. If they can't match 3.5's variety then I'm probably not going to stick with 5e no matter how shiny it is.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-09, 04:29 PM
It's the variety that appeals to me and it's the reason that I'm still playing 3.5 despite having given up on 4e a couple of years ago. If they can't match 3.5's variety then I'm probably not going to stick with 5e no matter how shiny it is.

This, really. I *love* variety. I expect a decent amount of it even within core. If it doesn't have variety, it gets, at best, relegated to a niche game for running when there's something that fits into what it handles best. The games that have massive systemic variety in core are invariably the games I run for campaigns of any length.

valadil
2012-01-09, 04:41 PM
Get rid of the horrible balancing (it's a good idea in theory, but in practice it gets rid the ability of customising your charater to your liking), and the at-will/encounter/daily attack system.

One place where I think that sort of system would benefit things would be for buffs. This was what I first expected when I heard about this type of powers. Basically I don't like tracking how many minutes took place between encounters to figure out if a buff is still around or not. I'd rather handwave away the time between encounters and just know if a buff should last for a round, a fight, or all day.




Easier char creation with less fiddly bits like mundane adding for skill modifiers. Note that I LOVE complex chars myself, but copying numbers is just tedious, and some players really like simple chars. Both styles of char should be viable.


I was thinking about this earlier today. What I'd like to see would be if each class was more like a template. Make it really quick and simple to copy the fighter out of the book. But give options for swapping out skills or class abilities for those of us who like to crunch numbers.

For my own hope, I loved playing 3.5 and I loved playing 4e. But OMFG was 4e easier to run. I didn't need to know the system as well. I could trust the players to know their own powers. Things just ran and I never had to referee or house rule. On top of that, the XP budget worked so much better than CR that I could just deploy an encounter and as long as it was within budget it just kind of worked. I don't think I ever spent more than 15 minutes statting enemies for a session.

I want WotC to realize they aren't a software company. That doesn't mean that I don't want electronic resources - DDI was a huge part of why I could stat encounters quickly - but I'd like it if WotC outsourced more of their software to someone who could write it better.

Finally I'd like to see more emphasis placed on setting. 4e's FR books were pathetic. Entire countries were summed up in a single page. I'd much rather have a book full of adventure hooks, locales, history, and NPCs in Cormyr than another list of feats and powers.

Yora
2012-01-09, 04:46 PM
- Generic classes that are customizable. I think the paragon paths in 4th Edition were the right idea, though I have no idea about the implimentation. Pathfinder with the Rage powers, Rogue Talents, and Sorcerer bloodlines are another attempt, or the Talent Trees from Star Wars Saga. But I'd like to see the game limited to 10 base classes that can get additional customizations as options.
Like having a warrior cleric or a cloistered cleric. Maybe even make it that you can multiclass them and split up advancement among the branches.

- No spell slots. I really don't want to have "I can not cast fireball again today, but I still have a lightning bolt and a fly spell to offer if that is any use." Spell points like Expanded Psionic Handbook would be my preference.

- No/less Ability Trees. A rogue with two daggers who taunts enemies to stab them in the back should be playable starting from 1st level. In 3rd Edition, I need two Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, and Improved Feint and by that point I'm 12th level and the campaign has like long ended.

- Drop small modifiers. +1 to attack here, -1 on saves against fear there, that is all too much bookkeeping for way too few payback with buff spells. If you have such modifiers, make them permanent to include on the character sheet, or make them really make a difference at +4 to attack or -6 on Reflex saves.

- Less steep power increase. Once you're 5th level, goblins no longer bother you, at 10th level you laugh at ogres. At 15th level only dragons are worth your time and giants are used as mooks. I would like for early monsters to stay meaningful longer, while you can have epic fights against giants and dragons at the same time. I don't want to have to cut XP by 4 to have a sword and sorcery campaign that can last for 20 or 30 sessions without the PCs being able to storm castles all by themselves while being invulnerable to the guards. But at the same time, low-level characters should be able to defeat 3 or 4 of the same guards.

- Optional system tied in with the basic rules. Psionics, Incarnum, and Maneuvers all require to add new classes to the game and stuff like that. Instead I would like to enable or disable certain options in the running campaign. Like switch all spellcasters from prepared casters to spontaneous casters without having to rebuild them or even deal with a completely new spell list.

CTrees
2012-01-09, 04:48 PM
On the other hand that makes it so it is rare in play because of the amount of investment required. Not sure if that's a good thing.

I'm actually okay with that. If the end of the chain is something awesome, but it's rare to see because of the investment required... that rarity actually tends to make it slightly cooler.

Now, there's a difficult balance here, between "so powerful they're required, and take half a characters feats, breeding homogeneity," "cool, worth the investment, but not overpowering," and "maybe interesting, maybe dull, but really weak, so not worth bothering with." But since we're going over our wishes, for hypothetical, perfect game designers, I'll push the idea, anyway.

Southern Cross
2012-01-09, 04:50 PM
Actually, Saph, what I really want is a fusion of Arcana Evolved and Pathfinder- that is the Arcana Evolved game system (though the setting should be a separate book), but with the changes that Pathfinder made to D&D 3.5.
(Plus of course,replacements for the existing racial feats, as most of the Arcana Evolved races (with the exceptions of humans and dragons) do not seem to exist on other worlds (unless you are running a Ptolus campaign).

Saph
2012-01-09, 05:01 PM
- No spell slots. I really don't want to have "I can not cast fireball again today, but I still have a lightning bolt and a fly spell to offer if that is any use." Spell points like Expanded Psionic Handbook would be my preference.

I think this would be a really bad idea from WotC's perspective. This is exactly why Pathfinder was able to steal so much of WotC's playerbase - all the players who wanted to play Vancian casters stuck with 3.5 or went to Pathfinder rather than going to 4e.

3.5's greatest strength was always the huge variety of mechanics and power levels that you could play around with. For every bit of that they decide to abandon, they'll lose a corresponding bit of the playerbase.

Mando Knight
2012-01-09, 05:08 PM
In that case, make it Dungeon & Dragons 2013.

D&D 2013: We're dropping everything Mayan from the mythos.

Yora
2012-01-09, 05:09 PM
It's just a system without any internal logic and unique to D&D. Being able to cast one fireball, one lightning bolt, and one fly spell, instead of being able to cast three fireballs or two lightning bolts and a fly spell.
Having a sorcerer who is able to switch his spells known every morning with his spellbook would be something I can live with, but I need at least the option, out of the core rules, to run a campaign in which spellcasters have some degree of flexibility in what spells they cast each day, like sorcerers or psions.
Having to ban all prepared caster classes for my game and leaving only sorcerers, dragon shamans, and favored souls would be something I'd rather avoid. And switching to an entirely different system like psionics would be even worse, since you can't simply use the regular spells out of the book.

Blas_de_Lezo
2012-01-09, 05:10 PM
I felt D&D 4 as playing a videogame, which is not. So my group and me just QUIT playing D&D... (nobody wanted to "go back" to 3e)

Damn you Wizards...

We really hated many things from 4e. But I'm telling the most offensive stuff, out of hope to not be included in 5e, 5.0, 5whatever:

- Classic table RPG are NOT videogames. If you try to design a table RPG as a videogame, you won't have neither a videogame, neither a table RPG. So people will prefer to play videogames o go back to "safe" table RPG editions (all this revivial of "old school D&D" that we're living, well, at least in Europe)

- If there are classes, they should be different in mechanics and effects. We had the feeling playing 4e that choosing classes was like choosing the same character "with different color", as in a videogame. So, you can do almost the same type of actions and attacks, just call them "martial, arcane, psionic and divine", but at the end there was not almost diferences. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "fireball attack" for all classes: arcane ball, divine ball, blade circle and psionic ball: blast 1, 1d6+proper stat, ¿sounds familiar? :smallmad:

- Forget about the perfect "balance". It's impossible to reach. Back in other editions, the player who played the meat shield was happy with that simple role, and the player who played the wizard was renowned as he had to "study" many books. This doesn't mean that warrior shouldn't have fighting options, but that it should be something unique and credible: not a weird swing of the sword that you can only do 1/day for who-knows-what-reason. Utterly ridiculous.

- It really took me out-of-the-game, that you could fight in an almost deadly combat, where you are stabbed, swinged, burnt, and critically-hit with a damn big sword, and you go to bed and wake up fully replenished without any wound. I mean, ¿¿what?? I know D&D uses HP system, but this kind of thing totally makes you believe that you're playing a videogame by just speaking. It looks designed for diminished.

- All the powers and abilities (again, a warrior shouldn't have "powers") are almost only usable at a fight. Again, it makes me think of Final Fantasy, where you can only chatter around and you are only able to use you powers in a fight (I was only hoping to the DM screen to change the kind of view of the table! :smallamused: )

- Roleplaying is role playing, not roll playing neither roll paying.

- There is too many magic, too many "special effects", too many powers. It makes magic look cheap.

- Where do you buy your magical items? Why can't I defeat the guy selling them and take all the magical stuff with me? Is it that you buy in an extradimensional space where you aren't allowed to kill the shop keeper? ¿As in a videogame?

- Which leads me to... Why should PCs depend on magical equipment to be effective, why did you do it WotC? ¿¿WHY?? It's so retarded. Many people don't like to depend on so many items to be effective. I want my choice back! PCs should work ok if they didn't have a fluffa-dooly-starric ton of magical garbage. Magic items should be less common. It will make finding one cooler.

Damn, this feels good... I really wanted to spit this out... It's somekind of relief, therapy or something... :smallsigh:

EDIT: also, combat in 4e is way too long.

Yora
2012-01-09, 05:11 PM
3) Coming up with dozens or hundreds of unique non-passive abilities that aren't keyed to a specific class or archtype is ridiculously hard. Just try to come up with a list, see how far you get.

It also makes it unneccesarily difficult to customize the character the way you want. Chery picking isn't all bad in such a case.

Tvtyrant
2012-01-09, 05:13 PM
2) You assume powers are available to only one class. I'd much rather spells be like they are in 3.5, where there is a lot of overlap between classes. Not a 100% overlap, but some.


See, this is what I am emphatically against. In 3.5 you have a series of powers that everyone has to have to be relevant, and most of the interesting/unique design goes into how to handle those abilities.

Look at the list of tier 3s, and you find that they all have different mechanics for getting powers. However, a lot of those mechanics go to replicating a series of first, second and third level spells.

Flight, invisibility, dispel, protection from energy, shatter, false life (temporary hit points), etc. Everything a Swordsage/psywarrior/beguiler/binder/etc. does is something that everyone does already, but using different mechanics.

Blackfang108
2012-01-09, 05:16 PM
My only hope for 5e is nonexistence until 2020.

I guess I'll be disappointed.

So I'll hope that it is closer to pre essentials 4e than any other edition.

Delvin Darkwood
2012-01-09, 05:19 PM
To make it a roleplaying game again! 4e was far too combat centric. It was far too concerned with "how many spaces can this thing move a turn", "how many ways can i flank this or that", "how many times can i roll these dice for this much damage". It wasn't a role playing game. It was a tabletop war game, with a fantasy feel attached. My biggest problem with 4e was that it didnt even feel like D&D. Even 3rd edition, where it changed everything around from AD&D, still felt like dungeons and dragons. Sure, the rules were different, optimization was a new found beast, but that didnt matter, because it still held the feel and essence of dungeons and dragons.

My hope is that they'll reign it back in with a focus on roleplay, and make a battlegrid an option, not a nessesity. What i like in 1st Edition AD&D is that there are rules for fighting on a grid, but you certainly dont need it. Far from the same can be said in 4e, were everything is in terms of how many squares this or that. A greater degree of character customization would be wonderful, and a doing away with a laundry list of various "at wills" or "encounter powers". Also, making it so that death is actually a possibility instead of everyone getting pampered with all these "healing surges". All these high numbers, having 30 some odd hp at level one, its ridiculous. I'm going to stop myself now, before this turns into more of a 4e rant.

bloodtide
2012-01-09, 05:26 PM
Because it gives you guide lines to work with. And it's not like that hasn't been accepted tradition in table top since 1st edition anyway.

All it does is spell it out in the book a little more clearly and give some suggestions on how to do it well.

The basic problem with D&D, and really all RPGs is that they are rules that are somehow meant to cover all of (an alternate) reality. But it would be impossible to come up with a 'game' that can cover 'life'. A book can't be too many more then 300 pages, and you can't fit it all in.

But what you can do is give people the basic building blocks of an alternate reality. And let each DM build off of it.

Yora
2012-01-09, 05:26 PM
The problem is that you can't sell players books with fluff. Books with new classes and feats apparently always sell, but I think they are exactly what gets people into the mindsets of searching for the optimal way of representing their character and finding powerful synergy connections, instead of making your character unique through his personalty.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And when the game designers hand you lots of books on a regular basis and tell you "here, you need this to overcome the shortcommings of your current character build", then improving the build becomes what you concentrate on.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 05:39 PM
See, this is what I am emphatically against. In 3.5 you have a series of powers that everyone has to have to be relevant, and most of the interesting/unique design goes into how to handle those abilities.

Look at the list of tier 3s, and you find that they all have different mechanics for getting powers. However, a lot of those mechanics go to replicating a series of first, second and third level spells.

Flight, invisibility, dispel, protection from energy, shatter, false life (temporary hit points), etc. Everything a Swordsage/psywarrior/beguiler/binder/etc. does is something that everyone does already, but using different mechanics.

So you want a bunch of different powers doing the exact same thing with a different name rather than just using the same power? I understand wanting different subsystems, but that doesn't explain not wanting shared powers.

ShriekingDrake
2012-01-09, 05:50 PM
What makes our games great is the DM. And frankly, the DM had more to work with in 3.x. 4 had a better combat system, but thee gave the players and dm more to work with. Take the good from both, but favor 3.x, I say.

horseboy
2012-01-09, 05:57 PM
To make it a roleplaying game again! .Well, I'd argue with the 'again" part, but other than that, yeah. They really need to choose between "detail heavy" and "detail light". You can't really do both well in one system. Detail heavy requires so many more character resources than detail light that there's no really good way of scaling short of just launching parallel systems, then you're competing against yourself.

Tvtyrant
2012-01-09, 05:58 PM
So you want a bunch of different powers doing the exact same thing with a different name rather than just using the same power? I understand wanting different subsystems, but that doesn't explain not wanting shared powers.

No, I want the subsystems to do different things. My point is that 3.5s subsystems don't do different things, its basically the same dozen powers repeated. I don't see the point of classes with similar abilities or subsystems; I would prefer that classes do different things and do them in different ways.

Yora
2012-01-09, 06:02 PM
They seem to aim for a modular approach.

For example, you could have skills purely optional by not making skill ranks prerequisites for other things. So as in AD&D, you can play the game with skills or without.
Or you could make sub-classes like Kits in AD&D or the archetypes of Pathfinder. You can use them, or you can stick to the standard class chasis.
Or have a simple and expanded equipment list: The simple list has "dagger, small sword, medium sword, large sword", while the expanded list has "dagger, knife, kukri, stilett, gladius, sabre, scimitar, falchion, broadsword, claymore, longsword, katana, bastard sword" and so on.

Those would be options the DM could "enable" or "disable" for the campaign as he sees fit, since neither option depends on the other options being available in the game or conflicts with them.

turkishproverb
2012-01-09, 06:03 PM
I'm hoping for something good. Mind you, with all the d&D descendants out there, I doubt it'll be hard for me if it's not...

horseboy
2012-01-09, 06:07 PM
Those would be options the DM could "enable" or "disable" for the campaign as he sees fit, since neither option depends on the other options being available in the game or conflicts with them.
The problem with this is that before you can make a character the DM then has to hand out a list of what is and what isn't allowed that's only slightly thinner than the PHB.

DrBurr
2012-01-09, 06:09 PM
The Return of Wizards as Vancian Magic Users, though I love 4e, Wizards bug me because theirs no real difference between them and Sorcerers besides Power selection
An overhaul of the skills system
Retaining Fighter's combat challenge and some powers, maybe in the form of Stances which give a +1 to opportunity attacks or something
4e's HP system, a simple X+CON
4e's 4 Defenses over 3e's Saves
Return of the Two Axis Alignment
The ability to have Useful characters without Magic Items
The ability to play without a battle grid

MagnusExultatio
2012-01-09, 06:12 PM
I'd like to have this topic repeated and reposted at least a hundred more times, because we clearly don't have enough of these threads.

Blas_de_Lezo
2012-01-09, 06:16 PM
Well, I'll rant a bit about what I don't want...:smallbiggrin:

I felt D&D 4 as playing a videogame, which is not. So my group and me just QUIT playing D&D... (nobody wanted to "go back" to 3e)

Damn you Wizards...

We really hated many things from 4e. But I'm telling the most offensive stuff, out of hope to not be included in 5e, 5.0, 5whatever:

- Classic table RPG are NOT videogames. If you try to design a table RPG as a videogame, you won't have neither a videogame, neither a table RPG. So people will prefer to play videogames o go back to "safe" table RPG editions (all this revivial of "old school D&D" that we're living, well, at least in Europe)

- If there are classes, they should be different in mechanics and effects. We had the feeling playing 4e that choosing classes was like choosing the same character "with different color", as in a videogame. So, you can do almost the same type of actions and attacks, just call them "martial, arcane, psionic and divine", but at the end there was not almost diferences. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "fireball attack" for all classes: arcane ball, divine ball, blade circle and psionic ball: blast 1, 1d6+proper stat, ¿sounds familiar?

- Forget about the perfect "balance". It's impossible to reach. Back in other editions, the player who played the meat shield was happy with that simple role, and the player who played the wizard was renowned as he had to "study" many books. This doesn't mean that warrior shouldn't have fighting options, but that it should be something unique and credible: not a weird swing of the sword that you can only do 1/day for who-knows-what-reason. Utterly ridiculous.

- It really took me out-of-the-game, that you could fight in an almost deadly combat, where you are stabbed, swinged, burnt, and critically-hit with a damn big sword, and you go to bed and wake up fully replenished without any wound. I mean, ¿¿what?? I know D&D uses HP system, but this kind of thing totally makes you believe that you're playing a videogame by just speaking. It looks designed for diminished.

- All the powers and abilities (again, a warrior shouldn't have "powers") are almost only usable at a fight. Again, it makes me think of Final Fantasy, where you can only chatter around and you are only able to use you powers in a fight (I was only hoping to the DM screen to change the kind of view of the table! )

- Roleplaying is role playing, not roll playing neither roll paying.

- There is too many magic, too many "special effects", too many powers. It makes magic look cheap.

- Where do you buy your magical items? Why can't I defeat the guy selling them and take all the magical stuff with me? Is it that you buy in an extradimensional space where you aren't allowed to kill the shop keeper? ¿As in a videogame?

- Which leads me to... Why should PCs depend on magical equipment to be effective, why did you do it WotC? ¿¿WHY?? It's so retarded. Many people don't like to depend on so many items to be effective. I want my choice back! PCs should work ok if they didn't have a fluffa-dooly-starric ton of magical garbage. Magic items should be less common. It will make finding one cooler.

- Also combat in 4e is way too long.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 06:16 PM
No, I want the subsystems to do different things. My point is that 3.5s subsystems don't do different things, its basically the same dozen powers repeated. I don't see the point of classes with similar abilities or subsystems; I would prefer that classes do different things and do them in different ways.

Well there's always going to be things that everyone wants to or needs to do. A campaign where one guy can fly and everyone else can't sucks for everyone else ESPECIALLY when all the monsters can do it as well..

I'm not saying every class should have the exact same power list to pick and choose from, but those universally needed things should either be equally accessible by anybody at a point where it is still relevant, and the easiest way to do that is via shared powers.


Classes/Power Sources can have unique powers that aren't shared among others. But core things that multiple sources need shouldn't be repeated, they should just be available to the sources that need them.

Yora
2012-01-09, 06:17 PM
The problem with this is that before you can make a character the DM then has to hand out a list of what is and what isn't allowed that's only slightly thinner than the PHB.
Is that any different than saying "In the campaign we start, you can use psionics and Binders, but no Incarnum and Tome of Battle. Also your characters can not be evil, will start at 4th level and everyone starts with one magic item worth about 2,500 gp."?

Sorcerer Blob
2012-01-09, 06:30 PM
It was an interesting article, both the NYT and D&D ones. I have some mixed feelings about it: I'm lamenting the loss of the first D&D edition I really considered my own but also excited for what the future holds. It's a weird feeling, to be sure. Dread Gazebo (www.dreadgazebo.net) definitely has the right attitude about it on his site.

That said, I'd be happy with a return to the "Advanced" line as far as naming goes. D&D 2013 just sounds so... "bleh" to me. The "Anniversary" moniker would also be fitting and interesting, methinks.

2013 is going to be an interesting year, and this playtest sounds intriguing. Here's to hoping we all get something that we want out of this!

bloodtide
2012-01-09, 06:31 PM
- Generic classes that are customizable. I think the paragon paths in 4th Edition were the right idea, though I have no idea about the implimentation. Pathfinder with the Rage powers, Rogue Talents, and Sorcerer bloodlines are another attempt, or the Talent Trees from Star Wars Saga. But I'd like to see the game limited to 10 base classes that can get additional customizations as options.
Like having a warrior cleric or a cloistered cleric. Maybe even make it that you can multiclass them and split up advancement among the branches.

I too like generic classes, but sure don't like the 4E 'locked in' type system. I like it more like 3E where a person can make any type character they wish and they don't have to follow a set plan.

Psyren
2012-01-09, 06:31 PM
*snip*

I agree with this whole post (well, except the magic items thing - I think magic items should be either a necessity or at least extremely desirable at high levels, and their lack should be a significant drawback for most classes - but the rest is spot on.)

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-09, 06:35 PM
Well, I'd sure like Dungeons and Dragons this time, rather then Dungeons and Dragons: World of Warcraft. A return to subtle, awesome, animeish Tieflings, rather then "DEVILS FROM 1990 DEATH METAL ALBUMS!". Something like a total return to form.

horseboy
2012-01-09, 06:35 PM
Is that any different than saying "In the campaign we start, you can use psionics and Binders, but no Incarnum and Tome of Battle. Also your characters can not be evil, will start at 4th level and everyone starts with one magic item worth about 2,500 gp."?

Yeah. Especially if they're all in the core book. It's far easier to say "Nothing past companion 1" than it is to go "okay, so in companion 2 take q-v skills, but not m, oh and skill b now has options 2, 5, and 12.

Nero24200
2012-01-09, 06:35 PM
As long as their marketing strategy for this one isn't "You played 3.5? Wow, how could you like a game that stupid? Try this one instead" like it was for 4e I'll be keeping an eye on it to see how it develops.

Yora
2012-01-09, 06:36 PM
Being able to decide to branch out into other groups of abilities is also a major thing for me. Didn't like how multiclassing was handled in AD&D and 4th Edition seemed even worse.
When my barbarian decides at 8th level to become a devout believer and starts to train in divine magic, I don't want to have to rebuild him, but to add that to the abilities he already has.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 06:38 PM
Well, I'd sure like Dungeons and Dragons this time, rather then Dungeons and Dragons: World of Warcraft. A return to subtle, awesome, animeish Tieflings, rather then "DEVILS FROM 1990 DEATH METAL ALBUMS!". Something like a total return to form.

How is it 5 or 6 years later the 4e is like WoW myth is still around?

Yora
2012-01-09, 06:38 PM
Apparently they are going the other way now. "Wasn't it great back then?!" Which is just sad if you're a huge Essentials fan, of which I heared there aren't many.

Yora
2012-01-09, 06:40 PM
I think the one at CNN is best. It's much better structured and probably easier to follow if you're not already deep within the whole thing.

navar100
2012-01-09, 06:40 PM
Bring magic back to D&D instead of "casting a spell" be another way of saying "swinging a sword" or "firing a bow".

Ideally: Use the psionic point system of Expanded Psionics as the magic system (no adding fatigue!) and use the Book of Nine Swords system for combat (fix the stance progression!) adding archery.

Kurald Galain
2012-01-09, 06:41 PM
Hello, as i'm sure most of you have heard, there is word on the wind of 5th edition. What I wonder is what people want it to include and what you think would make it good? :smallsmile:

Faster combat. This is the most important one by a long shot.

Greater variety between classes (basically what Saph said).

A larger section on skills and what to do with it (they've always felt as an afterthought in the 4E PHB1), including the Perform and Repair skills, and an abandonment of skill challenges.

Less fiddly circumstantial bonuses that everybody keeps forgetting, and less action types (combine immediate with opportunity, and free with no action).

And no disassociated mechanics.



(edit)

It's just a system without any internal logic and unique to D&D.
No, it's from the books of Jack Vance. That's why it's called "Vancian". It also shows up in a number of other RPGs, such as Amber DRP.


- Which leads me to... Why should PCs depend on magical equipment to be effective, why did you do it WotC?
The funny thing is that when 4E was announced, one of the promises WOTC made was to step away from the Magical Item Christmas Tree effect (of course, they immediately followed that up by saying that each character could use no more than twelve items at the same time...)

WitchSlayer
2012-01-09, 06:51 PM
Either something completely different from that which came before or 4.5

Psyren
2012-01-09, 06:58 PM
Apparently they are going the other way now. "Wasn't it great back then?!" Which is just sad if you're a huge Essentials fan, of which I heared there aren't many.

They're going too far if you ask me. "Remember how great 1e was?" I can't imagine what they could do to bring those guys to the same table with 3.5 and 4e players...

Shyftir
2012-01-09, 07:01 PM
#General
I hope that it will be a lot like Starwars Saga. I think taking D&D back to its true roots (tabletop wargaming) was a good idea. I don't want your mamby-pamby white-wolfy social systems. I want RPing to be done by players not systems.
(BTW I think that 4e is pretty good, but took a few things too far and that 3.5 had become a monolithic monster of complicated subsystems.)
Please make skills a simple part of the game! 4e and Saga do this well, hint hint!

#Magic
Magic should be powerful but dangerous both to casters and enemies. I like powerpoints but I think that it should still feed off your endurance. I love it when a wizard falls to the ground utterly exhausted after unleashing incredible arcane destruction upon the enemy.

#Melee
I'd like to see mechanics that encouraged inventing cool stunts in combat not just handing out lists of stuff you can do. I want shield and sword to be viable! I want to see improvisation be key instead of lists of hard won feats.

Yora
2012-01-09, 07:05 PM
Either something completely different from that which came before or 4.5

4.5e would really be commercial suicide. That's what you produce if you want to make really sure you'll never have any success with the brand ever again.
Essentials was an attempt to give 4th Edition a new kick, and shortly after that the first signs for a new edition started to appear.

And yes! If they have to base it on anything, then Star Wars Saga! By far the best d20 game there is.

Nero24200
2012-01-09, 07:07 PM
They're going too far if you ask me. "Remember how great 1e was?" I can't imagine what they could do to bring those guys to the same table with 3.5 and 4e players...

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if they just aimed for the 3.5 crowd. Pathfinder's success is an indication that there IS a market for people who like 3.5 style roleplaying games, something they might have previously thought of as a non-issue when starting 4th edition.

It's been a while since I've been to the PF forums, but IIRC many have said one of their reasons for liking PF is because "it continues 3.5".

Yora
2012-01-09, 07:07 PM
And I am very sure it won't be the same table. What we can realistically hope for is having people at different table having the same Basic Rulebook and completely different expansion books.

But the 3.5e crowd might be very hard to get. Lots of Pathfinder fans seem very dedicated.
However, I am very diehard 3.5e crowd and stuck to PF for convenience, and I very much hope they'll make something that finally allows me to get a better game for me. I really hope that this will be something for me. Though I don't know how many other 3.5e fans think similar.

Sorcerer Blob
2012-01-09, 07:10 PM
I think the one at CNN is best. It's much better structured and probably easier to follow if you're not already deep within the whole thing.

Linky?

The NYT one came off kind of.... judgmental. I kept feeling like it was yelling "NERDS!" at me the entire time I was reading it.

motoko's ghost
2012-01-09, 07:12 PM
I remember someone homebrewed a 5.0 version once.
It was 3.5 core but with a point buy system, where everything was pointbuy(abilities,save,BAB,etc)

Yora
2012-01-09, 07:12 PM
http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/09/wizards-of-the-coasts-announces-new-edition-of-dungeons-and-dragons/

Manateee
2012-01-09, 07:13 PM
So Mutants and Masterminds?

motoko's ghost
2012-01-09, 07:17 PM
So Mutants and Masterminds?

no, it was a direct copy of 3.5 except for the point buy(as in word-for-word)

WalkingTarget
2012-01-09, 07:19 PM
No, it's from the books of Jack Vance. That's why it's called "Vancian". It also shows up in a number of other RPGs, such as Amber DRP.

To be fair, Zelazny started writing the Amber books before D&D came out (and "hanging" a spell is flavored slightly differently too - spells aren't forgotten once cast, I don't think that characters needed a book to remember them; they just take a long time to set up each time - similar in principle, though, and it's entirely likely that Zelazny had read some Vance).

edit - hmm... now that I think about it, I'm not remembering how early in the series that sort of thing started happening. So this may be moot if we didn't see spells being hung until, say, the Merlin-centric books.

Maxios
2012-01-09, 07:21 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Seerow
2012-01-09, 07:31 PM
no, it was a direct copy of 3.5 except for the point buy(as in word-for-word)

So the generic class system in UA?

Tal_Akaan
2012-01-09, 07:39 PM
(What step one should be, or should have been, for creating the new edition.)

-Sit down with development team, open Star Wars Saga Edition Core Rulebook. Apply changes, re-work, re-tool, and re-write as needed.

Ok it’s not that simple, but I think there is SO much that that game got right it’s hard to overlook it. I think the core principals of that system can be made to work for any genre.

(Yes I have brought this up in another 5E thread, but this IS what I would want in a new edition.)

Metahuman1
2012-01-09, 07:45 PM
Saga's was 4E light. The idea was to get some distance form 4E. That would there for make moving more toward saga edition counter productive.

Yora
2012-01-09, 07:49 PM
4th Edition wasn't a step in the wrong direction, it just went too far.

deuxhero
2012-01-09, 07:53 PM
Let's see of how many i can think.

Tome of Battle: per-encounter powers.
Warlock: At-will powers.
Vancian: per-day powers.
Psionics: points for powers, on-the-go.
Incarnum: points for stat increases and powers, usually pre-invested.
Binder: selection of power-sets, with cooldownper ability.

Hmm. That's six.

Anyway, as for alternate classes: I'd prefer those more as alternate class features. Make Paladin an alternate class feature for clerics. that kind of thing. Swap out a few abilities, keep others.

Indeed, that was really one of the strengths of 3.x, every class felt different (Balance was not its strength though and all of them are on a completely separate tier, but not the point.)

Mushroom Ninja
2012-01-09, 07:53 PM
I'd like multiclassing to be much more like 3.5 than 4e.

Tal_Akaan
2012-01-09, 07:53 PM
Saga's was 4E light. The idea was to get some distance form 4E. That would there for make moving more toward saga edition counter productive.

I didn't see in the article where it was said that they were distancing themselves from 4E.

It would seem that if they wanted to make the best game they could, they wouldn’t want to distance themselves from any version of the game. That way they can cherry pick as needed from all editions.

Beholder's Eye
2012-01-09, 08:02 PM
Hello, as i'm sure most of you have heard, there is word on the wind of 5th edition. What I wonder is what people want it to include and what you think would make it good? :smallsmile:

This is more of a presentation thing than a rules idea, but I personally hope that they keep the important crunch clearly separated from the fluff in the books as they did in 4e. From what I have seen of them, it was harder to make out what the really important stats were in older editions. While I am all for going back to their variety at the expense of some balance (which kind of killed some of the fun) I also think that the green color coded stat blocks for monsters, yellow for magic items, etc. made things much easier.

Vknight
2012-01-09, 08:05 PM
{Scrubbed}

Yora
2012-01-09, 08:07 PM
On that subject, please return to a normal letter size. It might be nice for people with poor eyesight, but it doesn't need to have that big and bright. Looks like artifically inflating the page count while making it neccessary to turn lots of pages when you could have a lot more info in the same page.

Surrealistik
2012-01-09, 08:29 PM
Get rid of the horrible balancing (it's a good idea in theory, but in practice it gets rid the ability of customising your charater to your liking), and the at-will/encounter/daily attack system.

Lol what? Balancing is the one thing it actually gets _right_ vis a vis the vast majority of other tabletop systems. There's plenty of customization opportunities; the only thing I don't really like in this regard are the occasional powers and feats that are essentially must haves, but there's nothing that even begins to approach 3.5 levels of broken.


Personally I'd like to see its two remaining major flaws; skill challenges and rituals revised.

Rituals should be useful albeit difficult to use and not obviate the use of skills and powers, but should never, or at worst rarely come at the cost of permanent, irreplaceable resources.

Manateee
2012-01-09, 08:31 PM
I'd like to see the Core 5e rulebook to be very short, very light, very cheap. One race, three or four base classes [bear with me for a minute], a generalized conflict resolution system with a shared engine between combat-related skills (including attacks and defense), noncombat skills and magic. The resolution mechanic for various actions should be quick, involving one die roll from the characters involved and a general assessment of difficulty by the DM, along the lines of Fudge.

But alongside the publication of the Core rulebook, I'd like to see small supplements to flesh out various areas of the D&D game, both for content and in small supplemental rules systems such as 2e's Player's Options.

The content-based supplements wouldn't be particularly interesting. They'd introduce a race (think the individual race rundowns from the Races of series, plus a handful of subraces and class modifications for all 3-4 core classes), a family of thematic subclasses (eg. a Warrior supplement might involve different tweaks of the core Warrior class to tailor them into different specific weapons specialists, or a Barbarians supplement might provide tweaks to the core classes to turn them into Berserkers, Rangers and Druids) or a collections of thematic monsters. None of these would be published as full $30-40 books with the amount of contents of 3.5 or 4th edition materials, but instead as lighter, smaller $5-10 expansions.

The part that I think would be more interesting would be a series of rulebooks to tone up the Core game into something crunchier. An Advanced 5e Tome could be released alongside the core and rereleased later, including subsequent updates. The first Advanced 5e Tome would include specific rulings for common quantifiable actions, such as precisely how far a Jump check takes a character or how long a character can hold his breath underwater. But it would also have smaller expansions elaborating on different subjects, both combat related (such as a book detailing involved tactical options for melee combat, ranged combat, or new ways to use spells) and not (such as a books statting out naval maneuvers or diplomatic measures that might support courtly intrigue). These could be later compiled into the Advanced Tome on a yearly basis.

Ideally, the light core rulebook would be released at the same time as an advanced play manual, booklets for the various traditional races, a couple class expansions and enough monster guides to make things interesting.

There are a few advantages I'd see in this:
Most obviously, there'd be support for a lighter beer&pretzels game.
There'd be more freedom for the buyers to custom-tailor their games' contents - new classes and races could be smoothly integrated, old classes and races could be slowly removed.
Mechanical updates could be selected and directly applied to the game. A routine release of Player's Option-styled manuals could make something like 3e's introduction of ToB mechanics work more smoothly by applying the mechanics to existing classes, rather than introducing new mechanics alongside the old ones.
It would allow for a more versatile game. D&D is traditionally highly involved in combat, but the D&D system fights against things like investigation stories. A more module release of rules would make it easier to tailor the game to focus on stories that aren't mostly about beating stuff up eg. dropping the involved combat rules, bringing in a supplement about interrogations and deceptions to customize a less combat-heavy game.
It would also provide a smooth means of skimming by scenes by selectively applying the light rules to circumstances where rules-heavy involvement isn't necessary.
Players would get to cherrypick the materials they want without buying the stuff that goes along with it in larger publications. Given the number of times I hear people balk at buying eg. ToM while lusting for the Binder, I suspect that would benefit both buyers and sellers.
Selling smaller more specific materials would give WotC more direct feedback over the kinds of things players want/are willing to pay for than giant aggregates of content do.
People seem jazzed about the microtransaction model. I don't know enough about the market habits of those sorts of interaction to say anything about it, but lots of smaller, lighter supplements would play into that model.


I'd also like to totally do away with the ideas of expected wealth/loot by level or magic item dependence from the core game. Knowing that you're going to get a +1 sword around level 4-6 makes the +1 sword you find even more boring than it is from the +numbers alone.

kaomera
2012-01-09, 08:38 PM
I hope for a game where fights can be honestly lost as well as won without bringing the game to a halt.
+1. Hell, +∞. I'd also like to see usable system for all of the cool stuff other than combat - exploration, anything that would be a skill challenge, etc.

Curious
2012-01-09, 08:55 PM
Ideally? It'd be a bit like 3.5, but with the following changes.

Easier char creation with less fiddly bits like mundane adding for skill modifiers. Note that I LOVE complex chars myself, but copying numbers is just tedious, and some players really like simple chars. Both styles of char should be viable.

More dangerous combat/complex encounters. Even without notable optimizing, I can kinda faceroll any vaguely level appropriate encounter in 3.x or 4.

Better social rules. Holy god, do I hate diplomacy as it is written.

Better support for non-magical laden item chars. Again, I have no problem with them myself...but not everyone needs to be one.

An explicit mechanism for players/dms to negotiability affect the plot, similar to drama dice or fate points.

Smaller numbers. Seriously, a thousand xp per level, 100 xp an encounter...you can basically lop off the last digit of all that stuff. It's like tracking spell components or purchases of fishhooks. Dispense with all the pointless bookwork.


More than anything what I'd like them to do is go back to including real significant variety between the classes.

In 3.5 you can play a basic melee fighter/archer, a Vancian caster, a spontaneous caster, a psionic character who casts with PP, a ToB martial adept who uses maneuvers, an Incarnum user who reallocates essentia, a factotum who uses inspiration, and a dozen other types who are all wildly different in mechanics and feel, and you can play all of those classes at any level between level 1 weaklings who go down in one blow to level 20 near-omnipotent demigods who treat the multiverse as their playground.

It's the variety that appeals to me and it's the reason that I'm still playing 3.5 despite having given up on 4e a couple of years ago. If they can't match 3.5's variety then I'm probably not going to stick with 5e no matter how shiny it is.


These. Really, this is all I want out of a good d&d game; solid balance, variety, and as few disassociated mechanics as possible.

Maxios
2012-01-09, 08:57 PM
{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

No hate. Was just predicting what will possibily happen.

Infernalbargain
2012-01-09, 08:57 PM
Although I'd like faster combat, I also don't want the rocket tag of 3.x. Rocket tag makes combat overly volatile independent of player's actions. It also doesn't allow for tactical genius comebacks.

quillbreaker
2012-01-09, 09:11 PM
Letting the players design the game is good press but bad policy. I hope they aren't actually doing it. It would be some existing edition with everyone's favorite house rule welded on the side of it, and most house rules a) are there to make the game more realistic by some fool's definition of realistic and/or b) don't do what they are intended to do.

Yora
2012-01-09, 09:12 PM
It's not the number of turns, but the length of each turn that I dislike about D&D.Having 10 and more rounds wouldn't bother me if every player can make his turn in 10 to 15 seconds.

valadil
2012-01-09, 09:13 PM
Generic classes that are customizable.

I know. They looked cool but I never found a GM willing to play with them.



- No spell slots. I really don't want to have "I can not cast fireball again today, but I still have a lightning bolt and a fly spell to offer if that is any use." Spell points like Expanded Psionic Handbook would be my preference.


I mostly agree. I think I'd like to see a compromise here. Have a vancian and a non-vancian caster class. Let them use the same spells, but with different mechanics. I could live with something like that.



An overhaul of the skills system


The one thing I really enjoyed about 4e skills was that they were balanced in terms of usefulness. 3.5 bugged me because there were skills that were useful under some GMs, but not others. Forgery is a fine example of this. 4e's skills are all within the same general level of usefulness. I think that would be a nice goal.

One thing I did for expanding 4e skills was that I let people use skills in new ways if their background called for it. Normally playing an instrument is undefined and would default to a charisma check. But a bard or other character who had an interest in music could use diplomacy instead. This worked pretty well, though I wouldn't mind seeing it a little more formalized. Maybe something like Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks, where new uses of skills could be purchased.

What I'd love would be for them to blatantly rip off MERP's skills. The way that worked was that you had a number of skill categories, each with 4 skills. Each class got 15 skill points total, but they were distributed differently depending on which class you were. So warriors had 5 points in weapons and nothing in magic. Scouts and rangers had several points for subterfuge. Etc. You could trade points into another category at 2:1 if your class got points in the other category or at 4:1 if they didn't.



...and an abandonment of skill challenges.


Not sure I'd go that far. They definitely need work though.

In general the skill challenges that sucked were the ones that the GM told you were skill challenges. Then they'd ask you for a skill and the best trained character would roll that while everyone else assisted. Bleh.

The good challenges were implicit. The GM let us blunder through a level. We asked to do things that seemed appropriate. Sometimes he'd ask for a die roll and wrote down the result. But he never told us what we were rolling for.

The point is, most of those SCs could be good or bad depending on who was GMing them. A good GM knew what was going on and made it fun. A poor one ran you through an obstacle course. The rules as written didn't really guide the average GM and let him stumble through instead.

Finally, regarding class balance what I'd most like to see would be well documented imbalance. I'd like WotC to create an official tier system. Within each tier the classes should be balanced, but between tiers all bets are off. I think imbalance makes things interesting, but I don't want to deal with a system that pretends the imbalance doesn't exist.

OracleofWuffing
2012-01-09, 09:37 PM
Letting the players design the game is good press but bad policy. I hope they aren't actually doing it.
Well, chances are they're just printing the suggestions off into a shredder that they use to make material to fuel their furnaces, then fabricate complaints about the system which will be answered by the changes that were previously developed in house, making it look like they were listening. After all, that's what companies do. :smallwink: Mind you, they would certainly claim that they valued and used feedback from their players in every product they ever produced.

Although I'm somewhat interested in seeing a system that combines all the worst elements of all the editions, I'm vaguely interested to see what sort of new things will be done to separate this from previous systems.

BudgetDM
2012-01-09, 09:46 PM
Either spell points of some kind or spell casting causing some kind of fatigue. Ideally set-up in such a ways as to allow DMs to tweak it for high or low magic.

A modular system of hit points, from gritty to superheroic.

OracleofWuffing
2012-01-09, 10:05 PM
"Stick to the plan."

I don't care what's going on there mechanically or fluff-wise. Every time Wizards announces their new business strategy changes, it sticks out like a sore thumb, people complain about it (whether warranted or not), and those complaints get repeated the next time it happens bringing further attention to the situation.

Do whatever, one or two of you guys have to be doing something moderately fine, I'm in no position to tell you what to do. But, you know, try to achieve your goals, and, yeah, kinda follow through after meeting those goals.

Also I want more motorcycles.

Urpriest
2012-01-09, 10:15 PM
"Stick to the plan."

I don't care what's going on there mechanically or fluff-wise. Every time Wizards announces their new business strategy changes, it sticks out like a sore thumb, people complain about it (whether warranted or not), and those complaints get repeated the next time it happens bringing further attention to the situation.

Do whatever, one or two of you guys have to be doing something moderately fine, I'm in no position to tell you what to do. But, you know, try to achieve your goals, and, yeah, kinda follow through after meeting those goals.

Also I want more motorcycles.

This, and reforge the base. I want a game that 80% of 3.5 players, 80% of 4e players, 80% of Pathfinder players, and hey even 80% of Legend players, will agree is unambiguously superior. D&D is not the only RPG, not even the only dungeoncrawling RPG. What D&D's greatest virtue has always been is that everyone could agree on it. Easy to find a group, and you know what to expect when you find one. If you introduce someone to RPGs, you give them D&D. Like World of Warcraft, the whole point of D&D is being the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. D&D is the Giant in the Playground. If D&D isn't the majority game, if it isn't the default when people mention RPGs, if it isn't supremely confident in itself, then there is absolutely no reason beyond nostalgia for it to exist.

Trog
2012-01-09, 10:17 PM
Most important thing is faster combats.


It's not the number of turns, but the length of each turn that I dislike about D&D.Having 10 and more rounds wouldn't bother me if every player can make his turn in 10 to 15 seconds.
This.

Spell descriptions got reduced in 4e (Side note: Huz-freaking-zah for things like defining terms and "this breaks the rules and that's fine according to the rules too so shut your pie hole about it" as these two things save a TON of arguments that plagued the earlier editions.) but things like swinging a sword got to be a longer process. I like attack variety but I also require speed and ease of use to aid that speed. Easier than 4e. Can't there be some universal attacks for all classes and that certain classes can add different effects instead of making a separate power for ever separate combination of attack and effect at every separate level for every separate class? Seems like a good way to fill books but a crappy mess to wade through as a player. Can't strikers just add extra generic damage to their attacks, controllers add extra debilitating effects, Leaders add extra ally boons and Defenders add extra nearby targets? I dunno.... I'm just brainstorming here. 4e began to make D&D's main four character types into a sort of chess-piece-like uniqueness and usefulness. It needs to take the next step and solidify and simplify those roles in the new edition somehow.

This next bit I've been saying for a while now but I'll say it yet again: All monsters should scale across All levels with a minimum of work for the DM to convert them. If I want a nation of orcs to be serious threats to a nation of humans and my players want to play mid-level PCs to take them on and plan to try and go up to mid-high level then the game should accomodate my playing style or story. Or anyone's playing style or story. I can't be the only DM that has had to convert over a cool monster into another tier just because it wasn't meant to fit there according to WotC's guidelines for their own adventures. I don't run your adventures guys, sorry, I run my own. But I use your monsters because making up the plots and worlds and maps and NPCs and scenarios and combat maps and treasures and rumors and everything else BUT making up the monsters is where I, as a DM, spend most of my hours. Spending even more on shoehorning a good monster into my players' characters' level is work that I shouldn't have to dread doing.

That's all I can think of for now... I'm sure there's more but it's not coming to me right now.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2012-01-09, 10:27 PM
This is my opinion on what aspects of each D&D edition so far should be incorporated into the upcoming fifth edition. Please share your own ideas.

Basic D&D: The minimalistic philosophy concerning character options. Dungeons & Dragons doesn't need a massive bloat of items, spells, powers, feats, races, classes and themes to be fun. Getting the options right is much more important than frantically churning them out. Sure, there should be enough to give your character a distinct feel, but do they really need dozens of new powers to choose from at every level? A handful is enough, so long as those powers are crafted with care.

AD&D 1e/2e: Being a hero. One of the things that irks me about Fourth Edition is that there are several races that are only really playable as dark, brooding anti-heroes that walk the line between light and darkness. Races such as tieflings, shades, other shades (called "shadar-kai" or something), and drow. I'm okay with a bit of that stuff here and there, but it seems that dark characters are getting more attention than shiny ones as of late. It explicitly states in the new Red Box "Dungeons & Dragons is about being a hero", but WotC isn't really living up to that.

The art. One thing I loved about old AD&D - especially late 90s AD&D - was the art. Adventure covers looked like the covers of those awesome old fantasy and sci-fi novels, and brought to mind things like Conan the Barbarian, the Hobbit, and Forbidden Planet.

The lack of focus on balance. Some character classes are harder to play than others. Some have a harder time staying alive. Suck it up. I'm not saying there should be intentional power gaps between classes, but the game feels more real when more attention is paid to making the classes interesting and believable than evenly powerful.

AD&D 3.0/3.5: Miniatures and grids being optional. One of the amazing things about 3.x was the fact that one can play equally well with or without using miniatures and grid maps. Sure, grid maps made the game a tad more realistic, but everything worked perfectly and confusion-free without them. I understand that Dungeons & Dragons is made by people who play A LOT of tactical miniatures games, which is why they should make an extra effort to make miniatures optional.

The multi-classing system. It was great how classes could be layered on top of each other, used to build characters like lego-blocks. One could play a tenth-level character who was a Barbarian/Druid with an extra focus on greatsword use and combating undead (Druid 4/Barbarian 4/Fighter 1/Paladin 1) without too much messing around. It was fun to construct new classes by combining existing ones.

AD&D 4e/Essentials: The minimalistic skill system. One of the things I used to dread about 3.5 character creation was assigning skills. One had to first figure out how many skill points they had (which took longer than it should have), then decide where they would put them, then apply ability modifiers, then calculate synergies, then realize that they screwed up early on and have to do most of that again. Fourth Edition fixed this.

The monster design. I think 4e monsters stuck around a little to long in battle, but besides that, monster design was near-perfect. Monster roles were great, sub-roles were even better, and making homebrew monsters was as fun as it was easy.

Gralamin
2012-01-09, 10:27 PM
I like 4e. I like 3.5. I like Legend. This list isn't all inclusive, it's just off the top of my head.

Here are the things I'd like to see stay from 4e:
- Dynamic fluid combat, with a good balance, and a focus on tactics over power-gaming.
- Traps and challenges as part of the combat - just because you are killing a demon doesn't mean you can't also be saving a princess.
- Warlords
- More "Soft control" effects then "Hard control" (IE, slowing the opponent should be a large advantage, but don't just take them out of the fight or kill them instantly.)
- Large amounts of DM support and content devoted toward making a DM's life easier.
- Minions

Here is what I'd like to see stay from 3.5:
- Willingness to experiment with the system (ToB, Psionics, Binding, MoI)
- Non-combat options.

Here is what I'd like to see from Legend:
- Legend style multi-classing
- Most of the Legend non-combat stuff, or interesting combat variants.
- Interesting classes, with interesting other options available
- Interesting, discrete, powerful feats.
- Items / full buy-in
- Legendary
- Fast combat, without being too fragile. Maybe a bit tougher.

Stubbazubba
2012-01-09, 10:48 PM
Business-wise, I would release all the fluff descriptions on the official website, so people can get really into the idea of a certain campaign setting and decide they want to buy it so they can have it fully realized in numbers. That would work on me, at least.

Although more important than that is to define their end goal ahead of time and then deliver a product which fulfills said goal. Wizards needs their own version of Steve Jobs; someone who not only has a vision which can revolutionize an industry (several times over) but has the determination to perfect all the little details so the product exceeds customers' expectations of what to expect from a TTRPG. Unfortunately, no one they have on their team has ever shown said determination.

Talking about the game itself, I agree with Manatee that there should be light and heavy rules for each aspect of the game, though I have serious reservations about the odds this goal has of being realized. I would love to be able to play a stealth/political game of spies and subterfuge with battles that only take 15-20 minutes to resolve, instead of 30-45, without having to buy another game and get used to entirely different mechanics. Basically, you would need two different Resolution Mechanics, but then write all the abilities so that they're mostly able to be resolved using either one.

I think WotC really has a golden opportunity to do something revolutionary here. Yes, 4e was revolutionary in many ways, but it was plagued by poor implementation at most every level and inadequate testing, which led to reams and reams of errata, and a game which left a bad taste in the mouths of many. 4e was, by and large, less fun than the previous edition, thus PF picked up all that slack. Pathfinder's success means that the old formula seemed to ring true-er to many players, but it also means that WotC cannot go back. If they try, it'll fail, because everyone has PF already; they even released their own SRD now. Wizards has to chart a new course, and really push the genre in a good way, in order to become what they used to be. They have to articulate the place that they want the genre to go, an unknown place that has not yet been explored, and it has to be the right place, the right target. Then they have to create a product that truly delivers that target output. Do I think they can do it? Not really, no. But I'll dream about the awesome turnaround of the D&D brand under daring new designers and extremely capable developers still.

Seerow
2012-01-09, 10:52 PM
Things I really want to see:

-Powers for everyone. I don't care if you call them powers or something else to suit your fancy. If Clerics use Prayers, while Fighters use Feats, while Mages use spells, and Psions use Manifestations, that's fine. But everyone gets cool things to do, both in and out of combat.

-You get both more powers, and better variety of powers than in 4e. In Tome of Battle, a 20th level character will have at least 13 maneuvers known, and 7 readied.That can be as high without any multiclassing or feats as 25 known and 12 readied. With dips and optimization the numbers of abilities get much higher. Plus you can recharge mid combat.
To contrast, a 30th level 4e character will have 2 at wills, 3 or 4 encounter powers, and 3 or 4 daily powers. Lower than the lowest number from Tome of Battle. Comparing it to any sort of spell caster and that comparison is far worse (say a Wizard who gets 40+ spells known just from leveling, and can learn more). Point is, you should have many more options available at any given time.

-Power sources should relate directly to resource systems. A guy who gets his abilities from martial training should feel very different from a guy who draws on arcane energies, who should also feel different from someone who channels the power of gods or demons. 3.5 has a ton of subsystems that could be cherry picked from and improved on, to make sure every power source has a solid base mechanic that could be improved upon.

-Powers should be your nice things, feats should be an expression of minor customization and role customization. They should be the thing that separates a Fighter Tank from a Fighter Controller from a Fighter Striker. Rather than roles based on class, classes should be somewhat capable of performing in at least 2-3 roles (if not all), and can use feats to augment their capabilities to make them truly fill that role.

-3.5 style multiclassing should come back, but more streamlined. I'm imagining things like prestige classes that say +1 level to Class abilities, rather than haphazardly trying to apply things like smite progression or only advancing maneuver progression. Possibly also something like the ToB 1/2 level out of the class counts as one level in class for powers, so when multiclassing you still remain somewhat relevant. A lot of the details here would depend on other things, but the big thing would be maintaining the flexibility of 3.5, while streamlining the process.

-Skills need to be consolidated greatly. Knowledge/Profession and other background skills should be tracked separately from 'real' skills. So you get x+int mod background skills, then get Y real skills from your class. Real skills should be pared down so there's no more than a dozen of them, allowing a skill monkey like a rogue to be trained in 2/3 of the skill list before burning anything like feats.

-RNG needs to be stable. 4e did a good job with this. I actually really like the way Legend handled it as well, and think their method is preferable as it allows bringing back different BAB progressions.

-Monster rules heavily based on 4e. Change the math around to hit a more desirable combat duration, if the fights drag too long, but please keep Monsters as separate from PCs. I don't care that random guy on the internet wants to play a beholder and he can't do that if monsters are different. It's far more important that the barrier to entry for DMing is MUCH lower with the simpler monster set up.

-Items should not be necessary. I would prefer default rules with no/rare magic items and an optional rule to bring back +x items, but if need be a set +x item progression that can be eschewed for an optional no/low magic ruleset is okay.

-4e HP levels/healing surges. I really am a fan of the healing surge mechanic, and also like how 4e gives more HP at low levels while giving less HP at higher levels. I'd personally ask to give rolled HP back, with an optional rule for the set HP gains (ie instead of gain 5 HP a level, give d8 hp each level).

-Standardized buff/debuff durations. In 3.5 you have rounds, minutes, hours, days. In 4e you have beginning of next turn, end of enemies next turn, save ends, end of encounter. I'd like to see it standardized to three durations: Beginning of your next turn, End of Encounter, All Day. Saving Throws only come in when an ability specifically allows it. So the Barbarian gets hit with Paralysis until end of the encounter. He's stuck that way until the end of the encounter, unless he happens to have Iron Heart Surge, in which case on his turn he yells "By Crom!" and makes a saving throw. (Saving throws would use the 4e mechanic of roll a 10 or higher to break out. Higher level effects may grant bonuses or penalties on the saving throw)

The Underlord
2012-01-09, 10:55 PM
My opionion=everything Seerow said

Lonely Tylenol
2012-01-09, 11:00 PM
I think any of a number of things could be done to advance 5e in ways that I'd love, but most of them are extrapolations of ideas that began in 3.5e and Pathfinder, which means that if I want those ideas to see the light of day, I could basically just merge 3.5 and Pathfinder--and I, and many others, already have.

But that isn't to say that these ideas themselves aren't worth merit, so here goes:

(EDIT: TL;DR is in the spoiler below for those of you who don't want to read through all this.)

1) A diverse array of base and prestige classes, with varied and unique combat systems when the situation calls for it
2) More limited-list casters with more specific focuses, like the 3.5 Dread Necromancer and the Pathfinder Alchemist
3) Classes as templates, and genuine class features as feats
4) Splat support for everything published

1) A large, diverse array of base and prestige classes: There are more than 50 base classes in D&D 3.5 (and hundreds of Prestige Classes), all of which fit a particular niche, none of which feels entirely like playing any other class, only a few of which are generic (and most of those, like the Fighter, are designed that way). Many of these classes incorporate entirely unique systems (such as the Binder, Shadowcaster and Truenamer in Tome of Magic, the Warlock and any other Invocation-users, the Martial Adepts in Tome of Battle, and so on). Going beyond the base classes, you have an extremely diverse array of prestige classes that combine character options (like the Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster, and Jade Phoenix Mage), or develop increasingly specific, highly specialized characters (such as the Malconvoker and the Exotic Weapon Master) that basically made it possible for anyone to actualize literally any idea that they wanted (up to, and including, characters that specialized in the use of single skills).

In my opinion, this was one of the things that 3.5e/PF did right that 4e didn't. I played 4e briefly in two different games (one at 3rd-4th level and one at 6th-7th), and in both games, my characters and everyone else's characters did essentially the same thing. It felt like we all rolled the same characters, basically. I think that 4e concerned itself too much with being simple and easy-access, and so they didn't have the diversity inherent in a system that itself had lots of systems (like inspiration points, invocations, spells, powers, pact/shadow/truename magic, martial powers, etc). Every class seemed to be working within the confines of the same system, so at the same time you had many classes being pigeonholed into the same roles, and a lot of lines being blurred.

2) Subsets of Spell Lists: While both 3.5 and Pathfinder had the Wizard, and Sorcerer (and to a lesser extend the Cleric and Druid), which can cast literally everything under the sun with enough splatbooks and are all generally broken to Hell, they also included base classes with specialized focuses that were much better designed: in addition to the Bard (which has always been around), the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Warmage still strike me as among the most well-balanced classes in 3.5 (the Hexblade, Duskblade, and a few other classes lag behind these in power somewhat, but also fall under this category), and they are able to very effectively fulfill their niche (Beguiler is a roguish enchanter-type; Warmage is a combat-focused blaster; and Dread Necromancer is a summoner who deals in death magic) without becoming catch-all characters. Pathfinder did this largely with their 6th-level casters, namely the Summoner (a Conjurer), Alchemist (a Transmuter), Magus (an Evoker), and Inquisitor (doesn't really have a school focus, but Diviner/Abjurer is close), all of which use the precedence and design model originally reserved for the Bard.

All of these classes have either 2/3 (PF) or full (3.5e) casting, and are more than competent spellcasters in their own right; however, all of their class spells are drawn from subsets of the traditional arcane and divine lists, meaning that they can do what they were designed to do quite well, but aren't able to do everything (meaning they don't step on everyone's toes) and they don't shatter the balance of the game. What's more, since all of these classes have a focus more specific than "I cast arcane spells" or "I cast divine spells", they also (for the most part) have class features that are both unique and interesting! Had it been around at the time, and had our DM been the type that would have allowed it, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the Cleric in my 3.5 group (who was playing an inquisition-type character) would have loved to play the Inquisitor out of Pathfinder, and the Illusion-focused Sorcerer would have loved to play a Beguiler (I actually suggested this, and the DM shut it down - sad face). This strikes me as a good way to incorporate class balance in a way that still renders all the characters unique and the playing experience enjoyable, and rather than seeing the Big Three (Wizard, Cleric and Druid) playable out-of-the-box as they've always been, I'd like to see them focus on more specialized caster roles that use subsets and varieties of the umbrella lists that these three cast from.

(If people would still like a greater level of customization with their spell lists in character creation, perhaps they could still have classes that can draw from any of the lists, but in different ways: For example, limited-list casters can learn spells like the Shugenja learns them, but with a focus on favored schools instead of favored elements; or instead of starting as generalists and dropping schools, prepared casters can begin as highly specialized casters and add schools as they level up and broaden the scope, say, beginning with one or two schools, and adding a new school every four levels, but at a cumulative -4 penalty to caster levels. This way, when a Necromancer/Transmuter becomes 5th level and selects Conjuration as his new school, he can learn, prepare, and cast spells as if he were a 5th-level Necromancer/Transmuter and a 1st-level Conjurer.)

3) Character Classes as Templates/Class Features as Feats: 3.5 and Pathfinder do the former on a detail-oriented level already, and frankly, I like both systems that are already in use. The first way that they incorporate this on a small level is alternative class features, which play into both systems, but more heavily in 3.5, where you have literally dozens of variants for some classes (mainly the core classes), allowing you to trade some class features for others that are like in kind (like the ranger trading evasion for the ability to feign death, for example). Pathfinder does this as well, but they have also included customization on a different level: Characters of all types get class-specific traits and characteristics of various kinds that they can use to supplement their existing features, such as the Alchemist's discoveries, the Rogue's talents, and the Barbarian's rage powers. This serves as an effective way to give characters who don't already have diverse applications for their primary class feature (cough cough, Druid) to tweak their characters as they see fit.

But what I'm talking about is more along the lines of the Generic Classes delivered to us in Unearthed Arcana. There, we were given the Generic Expert, Generic Warrior and Generic Spellcaster, which were basically nameless, faceless templates, whose only class features were bonus feats (or, in the case of the Spellcaster, spells. Surprise, surprise). What made these bonus feats interesting is that you could select a number of class features as opposed to the generic list of feats. Doing this, you could have a fighter-esque character with Improved Evasion and Uncanny Dodge, or a Spellcaster with splashes of Sneak Attack to complement certain spells without having confusing class combinations or gestalts. You also got to select your skills and your good save, which meant you could have a reflexive Warrior or a willful Expert.

Now, imagine if this idea was implemented to a greater extent: If a broader range of class features were made accessible as feats, but perhaps to weaker extents (analogous to using the Rage spell for power level instead of the Barbarian Rage class feature, or only getting 1/day usage per feat, as is the case with the Favored Enemy feat), then you could have the fullest level of class feature customization available, and create whatever works best for you.

Really, feats in general just need a huge overhaul anyway. Almost every feat ever published, especially those in the core books, was terrible (metamagics excluded, but largely only because of metamagic abuse), and it made playing a class that had "bonus feats" as its defining class feature, like the Fighter, feel pointless. Dodge, you say? You mean I get to declare an enemy at the beginning of combat and get a whole +1 bonus to AC against that creature only for the duration of the encounter? And I get 11 of these features of similar power level as all of my class features from 1 to 20? Where do I sign?

Feats in 3.5 were a missed opportunity to do something fun and interesting and offer a greater level of customization. I mean, metamagic feats weren't--metamagic feats were pretty much what you might want a feat to be, ultimately--but instead of getting something interesting, like a new strike, or attack method, or entirely unique ability (imagine if, as a feat, the fighter could learn a special attack that let them hamstring their opponents, reducing their movement speed to 5ft for rounds/level, or daze the enemy for 1 round with a successful melee attack, or perhaps something cooler from someone more inventive than me?). Martial Study and Martial Stance are a step in the right direction, being that they give you extra unique strikes and stances, but this should have been something that was happening from the very first splatbook, not the very last.

I think 4e did this fairly well to a certain extent with the dizzying number of unique attacks and features that you could choose within a single class, but nothing really beats Unearthed Arcana's level of customization in this respect.

Let's see... I know I had more, but I can't quite remember them, I spent so much time with the first three...

Oh, yes.

4) Splat Support for Everyone and Everything: If there's one thing that really annoys me about 3.5, it's that, unless the class was printed in Core, it's not going to get any love from any book that it didn't originate from (with few minor exceptions). There are a lot of interesting base classes, for example, that never got any love outside of the book that they originated in, such as the Duskblade, Warmage, Shadowcaster, Martial Adepts, and the Scout. Some of these (like the Scout) have bonus feat lists that are very limited in scope (Complete Adventurer and Player's Handbook only, if I recall), while there are a number of cool feats that would be great on their bonus feat list if only splat support was added for it. The Duskblade would be a really cool class if only it had spells like Whirling Blade and Combust on its spell list, and it might have them too, if only splat support was added for it. Instead, the Scout has an ostensibly core-only list of feats, doesn't support any other splat books that came out before its time, and isn't supported by any splat books that came out after, and the Duskblade has a fairly gimped list of spells that don't even include many of what could have been the smartest choices for the Duskblade, if only splat support was added for it. They were smarter about this in the design of some other characters (the Hexblade draws its spells known list from schools of magic, instead of from a specific list, so its list would naturally grow with more published spells of that school), but most characters lived and died only within their own book (particularly those from the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic books, which had their own unique systems that were largely explored only within their own book and a few select web supports).

And if you were prestiging into a class that had a unique spell or feat list? Unless it's the Assassin (a core PrC), fuggeddaboutit. You get the meager spell list you ascribed to, and only that meager spell list. There are dozens of PrCs with their own spell lists or feats that literally got nothing but what was written in their initial entries that could have been improved incrementally, if only splat support was added for it.

This problem is so pervasive that I'm considering writing up a splat support entry for every under-supported class and feature in the 3.5 system, big and small (and have already done so for Permanency, my first big undertaking).

Seriously, if every 5e book had just one chapter, or a section in the glossary, or a "Special:" addendum at the end of each feat, detailing which classes get new goodies from the book as splat support, I'd propably jump on 5e like my friend's homebrewed Dragoon on... Well... More or less anything, really.

Tengu_temp
2012-01-09, 11:26 PM
I hope the involvement of Monte Cook and the Essentials guy in the project just means they're fetching coffee for the people who do the actual designing work.

Mando Knight
2012-01-10, 12:32 AM
won't have the god-awful at will power system,

...At-will powers is personally one of the things I like about 4e.

MeeposFire
2012-01-10, 12:35 AM
...At-will powers is personally one of the things I like about 4e.

agreed. I always look for ways to get more at will powers.

Sidmen
2012-01-10, 12:39 AM
...At-will powers is personally one of the things I like about 4e.

Got to agree with you there. Being able to shoot off a Magic Missile whenever I felt like it seems like a good thing to me - as opposed to "you can use this very basic spell 2 times today"...

horngeek
2012-01-10, 12:51 AM
...really? It's only been three years since 4e, and you're releasing a new edition?

Eh.

It should be noted that I like 4e, so this may be coloring my reactions.

LordBlades
2012-01-10, 12:57 AM
Seriously I really hope not. The way 4e handled monsters (in terms of ease of use) is one of the best things that WotC did in 4e. It makes things infinitely easier on a DM trying to figure out what his party can and cannot handle, and it's also much easier and faster to run monsters with only a couple of powers vs monsters with a full PC stat block. The only change I'd want to see is in the core math, where monsters typically have a little too much HP and too little damage, particularly at higher levels. The benefit of getting PCs who can play as monstrous races is dubious at best. While strange/exotic races are relatively popular on the internet, my experience is that the vast majority of gaming groups don't like them even if they are perfectly balanced.

It's a matter of taste I guess. I personally like a world where stuff makes sense for in-game reasons, not because 'it's level appropriate'.

Also, especially as a player, but also as a DM, I like to be able to do stuff that I want without changing the rules(even if it's hard to do/not very effective), not to be flat out told by the system 'you can't have it; that's an ability for team PC/team monster and you're on the other team'.

Lord Raziere
2012-01-10, 01:16 AM
darn it, people were right, there will be a new edition…

but considering how opinions are so varied about DnD these days….I question how player feedback will improve things.

what I'm hoping for is more at-will powers and some mana system for the more powerful stuff.
and no more alignment, and a more skill-based system.

my hopes will probably be dashed. anyone want to start a pretend betting pool for what they will change in 5E? I bet three cookies that the above stuff will happen!

WickerNipple
2012-01-10, 01:17 AM
...really? It's only been three years since 4e, and you're releasing a new edition?

Eh.

It should be noted that I like 4e, so this may be coloring my reactions.

And thus the edition war cycle continues!

Seerow
2012-01-10, 01:19 AM
It's a matter of taste I guess. I personally like a world where stuff makes sense for in-game reasons, not because 'it's level appropriate'.

Also, especially as a player, but also as a DM, I like to be able to do stuff that I want without changing the rules(even if it's hard to do/not very effective), not to be flat out told by the system 'you can't have it; that's an ability for team PC/team monster and you're on the other team'.

You can make PC and NPC abilities interchangeable. I really don't mind that.

However I don't think that a Monster needs to have a full selection of feats, and as many powers as a PC. A mid-high level PC might have as many as 20 powers to manage, plus resources to manage and other things to keep track of. The PC needs these things because he has exactly one character to keep him engaged with the game. He needs to be getting something new every level and have enough options available to keep things interesting for him.

The monster on the other hand? He doesn't care if he got a feat at third level. He doesn't need 20 powers. He's only going to exist in the game for an average of 4 rounds anyway. Give him 2-3 powers, maybe with a recharge timer, and HP/Hit bonus/Defenses that are level appropriate, and he's good to go.

I don't care if the monster draws from PC powers, or if some monsters have unique powers that can be picked up by PCs somehow or another. What I do care about is that NPC complexity be kept down enough that they can be run as easily as in 4e. If that means that a NPC orc has fewer powers, and statistics that aren't 100% accurate when compared to a PC Orc Fighter, I'm really not too bothered, because it's almost a certainty that the PCs won't ever notice the difference.

DrBurr
2012-01-10, 01:22 AM
...really? It's only been three years since 4e, and you're releasing a new edition?

Eh.

It should be noted that I like 4e, so this may be coloring my reactions.

But it will have a total life of 5 years when the next edition comes out, at Gen Con 2013. Still relatively short for an Edition, but expect the new version to be bug ridden for at least a year

Lets hope Fighters retain some powers and aren't stuck with melee basic

Lord Raziere
2012-01-10, 01:23 AM
And thus the edition war cycle continues!

…..thats it, I'm gonna go make a story about Edition Wars.

its going to be called Edition Warz, and its going to satirize this whole thing by portraying it as an actual war. Cause this is just getting silly.

WickerNipple
2012-01-10, 01:32 AM
It's been going on since 2nd edition. The only thing to do at this point is laugh and play games. :smallsmile:

Mando Knight
2012-01-10, 01:51 AM
It's been going on since 2nd edition. The only thing to do at this point is laugh and play games. :smallsmile:

I learned to become almost universally system-agnostic (would that be the right term?) fairly quickly because I really started to get into tabletop RPGs right around when 4e was just a couple months away...

...Though I love SAGA. It's my favorite.

LordBlades
2012-01-10, 02:01 AM
If that means that a NPC orc has fewer powers, and statistics that aren't 100% accurate when compared to a PC Orc Fighter, I'm really not too bothered, because it's almost a certainty that the PCs won't ever notice the difference.

If the differences are small then yes, it won't be noticeable, unless they're the kind of knowledgeable guys that can reverse engineer monster stats in 2-3 rounds, but if it's constantly 2x PC HP, 50% of PC damage like in 4E, then it's going to be noticeable pretty soon.

Some ppl prefer ease of use vs internal consistency, and there's nothing bad with that. I personally prefer the feeling that the dudes I'm fighting are 'people like me' and not something else. Not saying they should be built by 100% the same rules but they shouldn't be noticeably different.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 02:08 AM
If the differences are small then yes, it won't be noticeable, unless they're the kind of knowledgeable guys that can reverse engineer monster stats in 2-3 rounds, but if it's constantly 2x PC HP, 50% of PC damage like in 4E, then it's going to be noticeable pretty soon.

Some ppl prefer ease of use vs internal consistency, and there's nothing bad with that. I personally prefer the feeling that the dudes I'm fighting are 'people like me' and not something else. Not saying they should be built by 100% the same rules but they shouldn't be noticeably different.

Yes, 4e had a problem with combats dragging too much due to HP bloat and low damage, especially at later levels. I'm not saying that extreme differentiation is good. I just vehemently disagree that a full PC writeup should be used for every NPC, and that every monster should be created with the idea of it being playable by a PC in mind.

Also, there would need to be an exception for elites/minions. I don't think Solos were good for the game, as even they wound up needing some extra minion support. But Elites that are tougher than your average PC in terms of defenses/action economy, while not dealing damage as if it were several levels higher I think are good. Similarly, minions that can meaningfully affect PCs, but die quickly are good. You could maybe make it so elites are only monsters that aren't available to PCs (things like Beholders, Dragons, etc), but personally I see nothing wrong with an Elite Elf Necromancer NPC, since the alternative is throwing significantly higher level NPCs at the party at which point it becomes much harder to balance.

Douglas
2012-01-10, 02:33 AM
I'm ok with monster/NPC rules that take the PC rules and cross out sections for being irrelevant to the monster's likely in game role, but there should be guidelines for filling in those sections if they become relevant and they should function the same way. If I know only the PC rules, my reaction to seeing an NPC stat block should be either "nice character" or "where's the rest of it?", not "that doesn't fit the rules."

NPC rules that say "technically an NPC should have everything a PC does, but only these portions of it are likely to matter" are fine. NPC rules that give them materially different mechanics just because they are NPCs break verisimilitude.

What's most important to me is that taking the rules at face value as representing how things actually work in the game world should make sense. PCs having different rules because they are PCs doesn't work with that. NPCs having simplified rules for DMing convenience can be compatible with that, but only if the simplification is restricted to omitting details that aren't relevant with an explicit note that the omission is strictly a bookkeeping convenience, not an actual reduction in capabilities.

Killer Angel
2012-01-10, 02:41 AM
I believe this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4ll%2F20120109) may be of some interest... :smallsmile:

(meh... already linked by Matthew in the 5e thread, but anyway)

LordBlades
2012-01-10, 02:58 AM
Yes, 4e had a problem with combats dragging too much due to HP bloat and low damage, especially at later levels. I'm not saying that extreme differentiation is good. I just vehemently disagree that a full PC writeup should be used for every NPC, and that every monster should be created with the idea of it being playable by a PC in mind.

I might not have made my thought very clear: I don't want every enemy to be 100% like a PC, but I want them to feel enough like a PC so it doesn't leave the impression that the world works with 2 completely different sets of rules, one for PCs and one for everybody else. I'd like a game where PCs are part of the world and not outsiders.


Also, there would need to be an exception for elites/minions. I don't think Solos were good for the game, as even they wound up needing some extra minion support. But Elites that are tougher than your average PC in terms of defenses/action economy, while not dealing damage as if it were several levels higher I think are good. Similarly, minions that can meaningfully affect PCs, but die quickly are good. You could maybe make it so elites are only monsters that aren't available to PCs (things like Beholders, Dragons, etc), but personally I see nothing wrong with an Elite Elf Necromancer NPC, since the alternative is throwing significantly higher level NPCs at the party at which point it becomes much harder to balance.


That I disagree with. I mean it's all right if monsters not accessible to PCs have disproportionately high offense (minions) or disproportionately high defenses (elites). It makes sense in the game world to say these monsters are just like that(although a rules justification, like for example making dragon HD have 1d20 and poor BAB in 3.5, would be nice). However, I can't get behind doing the same thing with stuff that's accessible to PCs, like that Elf(presumably a playable race) Necromancer (presumably wizard, a playable class). How can you explain via in-game logic that a PC can't get similar abilities?

Ashtagon
2012-01-10, 03:15 AM
1) Why does a feat need to be something new? Why can't it be something that makes you better at what you do? It's nothing new is not a valid argument in of itself unless that is all you get when you levelup. As long as you are getting class features and powers, it isn't.

If you have something on your character sheet that is a purely passive numerical bonus, you are likely to forget it is there, and certainly you'll feel gimped compared to players who actually have stuff to do besides, you know, hit him real hard. Take the "+2/+2 skill feats" for example. In RAW, they are deathly dull. In my houserules, they increase the bonus from a spent action point to xd10 (from xd6) on the relevant skill, and allow a re-roll once a day. Th player actually has a reason to consciously remember he has the feat.


3) Coming up with dozens or hundreds of unique non-passive abilities that aren't keyed to a specific class or archtype is ridiculously hard. Just try to come up with a list, see how far you get.

It's really not hard to take a flat bonus feat and come up with a way in which it can be actively used.

Weapon Focus: You roll d10s when you spent action points with an attack roll using the weapon, and you can re-roll 1/day (maybe more considering attacks get used more often than skills).

See? Easy.

Glaurung
2012-01-10, 03:17 AM
I love this part! We all get to wish the impossible...a perfect role playing game. Here is what I would like to see (albeit in rough terms):

1. The apparent flexibility of 4th edition style classes ("apparent" because higher level powers often replicated lower level ones) mashed up with the interesting paths that Pathfinder archetypes provide. Basically, more diverse, interesting alternate class features that can be combined in creative ways.

2. The difference in scale from low to high level found in 3.0/3.5/pfrpg married to a nuance task resolution system such as the system for combat and skills found in the current version of Warhammer Fantasy. D&D scales from meek to mighty to something just short of divine but never gets beyond a simple succeed fail metric. Warhammer Fantasy has less of an epic progression for characters but has a clever way of resolving actions that does not ensure only success or failure. In other words, I want the possibility of epic play and yet I want game mechanics that make both players and dungeon masters better story tellers. If you haven't seen what they tried to do with task/skill resolution, you should check it out. It opens up many possibilities.

3. Huge nod to 4th ed: keep the "second wind" concept and some form of universal healing out of combat! I HATE wands of Cure Light Wounds and the bizarre magic item economy that they represent.

Alienist
2012-01-10, 04:33 AM
4th Edition wasn't a step in the wrong direction, it just went too far.

The lesson from 4th edition is that it is possible to create a well balanced (note I didn't say perfectly balanced) game based on the D&D framework.

I hope they boot exponential growth for a subset of classes to the curb permanently.

I also like the idea of a combat that lasts longer than 1 round, and fewer save or die/suck so bad you wish you were dead. Because they turn the game into a coin toss. Heads you win, tails you lose.

Yora
2012-01-10, 06:17 AM
No, Cook seems to be the holy child who is going to fix everything.

Yora
2012-01-10, 06:19 AM
I know. They looked cool but I never found a GM willing to play with them.
I don't mean those Generic Classes. I mean having only 10 or so classes instead of the 60 4th Edition seems to have.

horseboy
2012-01-10, 06:22 AM
I'd like multiclassing to be much more like 3.5 than 4e.

I would like for multiclassing to not be necessary.

Yora
2012-01-10, 06:50 AM
Probably not. Except when you want to say that you do not believe in the existance of editions, but they might still exist anyway. :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2012-01-10, 07:19 AM
I don't mean those Generic Classes. I mean having only 10 or so classes instead of the 60 4th Edition seems to have.

Good point. 4E has too many classes (and probably, too many races, since the latter books mainly have weird races that feel like filler).

Yora
2012-01-10, 07:22 AM
Not that 3rd Edition was any better.
I think even Pathfinder has about 20 base classes now.

dobu
2012-01-10, 07:29 AM
Stuff I'd like to see in 5E

- Altered Skills: the 3.5 Skill System felt like a point-based System like Gurps attached to the core mechanic. That's not a bad thing, but they should extend the use of the skills. Make them useful in combat, give extraordinary advantages. Maybe even incorporate the combat system into the skill system. Why can I hit harder/more accurate automatically by leveling up, but my skills have to be bought by points?
They changed that with 4E, but the skill system in 4E always felt lacking to me. It didn't allow for diversification and in my opinion the skill list itself is lacking.

- Multiclassing: This is a tricky one. On the one Hand I like 3.X multiclassing, but on the other Hand it it a mess. You couldn't properly multiclass as a Caster without nerfing yourself into oblivion, but on the other Hand these Frontloaded Classes like a Paladin had no intention not to multiclass. Prestige Classes were a good idea initially, but it led to Prestige Class Hopping where people were just collecting class features.
Legend's multiclassing is a nice idea, similar to what I had homebrew some time ago. Maybe expand on Alternative Class features and go from there?

- Saving throws: I really like the defense mechanics from 4E. I think they were a good idea

- Classes: Please no generic classes! The fighter is in my opinion not a class, but a role in combat. It is the guy that swings a sword, but nothing more. On the other hand we got the Paladin, the Ranger or even the Rogue, where we have a clue what they do out of combat. Their class defines their combat style, not the other way round.
Again, maybe something like the AD&D2E Kits: Define a base mechanic (warrior, wizard, priest, thief, psionicist, etc) and build classes on top of that. There should be a mechanical difference between these classes. They don't need to be absolutely balanced against each other. Let them handle it differently, or maybe let them even be incapable to do something specific.

- Optional Rules: Make the System modular! For easy play use the basic rules, but for a more realistic/gritty/complex/balanced play use optional rules.

- Bring back vancian casting: Many, many players dislike that one. But let's face it: It is easy to understand and easy to play. It adds complexity that some (many? At least I do!) enjoy. It screams DnD to me like nothing else.

Malachei
2012-01-10, 07:31 AM
I felt that 4E showed us that balance is a mixed blessing. Class, most often more so than race, is the one choice that defines a character. If all classes have the similar basic mechanics, the game feels

I'd prefer 5E to to take a step back from 4E's direction and start where 3.5 and PF have stopped. I'd love to see martial adepts similar to those in Tome of Battle, but I'd prefer to have them as additional classes, while keeping a fighter (etc.) with fairly simple mechanics, also to get new players involved. Regarding classes and prestige classes, I'd welcome a return to 3.5's complexity. I think one of the reasons so many people still use 3.5 material is the sheer number of options it provides. Some complexity of 3.5 and PF, especially regarding combat maneuvers, such as grappling, tripping, etc., should be simplified, IMO.

Yora
2012-01-10, 07:46 AM
What I really don't want to see return is the basic "High/Medium/Low BAB - Good/Bad Saves" chart. I think that one is my primary problem with d20 games in general. When a Level 20 character laughs at a level 15 character who can not harm him, who laughs at a level 10 character who can not harm him, who laughs at a level 5 character who can not harm him, who laughs at the 1st level NPCs who can not harm him, then I think there is something wrong.

With overwhelming numbers and good tactics, and character or creature should be able to take down any other character or creature. Maybe with only a slim chance and massive losses, but no character or NPC should ever be completely invulnerable to anything but a small segment of Levels and CRs.
I want to be able to run a campaign from 1st level to 10th while all the time fighting, among other thing, basic goblins. Early on, the PCs can deal only with 5 and are in great danger, and later on they can manage 8 battles against 12 goblins each before being in danger of being overwhelmed. But I don't want one type of enemy become redundant by the time I become able to face another type of enemy.
I want to be able to switch between giants and goblins back and forth, without need to level up monsters myself.

Vknight
2012-01-10, 07:56 AM
Editions...
Editions...
We see them come and go.
And though we may fight about them we all see the good inside them
From 1st to 4th
We can accept each others place
Your playstyle is not invalidated
With the new edition on the horizon
So we go forth into a new edition
Will it bring us joy or tears?
It is are own inclination
That brings down this new-metrication!
And so off we go
And lights shine from the stars joyous laughter from afar
So we don't bid adieu
But rather invite into a new star!
~
Done

Ok just wrote that right now. Just a reminder to all of us it doesn't matter because it means merely new friends to the fold. And we should look at it and then decide where we wish to go. Maybe to stay with that which is enjoyed or expand upon horizons and open the veil to new sensations

tcrudisi
2012-01-10, 07:59 AM
Color me excited. When 4e came out, I swore up and down that I would keep playing 3.5. Boy was that wrong. Eventually 4e's merits proved too much for 3.5 to ever be able to compete with and I dropped it like it was a hissing snake. I kept my old 3.5 books only so that one day I could show it to my kids and run them through a couple of games.

So this time? I'm being a bit more optimistic. I'm hoping that 5e does the same thing to 4e that 4e did to 3.5. It's so good, so revolutionary that I can't stand to play 4e any more and must convert to 5e.

Don't get me wrong: I can think of ways to improve on 4e. Some inherent design flaws that they could fix. That would end up being more of a 4.5, though, and not a completely new edition. (Although the differences would be far greater than 3 to 3.5.)

I'll actually give feedback if I'm able. I realize they probably won't read it. But for the slim chance they do? I want to be able to help. Perhaps I can give a bit of insight that they can build on to make the game truly great. If thousands of people give their ideas, one of those ideas is sure to be great. I just hope that people don't bombard them with "3.5/4e is so great that you should reprint those books. Don't change anything."

CTrees
2012-01-10, 08:15 AM
It would seem that if they wanted to make the best game they could, they wouldn’t want to distance themselves from any version of the game.

WotC/Hasbro doesn't want to make the best game they can, though. They want to make the best selling game they can. Given how 4e forced a segmentation of the market, it's fairly easy to think "hey, maybe we should distance ourselves from 4e, and call back to the 'good old days.'" Is this, ultimately, a good idea or a bad idea? That's debatable, both ways, but it seems in line with this company's decision making process.

DigoDragon
2012-01-10, 08:16 AM
All monsters should scale across All levels with a minimum of work for the DM to convert them.

As the main DM for my group, I totally am on board with this. :)

I never understood why most monsters have a natural attack system different than what the PCs use and some monsters were difficult to scale up. I'd like a system to scale monsters as easy as adding "class levels" to them. Without having to actually add PC class levels in all cases.

Throwing a few levels of rogue works for something like Kobolds, but PCs tend to call BS when they get sneak-attacked by a shambling mound with evasion. :smallamused:

Ashtagon
2012-01-10, 08:53 AM
...

I want to be able to run a campaign from 1st level to 10th while all the time fighting, among other thing, basic goblins. Early on, the PCs can deal only with 5 and are in great danger, and later on they can manage 8 battles against 12 goblins each before being in danger of being overwhelmed. But I don't want one type of enemy become redundant by the time I become able to face another type of enemy.

I want to be able to switch between giants and goblins back and forth, without need to level up monsters myself.

Honestly, I think this is an unrealistic expectation. I think D&D should play radically different at different levels. 1e had the adventurer graduating to a castle or other base around name level. BECMI had the dungeon / wilderness / dominion / apotheon / immortal paradigm.

If you want to play against goblins through your career, what you need is to play with a limited set of character levels. Goblins (and even giants) simply aren't and shouldn't be a relevant foe for someone seeking to join the ranks of the gods.

That said, even Tucker's kobolds were a match for a moderately high level party. A lot depends on how intelligently an enemy is played.

hewhosaysfish
2012-01-10, 09:03 AM
So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...


has similarities to 4e
has no similarities to 4e
has similarities to 3e
has no similarities to 3e
has similarities to AD&D
has no similarities to AD&D
uses vancian casting
doesn't use vancian casting
has a small list of generic classes
has a wide lists of unique classes
has better social skills
has no social skills
puts more fluff in splatbboks
puts less fluff in splatbooks
has strong multiclassing
has no multiclassing
is well balanced
puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
gives powers to everyone
doesn't have powers for fighters
is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD

and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.

Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?

Yora
2012-01-10, 09:04 AM
If it's only 10 levels out of 30, then I can live with it. But in 3rd Edition by the time you can start a game that has more than a single giant as enemies, goblins have become redundant. I'd like to be able to not lose some things of the game while gaining access to others.

Psyren
2012-01-10, 09:08 AM
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if they just aimed for the 3.5 crowd. Pathfinder's success is an indication that there IS a market for people who like 3.5 style roleplaying games, something they might have previously thought of as a non-issue when starting 4th edition.

It's been a while since I've been to the PF forums, but IIRC many have said one of their reasons for liking PF is because "it continues 3.5".

Thing is, that's the absolute worst reason to target 3.5 players. Let them have Pathfinder; everyone else who already didn't want 3.5.or Pathfinder (and they've had plenty of time to play both and decide) won't want anything else that's aiming at 3.P players.

This is not to say there's zero overlap between, say, 4e and 3.x, or OSRIC and 3.x, but I think it's small enough that WotC could starve on the margins.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-01-10, 09:30 AM
So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...


has similarities to 4e
has no similarities to 4e
has similarities to 3e
has no similarities to 3e
has similarities to AD&D
has no similarities to AD&D
uses vancian casting
doesn't use vancian casting
has a small list of generic classes
has a wide lists of unique classes
has better social skills
has no social skills
puts more fluff in splatbboks
puts less fluff in splatbooks
has strong multiclassing
has no multiclassing
is well balanced
puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
gives powers to everyone
doesn't have powers for fighters
is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD

and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.

Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?
I think WotC already got your email (http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2012/01/dungeons-dragons-next/) :smallsigh:

But hey, if anyone wants input they'd best sign up now (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109).

Nero24200
2012-01-10, 09:38 AM
I would like the organic feel that 3.5 classes had (at least compared to 4e) and the balance of 4e. As much as I preffered 3.5 there were some things 4e just got so right in my book (like giving the fighter actual abilities instead of just feats, making non-wildshape druids viable etc).

And well...options, if I can play a wizard who isn't assumed to be only blasty by the developers or a fighter with some more variety other than "he deals obscene amount of damage via X" I'll be happy.

pasko77
2012-01-10, 10:12 AM
So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...


has similarities to 4e
has no similarities to 4e
has similarities to 3e
has no similarities to 3e
has similarities to AD&D
has no similarities to AD&D
uses vancian casting
doesn't use vancian casting
has a small list of generic classes
has a wide lists of unique classes
has better social skills
has no social skills
puts more fluff in splatbboks
puts less fluff in splatbooks
has strong multiclassing
has no multiclassing
is well balanced
puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
gives powers to everyone
doesn't have powers for fighters
is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD

and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.

Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?

You forgot a request for "more motorbikes" earlier in this thread.

Raimun
2012-01-10, 11:05 AM
I really wish they would design classes and their abilities without assuming that the characters live on a 20x20 square battle map. While 4th edition combat is fast (and fun too, mind you) because of how abilities work, it does feel a little too inflexible to me at times. I also don't like the lack options. Why shouldn't I be able to pick up Craft (basket weaving) at higher levels if I want to? Or multiclass to Sorcerer or that funny Prestige Class I read about? Even if I'm maxing out my previous skills and aiming for 9th level spells, the options are still there.

So, more versatility and options. While things can get out of hand in 3.5, at least the system never felt like it forced you to play Generic Fantasy Hero nro 578... even if you eventually became one by your own free will. :smallamused:

I'm hoping they would be able to combine the best parts of 3.5 and 4th editions, ie. options (3.5) and smooth gameplay (4), or at least find a better balance between them.

Edit: P.S. Also, none of that "lose older powers to gain new ones"-stuff. What's up with that?

Seerow
2012-01-10, 11:05 AM
That I disagree with. I mean it's all right if monsters not accessible to PCs have disproportionately high offense (minions) or disproportionately high defenses (elites). It makes sense in the game world to say these monsters are just like that(although a rules justification, like for example making dragon HD have 1d20 and poor BAB in 3.5, would be nice). However, I can't get behind doing the same thing with stuff that's accessible to PCs, like that Elf(presumably a playable race) Necromancer (presumably wizard, a playable class). How can you explain via in-game logic that a PC can't get similar abilities?


I don't particularly mind that little suspension of disbelief. If the players get upset that the BBEG has a little more HP than he should or is somehow getting some great action economy shenanigans, then that is something that can be explained away on a case by case scenario.

The thing is, if you want a humanoid boss, you shouldn't have to make the character a much higher level than the party to make it fit that role. Which is what D&D currently does. You make the character 4+ levels higher than the party, then use a lot of his low-mid level spells on long term buffs to make him tougher. Using an elite template just skips the middle muddling around and gets what you want without needing any sort of rules mastery to pull it off.

I don't personally see it as any more verisimilitude shattering than a DM using a gestalt character as a challenge in a game that is generally non-gestalt. And yes, I have seen this done without players caring.


If you have something on your character sheet that is a purely passive numerical bonus, you are likely to forget it is there, and certainly you'll feel gimped compared to players who actually have stuff to do besides, you know, hit him real hard. Take the "+2/+2 skill feats" for example. In RAW, they are deathly dull. In my houserules, they increase the bonus from a spent action point to xd10 (from xd6) on the relevant skill, and allow a re-roll once a day. Th player actually has a reason to consciously remember he has the feat.


You say this as if needing to remember the feat is actually important. You also make the assumption that passive feats also means passive characters who will do nothing but hit him real hard. I am not advocating the design of the 3rd edition fighter. Really, I'm not. I have said over and over everyone should get cool things, they should come via powers rather than feats. Hell in another thread I went so far as to suggest Fighter powers be called feats and rename feats to something like talents or perks so they can shake out of this mentality. Then Fighters CAN be the guys who get tons of feats, feats just mean something now. Meanwhile everyone gets more or less the same number of talents or perks, and they're typically more passive things.

That said, your sample feat would fit just fine with what I'd ideally want. The feat you brought up specifically modifies another ability of the character, which is fine. I don't really see how writing on your sheet "Roll d10s" as opposed to "Roll d6s" is something more interesting to remember than "Get +2 to damage", but something like that isn't something I'd be opposed to.

Basically feats (or whatever you want to call them) = Passive things that modify other things about the character. This could be base statistics or modifying powers, but still nothing that stands out as something that would be a worthwhile action of its own. Improved Trip as a feat as opposed to Rapid Shot.

Tegu8788
2012-01-10, 11:14 AM
I think it might be interesting if, instead of "making a fighter like a wizard," they make wizard that has just a couple attacks, akin to the old style melee basic. It could be interesting, allowing you to play any role either simple attack style or full AEDU.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 11:37 AM
…..thats it, I'm gonna go make a story about Edition Wars.

its going to be called Edition Warz, and its going to satirize this whole thing by portraying it as an actual war. Cause this is just getting silly.


I knew the storms where brewing for the most epic clash of rpg nerds ever.

I mean, look. There are the AD&D fans. And they are hardcore. Like, Old Testament hardcore. I mean, their game hates them, AND THEY LOVE IT! You can't go more hardcore than that.

Then there are the 3E fans. They are the Warhammer Orcs. They are the ****ing Green Tide! There's so many of them they'll seem like an endless ocean of hate. And their hate is still hot. And there are so many different groups among them that all have one thing in common: they hate each other more than they hate the others.

You have the "fighters should be fighting with lollypops" crowd. You have the "fighters should be farting thunder and lightning and killing multidimensional creatures by shooting their multidimensional-piercing-so-powerful-like-magic-yet-not-magic bullet sperm at them". Then you have the "no dices should be rolled at all" group. The "dices should be rolled for all" sect. The "Pathfinder rules" caste, the "3E is the one true way" caste, the "Tomes uber alles" caste, and god knows how many more splinter groups. Animosity tests will be failed! Chaos overwhelming!

Then you have the 4E crowd, which still keep their last shreds of self-dignity by deluding themselves that their game is good. And they will fight to the bitter end for their right to keep deluding themselves.

And you have the OD&D crowd. They are like ****ing Elder Gods. They were there before the beginnings of time. No one knows what they're saying, but they keep saying it, and damn if anyone is going to stop them from doing so.

And add to that the few, the bold, the unbreakable, the fans of other rpgs, completely unrelated to D&D, who will make partisan and pirate raids into the fray. WoD, nWoD, GURPS, Rolemaster, Warhammer... You ****ing name it.

And add to all THAT that is going to last for at least a year. AND THEN, you will have EACH of these groups split further, into those who support the 5E, and those who oppose 5E.

Yes, it will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. The Apocalypse, Ragnarok, the Final Confrontation is ahead of us.


That was posted by someone on another forum relatively recently. Thought you might enjoy it.

Dark Kerman
2012-01-10, 11:49 AM
I think perhaps the Wizard's design team will have one hell of a time on there hands balancing this one...

In the words of Urpriest

I want a game that 80% of 3.5 players, 80% of 4e players, 80% of Pathfinder players, and hey even 80% of Legend players, will agree is unambiguously superior. D&D is not the only RPG, not even the only dungeoncrawling RPG. What D&D's greatest virtue has always been is that everyone could agree on it. Easy to find a group, and you know what to expect when you find one. If you introduce someone to RPGs, you give them D&D. Like World of Warcraft, the whole point of D&D is being the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. D&D is the Giant in the Playground. If D&D isn't the majority game, if it isn't the default when people mention RPGs, if it isn't supremely confident in itself, then there is absolutely no reason beyond nostalgia for it to exist.

If they can manage that, then they truly will have succeeded, that's something i'm sure most of us can agree on.

Personally, I hope for more of an identity for each class, faster battles, and perhaps as a favourite of mine, and emphasis and preservation of fluff. The story is what drives the game, as much as vice versa, without a rich world to roam in, then all the quality mechanics in the world mean nothing (I'm not saying 4th didn't do this for the record, I just dislike how much stuff was retconned in regards to races etc). Conversely if the mechanics are rubbish, you may as well read a book. :smalltongue:

Definitely the more broken aspects of 3rd would benefit from being solved. Whilst I don't mind power differences, trying to avoid things such as power loops etc. They can derail the games in some cases (According to preference). Maybe making combat feats more effective might solve the balance between melee and magic (though then that makes it neccessary for monsters to be stronger).

tldr: I have my preferences, but the design team should try to balance and please the majority of there existing fanbase. May Boccob grant them the knowledge of how to do so.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 11:51 AM
redacted msg too short

Dark Kerman
2012-01-10, 11:54 AM
Thanks, now, then, let's hide the evidence! :smallbiggrin: :smallredface: I think I rather misspoke my point on that one. It required too many qualifiers!

Tyndmyr
2012-01-10, 11:59 AM
How is it 5 or 6 years later the 4e is like WoW myth is still around?

It's not a myth. The designers explicitly said they designed it to be like a video game. I sort of have to take their word on that.



It's just a system without any internal logic and unique to D&D.

Vancian magic has a number of literary analogs. It wasn't invented for D&D. It does happen to be fairly well known as a part of D&D, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I do agree that non-vancian systems could be included as well(I'm a very lonely fan of truenaming), but I don't feel this requires removal of the already popular and well known vancian casting.

Faster combats is a good thing...being inclusive is also a good thing. D&D 3.5 isn't my favorite game, but I like it well enough, and everyone plays it. That's important.


-Powers for everyone. I don't care if you call them powers or something else to suit your fancy. If Clerics use Prayers, while Fighters use Feats, while Mages use spells, and Psions use Manifestations, that's fine. But everyone gets cool things to do, both in and out of combat.

I dunno, really. Some people really do just want to mash the attack button every round. It's not my style, but it seems to be a notable one, and I'd like to see it remain viable.

DeltaEmil
2012-01-10, 12:10 PM
I knew the storms where brewing for the most epic clash of rpg nerds ever.

I mean, look. There are the AD&D fans. And they are hardcore. Like, Old Testament hardcore. I mean, their game hates them, AND THEY LOVE IT! You can't go more hardcore than that.

Then there are the 3E fans. They are the Warhammer Orcs. They are the ****ing Green Tide! There's so many of them they'll seem like an endless ocean of hate. And their hate is still hot. And there are so many different groups among them that all have one thing in common: they hate each other more than they hate the others.

You have the "fighters should be fighting with lollypops" crowd. You have the "fighters should be farting thunder and lightning and killing multidimensional creatures by shooting their multidimensional-piercing-so-powerful-like-magic-yet-not-magic bullet sperm at them". Then you have the "no dices should be rolled at all" group. The "dices should be rolled for all" sect. The "Pathfinder rules" caste, the "3E is the one true way" caste, the "Tomes uber alles" caste, and god knows how many more splinter groups. Animosity tests will be failed! Chaos overwhelming!

Then you have the 4E crowd, which still keep their last shreds of self-dignity by deluding themselves that their game is good. And they will fight to the bitter end for their right to keep deluding themselves.

And you have the OD&D crowd. They are like ****ing Elder Gods. They were there before the beginnings of time. No one knows what they're saying, but they keep saying it, and damn if anyone is going to stop them from doing so.

And add to that the few, the bold, the unbreakable, the fans of other rpgs, completely unrelated to D&D, who will make partisan and pirate raids into the fray. WoD, nWoD, GURPS, Rolemaster, Warhammer... You ****ing name it.

And add to all THAT that is going to last for at least a year. AND THEN, you will have EACH of these groups split further, into those who support the 5E, and those who oppose 5E.

Yes, it will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. The Apocalypse, Ragnarok, the Final Confrontation is ahead of us.
This is hilarious. :smallsmile: What's the source?

Seerow
2012-01-10, 12:18 PM
It's not a myth. The designers explicitly said they designed it to be like a video game. I sort of have to take their word on that.

I was under the impression it's closer to the developers designed D&D to incorporate elements of video games, not to be like a video game. There's a very huge gulf there.

And even if we take the leap to "it plays like a video game" that STILL doesn't make it anything like WoW. About the only similarity the games have is both have Tank/DPS/Heals. Even then the way that is implemented is different between games. I find that most people who compare 4e to WoW have either never played 4e or never played WoW.


I dunno, really. Some people really do just want to mash the attack button every round. It's not my style, but it seems to be a notable one, and I'd like to see it remain viable.

Problem is, in a game where other people do have options, mash the attack button can't be a viable style. It will either be way too strong and thus be the primary go to option for everyone, which then makes all of the interesting things other classes got seem like a waste....or it will have similar output to other people but far fewer options, making it objectively weaker.

If someone wants to play "I attack it" they can intentionally gimp themselves by not using powers, or choosing mostly passive powers/buffs, or by playing a lower level character or NPC style class, without the need for a class trying to pretend playing that way isn't gimping themselves.

Coidzor
2012-01-10, 12:19 PM
My dream would be for 5E to bring back the DM.

Right on the first page have a disclaimer--''This game is not Fair and Balanced. We could not make such a game even if we had 100 years. And we don't have that much time. This is a simple action adventure game created so that you can have fun.''

And then--''The DM is the absolute ruler of the game, even above the published rules. All players agree to go by what the DM says.''

Poppycock. The DM should work with his group, not be some kind of petty king ruling from on high and power-tripping.

DrDeth
2012-01-10, 12:25 PM
No matter how good it may be, it’s too soon. I can’t keep an open mind when the money grab is so obvious.

Arcane_Secrets
2012-01-10, 12:42 PM
...really? It's only been three years since 4e, and you're releasing a new edition?

Eh.

It should be noted that I like 4e, so this may be coloring my reactions.

I don't like 4e at all and basically bailed out for Pathfinder, so I'm not really sure what to think about 5e. If it builds on 4e I probably won't have much to do with it either.

Psyren
2012-01-10, 12:54 PM
Poppycock. The DM should work with his group, not be some kind of petty king ruling from on high and power-tripping.

I think his next two sentences covered that bit.

charcoalninja
2012-01-10, 12:58 PM
I hope it's more open for 3rd party publishing than 4e. I've been working away on a project in my spare time for about a year now and it won't be release ready for another one or two, and it would be nice to be able to use the current D&D edition to make a campaign setting for my IP.

Worst case scenario I'll stick with Pathfinder, because I love it and doy free use of rules. But I'm excited for 5e.

Coidzor
2012-01-10, 12:58 PM
I think his next two sentences covered that bit.

Not in my eyes and not nearly enough to counteract the harm in even appearing to condone that kind of bad mentality at all on an official level.

BlckDv
2012-01-10, 12:58 PM
The mix of my life getting more busy, the shortening of development cycles, and the shift to a rules system as opposed to a collection of a la carte ideas has definitely impacted me over the years. Causing me to feel that I get less out of each new edition. I just look at the campaigns I have run, in edition order but not chronological order (only counting those which lasted 10 levels or more):

Chainmail-Red Box D&D

I did not run any Campaign which lasted more than 3-4 levels in these early versions of the game, often they lasted just one adventure.

AD&D and AD&D 2nd Edition (of note, my existing campaigns all simply transitioned smoothly from 1st to 2nd edition):

1 Dragonlance Campaign
1 Spelljammer Campaign (actually a continuation of the Dragonlance campaign)
2 Birthright Campaigns
2 Planescape Campaigns
1 Greyhawk Campaign
1 [That PC Dragons Boxed set] Campaign.
3 Custom World Campaigns

3e/3.5

1 Homebrewed Planescape Update Camapign (This one was an attempt to continue our 2nd Ed Planescape game, it was not nearly as smooth as 1st Ed to 2nd Ed conversions)
1 Custom World Campaign (This campaign bridged 3e/3.5, the conversion was not as painful as 2nd ed to 3e, but far more painful than AD&D to 2nd Ed, we decided we did not like it and went back to plain 3e with table conventions to prevent the worst rules abuse.)
1 Greyhawk/Default Campaign

4e

1 Points of Light Campaign (No attempt to port over 3e games made, this game is ongoing)

4eE

(Not used)

I would have liked to do more in 4e before being asked if I want to buy a new system or not. I don't feel at this time that I can honestly judge 4e as a system, I would want to tell at least two or three stories with different feels before making that call. For this reason I am not excited about 5e, even though I don't oppose it, and I have always been willing to give new editions a shot.

killem2
2012-01-10, 12:59 PM
Mana Pools for casters.

Aotrs Commander
2012-01-10, 01:11 PM
Eh, I think WotC have mostly lost me at this point. I didn't like 4E much, though I cribbed a few good ideas out of it... Pathfinder, again, while I nicked some of the more elegant ideas...

I've so much effort into my 3.x (well, really 3.Aotrs) rules modifications and rebalances and lists and classes and such that I just don't think I can be bothered to do it again. (Heck, the other major RPG system I use is Rolemaster, which is a hideous mutant hybrid of three editions of Rolemaster and two of SpaceMaster the like of which Man Was Not Meant To Know.) I may well pick 5E eventually, and see if it has any nice ideas I can nick, but in the end, it will have to be beyond spectactular (and in a simulatationist sort of way to boot) to get me to care much. And it's not like I've got a full three entire adventure paths (Shackled City, Rise of the RuneLords, one I can't remember...) to run for my 3.x, so I'm not likely to be even looking in anger until, what about 2015-2016...!

navar100
2012-01-10, 01:21 PM
PCs should not be punished for the audacity of using their class abilities. If you just must, must need spellcasters suffer penalties, near-death experiences, insanities, or other such drawback because they cast a spell, the whole point of playing a spellcaster, then admit to yourself already you hate PCs doing nifty stuff and play something else. I hear Call of Cthulu thrives on punishing player characters who dare use magic.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 01:23 PM
PCs should not be punished for the audacity of using their class abilities. If you just must, must need spellcasters suffer penalties, near-death experiences, insanities, or other such drawback because they cast a spell, the whole point of playing a spellcaster, then admit to yourself already you hate PCs doing nifty stuff and play something else. I hear Call of Cthulu thrives on punishing player characters who dare use magic.

Has D&D even looked remotely like they were thinking of doing this since 3.0 came out?

Eldan
2012-01-10, 01:43 PM
The monster on the other hand? He doesn't care if he got a feat at third level. He doesn't need 20 powers. He's only going to exist in the game for an average of 4 rounds anyway. Give him 2-3 powers, maybe with a recharge timer, and HP/Hit bonus/Defenses that are level appropriate, and he's good to go.
I don't care if the monster draws from PC powers, or if some monsters have unique powers that can be picked up by PCs somehow or another. What I do care about is that NPC complexity be kept down enough that they can be run as easily as in 4e. If that means that a NPC orc has fewer powers, and statistics that aren't 100% accurate when compared to a PC Orc Fighter, I'm really not too bothered, because it's almost a certainty that the PCs won't ever notice the difference.

See, I think the complete opposite. A monster's statblock should show it's place in the world. A genie should be able to grant wishes. A monster needs to be able to survive its native habitat and the common dangers therein. A daemon summoned to impart forbidden knowledge needs knowledge skills. I want the stats to show that a certain dwarf is a superb crafter and a certain elf a superb huntsman. A predator should be able to reliably bring down its prey. The stats should show all that.

Edit: ^Eff no. Why is everyone abusing the poor word "mana" so much? And I dislike mana bar casters it feels like such a boring, flavourless mechanic. It's just dull, and I've seen it a million times. Give me binding, or incarnum, or vancian. A mechanic you can build a world, or at least an adventure around.

EccentricCircle
2012-01-10, 01:49 PM
PCs should not be punished for the audacity of using their class abilities. If you just must, must need spellcasters suffer penalties, near-death experiences, insanities, or other such drawback because they cast a spell, the whole point of playing a spellcaster, then admit to yourself already you hate PCs doing nifty stuff and play something else. I hear Call of Cthulu thrives on punishing player characters who dare use magic.

I think the issue here is that it should be an option. but not compulsiary. Most DM's have an idea of how magic works in their world. you need there to be rules so that someone who wants magic to be dangerous can do so. while someone who doesn't can have lots of wizards without having to houserule the hit point loss or whatever.

I think that this is how they need to go on a larger scale. each D&D group is telling their own story and will have different needs, and D&D needs to support that rather than trying to make everything standardised. I've lagely stuck with 3.5 because its variety allows me to reprosent my world much better than 4e does.

I don't want distinct worlds like Eberron and the forgotten realms to be changed to fit into whatever the new standard format is, any more than I'd want someone to go and rewrite the Lord of the Rings to make sure that all the characters have the right number of magic items and encounter powers.
flexibility has to be the key. Otherwise converting my game to a new system would do more harm than good.

gkathellar
2012-01-10, 01:52 PM
I think his next two sentences covered that bit.

His next two sentences suggest that balance should be entirely dependent on fiat, and that character ability should actually be dependent on moment-to-moment DM generosity. That's not a road to go down.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 02:01 PM
See, I think the complete opposite. A monster's statblock should show it's place in the world. A genie should be able to grant wishes. A monster needs to be able to survive its native habitat and the common dangers therein. A daemon summoned to impart forbidden knowledge needs knowledge skills. I want the stats to show that a certain dwarf is a superb crafter and a certain elf a superb huntsman. A predator should be able to reliably bring down its prey. The stats should show all that.

So you want one dwarf to be a superb craftsman...so you put that in the statblock. It doesn't mean you also need to know what he did with all the other skill points. The whole point is that NPCs should have stats relevant to what you want them to do. It doesn't matter what their other stuff is, or if they even have other stuff, because the PCs will never know or care. Pretending otherwise puts a ton of work on the DM for no good reason.

I mean a predator bringing down its prey doesn't require showing a whole lot more than the basic combat bloc unless their prey is like dragons or something. If they hunt deer, and have a decent move speed and at least one solid attack, I'm not going to question their ability to survive.

As for the demon needing knowledge skills... why does it need to be in the stat block? If a demon is being summoned for the express purpose of granting knowledge, I would assume the summoning ritual would only target a demon who knew what you were after, or it's a waste of time. It's not like the DM's going to say "Okay the Demon has a +18 knowledge check let's roll... whoops sorry, he doesn't know anything about that Fiendish uprising you summoned him to question him about."





Also, what you want, fully statted up NPCs is in fact something that is bad for the game as a whole. This isn't to say you're having WRONGBADFUN but it is important to note that you considering that fun is not a majority opinion. The vast majority of people I know who don't want to get into DMing is because of the pain in the ass that is setting up encounters and statting up hundreds of NPCs. So then only the people who actually do find that fun become DMs, which is restrictive to the growth of the hobby. Simplifying the DMs job so anybody can do it well is necessary to facilitate the growth of tabletop games. When the game demands a significantly higher level of attention, time, and system mastery from a single player role, that role becomes extremely rare as everyone else shies away from it. 4e did a very good job in trying to make DMing more accessible for more players, and I would hate to see 5e abandon that.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-10, 02:07 PM
Has D&D even looked remotely like they were thinking of doing this since 3.0 came out?

With a few unfortunate exceptions(Risen Martyr, that Exalted feat that provides a bonus to poisons), not really. That said, the exceptions were all terrible.

So, it's a pretty reasonable concern.

bloodtide
2012-01-10, 02:10 PM
I know exactly what D&D needs: Mystery.

Starting with 3E and going over the top in 4E, the game has lost all of it's mystery. The players are too focused on the game part of everything, and not the role playing. Players don't care about the fluff ''oh that scary tentacled monster, sure, whatever...what's it's ac?''. Even more so, all character abilities are straightforward. If a character casts a spell, or uses an ability a set, exact thing happens.

1.Get rid of Knowledge checks. Or at least come up with a system to make them less of an impact. I've seen too many games where the players just ''read the MM page'' by making a high knowledge check, and then win the fight in two rounds by exploiting the monsters weakness and what they know about it. This type of thing must stop. The idea that a simple roll gives you knowledge of every single monster in the multiverse is dumb.

A great twist would be to make knowledge checks something like 50% unreliable. After all, not every sage is a know it all, and sometimes whole nations will believe the wrong thing.

2.Add simple variants to monsters. A lot like mini templates or monster class abilities. That way, no monster is 'by the book'. So no one can know exactly what a single monster can or can't do. Make things like spell like abilities more like ''can cast one 2nd level arcane spell 3/D'' not just ''casts knock 3/d''. Maybe even a system where monsters can 'cash in' abilites and switch them for others.

3.Make magic dangerous. So that when anyone uses any magic, anything can happen. Not so much that they die, just might be harmed or effected. Make it dangerous to use magic vs magic, have wild things happen, both good and bad. Give magic the awe and wonder it should have. Get rid of spellcraft and such, make magic so unique that no one can really understand it...all you can do is just use your experience and go by what you see. But get rid of the ''I have ranks in spellcrat so I know every single spell and magic effect in the multiverse'' crap.

4.Add more mystery to events. When ever a character tries something, always have a random chance that something might happen, good or bad. So a character can't just 'I swing my sword'', as something else might happen. You could build up a network of feats, classes and spells around this...with the risk of making events more extreme.

5.Make the DM ruler, not the rule books. So page one of each rule book says something like ''the rules here are second to what your DM says''.

Eldan
2012-01-10, 02:17 PM
Perhaps I didn't quite explain what I mean.

They should not only have these things in one situation. I want them to perform consistently, on the basis of the same rules the PCs have. If an Arcanaloth grants arcane knowledge when summoned, he should have that same knowledge when he thinks about some other question. And I want a metric of how much he knows, in the stat block. The craftsman dwarf should have a full set of skills. It might come up in the game, and in that case, I want to have a basis to estimate if that dwarf also has an understanding of geology or not, and how much he knows about history. And I want to know how good he is at being a master craftsman. Good enough to forge good swords? Good enough to smelter adamantium? Good enough to forge Mjölnir? A number is a nice, concise way of showing this, when it can be compared to a table in the books. Skill +15: can reliably do X, Y and Z when in a calm situation.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 02:20 PM
Perhaps I didn't quite explain what I mean.

They should not only have these things in one situation. I want them to perform consistently, on the basis of the same rules the PCs have. If an Arcanaloth grants arcane knowledge when summoned, he should have that same knowledge when he thinks about some other question. And I want a metric of how much he knows, in the stat block. The craftsman dwarf should have a full set of skills. It might come up in the game, and in that case, I want to have a basis to estimate if that dwarf also has an understanding of geology or not, and how much he knows about history. And I want to know how good he is at being a master craftsman. Good enough to forge good swords? Good enough to smelter adamantium? Good enough to forge Mjölnir? A number is a nice, concise way of showing this, when it can be compared to a table in the books. Skill +15: can reliably do X, Y and Z when in a calm situation.

And again, what you're asking for is more information than will ever be needed in the case of 99.99% of NPCs. You are asking for a DM to have an entire statblock for every minor NPC, which is something outrageous to demand. If you enjoy playing that way, that's fine, but it isn't the way the game at its core should be designed.

tcrudisi
2012-01-10, 02:21 PM
No matter how good it may be, it’s too soon. I can’t keep an open mind when the money grab is so obvious.

It may be a money grab, but at least be optimistic about it. I can see D&D dying if they don't manage to get the entire fanbase behind them. Look at it: 4e probably isn't making a huge profit (if a profit at all). 3.5? Too many people left 3.5 to go to 4e, so if they tried to print new 3.5 books there wouldn't be enough players left for them to make a profit. Their only hope is to put forth a new edition and have everyone rally to their cause.

It's also in our best interest. Yes, more games mean more fun. But - those games could find themselves of closing down and without us getting any more if the flagship game of them all can't even turn a profit.

So look at this optimistically. Is it a money grab? Of course. WotC is a business. But as a customer we have to hope they are successful.

Draz74
2012-01-10, 02:22 PM
And I dislike mana bar casters it feels like such a boring, flavourless mechanic. It's just dull, and I've seen it a million times. Give me binding, or incarnum, or vancian. A mechanic you can build a world, or at least an adventure around.

Mechanics like that are great ... if you're releasing a world, or an adventure. Not if you're releasing a game system that is supposed to be used to create stories in many different settings and worlds.

Personally, I think the Core magic system should be as "flavorless" as possible. Then, within individual campaign settings, they should spruce it up with minor mechanical boosts that abstractly turn it into something flavorful (a la Binding).

But then, I'm the guy that also keeps saying they should drop the Monster Manual as a "Core" component, and let new monsters be a big part of the "crunch" released in various campaign settings ...

MeeposFire
2012-01-10, 02:29 PM
The problem is not making a profit. It is making enough profit. That is an advantage that smaller companies have in terms of keeping a game going. Paizo will be happy just to make a profit. Hasbro wants you to make $50 million in profit and have it get up to 100 million in a time frame. That is crazy for a RPG game. With D&Di I am thinking they make a profit but even if you are making a profit unless you make a BIG profit Hasbro will still call you a failure and force modifications.

gkathellar
2012-01-10, 02:38 PM
Perhaps I didn't quite explain what I mean.

They should not only have these things in one situation. I want them to perform consistently, on the basis of the same rules the PCs have. If an Arcanaloth grants arcane knowledge when summoned, he should have that same knowledge when he thinks about some other question. And I want a metric of how much he knows, in the stat block. The craftsman dwarf should have a full set of skills. It might come up in the game, and in that case, I want to have a basis to estimate if that dwarf also has an understanding of geology or not, and how much he knows about history. And I want to know how good he is at being a master craftsman. Good enough to forge good swords? Good enough to smelter adamantium? Good enough to forge Mjölnir? A number is a nice, concise way of showing this, when it can be compared to a table in the books. Skill +15: can reliably do X, Y and Z when in a calm situation.

Have you seen how WoD does it? Most non-combat NPCs have a description, and a block of how many dice they have on skills they're notable for.

For example: You don't need full stats for some stoned deadbeat in an alley, because he'll give in to threats, he won't fight back and he doesn't know any computer science. What he does know is the street and his block specifically (Streetwise 5, +1 in his locale), drugs (Medicine 2, +3 Narcotics, +3 Hallucinogens) and the police (Politics 1, +3 Police). Summarizing his entire character only takes three stats, because that's the extent of his usefulness.

A master smith is no different. Give him Craft (Arms and Armor) +20 (or whatever number system you're using). Give him Geology +10 (+20 for metals), Trade +10 (+15 selling armaments) and Military History +15 because he knows about trades that are directly related to his. If he's exceptional at catching lies, that's an element of his character — give him Sense Motive +15. If you know he watches the History Channel give him History +10. All of this can be done much more easily then giving him a full stat-block, and is just as complete a process. And outside of his work and any relevant character details, you don't need to know anything else.

Coidzor
2012-01-10, 02:42 PM
Having a ready rubric of what to set those skills to for quickly setting core competencies of NPCs would be nice though.

Urpriest
2012-01-10, 03:03 PM
I don't really think the system needs to provide these simplified statblocks though. They're going to be different depending on what you as a DM expect the players to do. Besides, they're simple enough to create. As long as the game has sufficiently distinct subsystems, you can just do the creation work for the abilities you expect the creature to actually use in combat and leave the rest of it out. Some guidelines on that might be useful, but it doesn't need to be built in to the rules themselves.

TheLoneCleric
2012-01-10, 03:27 PM
I never understood why most monsters have a natural attack system different than what the PCs use and some monsters were difficult to scale up. I'd like a system to scale monsters as easy as adding "class levels" to them. Without having to actually add PC class levels in all cases.

Digo, check out FantasyCraft. It kinda works like that and is a d20 clone..ish.

Personally?


Classes that feel unique.
Archtypes and Kits anything to cut down the number of base classes but allowing for more customization.
Feats/Ritual/Powers getting folded into a unifed set of abilties for classes.
Do away with the need for a grid. (imporant for online play)
Understand the flavor differences between melee and casters, arcane and divine, and tactics vs skills.
A more robuse use of skills and out of combat activity.
NO DUMP STATS
NO ROADBUMP FEATS

And I'm more more later.

Yora
2012-01-10, 03:32 PM
On the paizo forum, some people said that published adventures are a very major part of RPGs. Wizards did publish only few adventures for 3rd Edition, but that never had a real impact because other companies created tonnes of adventures that kept the players happy. With 4th edition, wizards published even less adventures and this times there were only very few third party publications that could have satisfied this demand.

Since I neither used published adventures or 4th Edition, I can't say much about that but it is an interesting though.

valadil
2012-01-10, 03:47 PM
It's a popular suggestion, but does anyone really expect the grid to disappear? Battlemats help sell minis.

TheLoneCleric
2012-01-10, 03:57 PM
Then make it optional.

If I want to buy a tactical mini's game I will.

I don't, but you get my point. (I hope.)

gkathellar
2012-01-10, 04:02 PM
So to sum up, we the Playground collectively demand from WotC that when 5e is released we should see that it...


has similarities to 4e
has no similarities to 4e
has similarities to 3e
has no similarities to 3e
has similarities to AD&D
has no similarities to AD&D
uses vancian casting
doesn't use vancian casting
has a small list of generic classes
has a wide lists of unique classes
has better social skills
has no social skills
puts more fluff in splatbboks
puts less fluff in splatbooks
has strong multiclassing
has no multiclassing
is well balanced
puts less emphasis on being "balanced"
gives powers to everyone
doesn't have powers for fighters
is revolutionary, fresh and visionary
stays true to its roots and still feels like DnD

and last but not least
23. doesn't break the fanbase in half and provoke massive edition wars.

Is there anything anyone else wants ot add or should I print this off already and mail it to WotC?

You should add, "Is [insert d20 D&D clone]" and "Is not [insert d20 D&D clone]."

valadil
2012-01-10, 04:03 PM
Then make it optional.

If I want to buy a tactical mini's game I will.

I don't, but you get my point. (I hope.)

I do get your point and I agree with you that optional mapping is ideal. But I expect WotC won't do this. They'd rather say everybody must buy minis than let you think you can escape without paying the mini tax. (While I enjoy their games, I'm not a big fan of WotC as a company and I'm probably more cynical about this than I have to be.)

Eldan
2012-01-10, 04:10 PM
It's a popular suggestion, but does anyone really expect the grid to disappear? Battlemats help sell minis.

God I hope so.

Look, I'm a Warhammer player. I love my minis. But I like to keep my minis and my roleplaying separate (well, not quite. All my warhammer heroes certainly have names and battle cries and stories).

WarKitty
2012-01-10, 05:00 PM
Honestly, the biggest thing that would help would be a system with more layers of complexity. Not more complexity. 3.5's problem was that it required complexity and thus needed a large learning curve and a bunch of extra work to keep it running. 4e's problem is that it doesn't have enough complexity, and advanced players can start being bored. Create a system where there is a base rule set and several optional rule sets. The base system creates simple, well-balanced characters with fairly few rules. If you want more rules for diplomacy, or combining classes, or whatnot, there's a rule set for that - but if you don't, it's not an integral part of the system.

horseboy
2012-01-10, 05:04 PM
I know exactly what D&D needs: Mystery.

I can get behind this.

God I hope so.

Look, I'm a Warhammer player. I love my minis. But I like to keep my minis and my roleplaying separate (well, not quite. All my warhammer heroes certainly have names and battle cries and stories).
You know what REALLY torques me off about D&D minis? The whole stupid "random" pack crap. My friends that actually have them are all just jumbled up crap, It's like "this thing here that looks like A is actually Q." If you're not going to be able to have what it looks like, just use pennies. If you're just going to use pennies, there's no need to waste money on minis.

edit:


Honestly, the biggest thing that would help would be a system with more layers of complexity. Not more complexity. 3.5's problem was that it required complexity and thus needed a large learning curve and a bunch of extra work to keep it running. 4e's problem is that it doesn't have enough complexity, and advanced players can start being bored. Create a system where there is a base rule set and several optional rule sets. The base system creates simple, well-balanced characters with fairly few rules. If you want more rules for diplomacy, or combining classes, or whatnot, there's a rule set for that - but if you don't, it's not an integral part of the system.
I'm seeing a lot of things like this. There's a problem with just "adding on" complexity. It's called "Companion II" in Rolemaster Classic. If you're using it you suddenly have 3-4 times as many skills, with some skills being broken down into 20 different skills (perception) and things that had been free now costing points (Power Point Development). Yet you're still sitting on the same amount of character resources you were prior, turning your character into a 3.5 fighter.

gkathellar
2012-01-10, 05:08 PM
You know what REALLY torques me off about D&D minis? The whole stupid "random" pack crap. My friends that actually have them are all just jumbled up crap, It's like "this thing here that looks like A is actually Q." If you're not going to be able to have what it looks like, just use pennies. If you're just going to use pennies, there's no need to waste money on minis.

THIS. I tried to get into using minis back in 3E, but I couldn't actually get a hold of the ones I wanted, so I stopped. Maybe if it hadn't been a stupidly transparent MtG-esque scheme to get my money I would actually have been willing to give them a lot more of my money.

Stubbazubba
2012-01-10, 05:16 PM
I don't think minis help the revenue figures enough to justify requiring a battlemat for the rules to have any application. Really, apps would outsell any miniatures line easily in today's market, and is definitely something they need to invest in. D&D and software haven't gotten along recently in the past, but that was because the software was sub-par, not because of anything inherent about D&D.

I want to be able to play any archetype and have an interesting degree of options available to me, both in combat and out. Sometimes I want to be a sword-for-hire or a retired infantryman, but I want to have combat options beyond "hit monster A or monster B for damage + slide." I think a lot of out-of-combat utility should be separate from class.

I agree with Seerow that classes should be able to cover multiple roles. I would suggest that abilities are separated into lists reflecting different roles within each class, with some generics which are non-role-specific. From these lists, PCs will make a build of 6-10 abilities. So long as you are not surprised, you can choose whichever build (fluffed as "stance" or "school of magic" or whatever else) you want to begin a battle. Swapping builds would require a standard or maybe even full-round action to refocus.

So, for instance, within the Fighter archetype you would have Marauder which is a Striker role, replete with Striker abilities, and a Guardian, which is a Defender role. The ability to switch roles mid-combat in response to changes in party make-up (when your Rogue goes down or what-have-you) and enemy tactics allows you to play the role you prefer while not enslaving your character concept to it. It actually reduces the number of abilities you have to keep track of at any given time (instead of having 20+ powers, you have three builds of 6-10 powers, with some overlap, and you know what each build does), while maintaining concept flexibility for characters. With that in mind, I would suggest slightly more generalized classes which mostly determine the mechanics being used, and then archetypes being a combination of role and class. Or vice versa.

External to that, I'd like Professions, or out-of-combat bundles. If I'm an athlete, I get +3 to all athletic checks, and some nifty ability or two that I can't think up at the moment. Tracker/Ranger (Track, search, possibly Perception), Smith/Merchant (Appraise, craft, Engineering), Diplomat/Scoundrel (Diplomacy, bluff, etc.), Burglar (Stealth, Appraise), Scholar (History, Knowledge, Spellcraft), Medic (Healing, Knowledge), etc. These could either be one or two-time purchases like a feat tree (+3 bonus the first time, +6 the next, one ability each time, maybe a third for +9/10 and a capstone ability), or be small, self-contained secondary classes that you pick once every third level or so. Other than that you assign, like, 1-3 skill points per level, just so there's some granularity for customization's sake.

These systems of progression are designed to be modular; you can replace the Professions System with pure Point-buy skills, or reduce skills entirely to Ability Checks; Classes and Archetypes can likewise be substituted with just playing a single archetype, or allowing players to use all of their class abilities together, not worrying about which lists or what stance/school it's from. On the simple side, there would be a default build for each role covered by that Class at different levels or something.

Then they need to seriously address the out-of-combat game. The Skill system has been plagued by poor implementation for several editions now, Skill Challenges being just the latest iteration. If combat is simplified to a 15-20 minute affair, then we can probably stand a little more crunch to some other aspects of the game. Stealth is an important one that needs attention, as is diplomacy, though the latter is significantly trickier than the former and I would completely understand if not much happened there. But dungeon exploration, environmental encounters, and chase scenes all also need to be included as 5-10 minute mini-games that everyone can contribute to and produce fun playing experiences/cool scenes for the story. Rolling all of them into one generic system may not work. You may need three; Stealth, Diplomacy, and Environment (including exploration and chase scenes).

Here's something I've developed, very rules lite for infiltration: You have a Static stealth score, like AC, it's just 10+Stealth (and whatever goes into Stealth). Every 10 feet (or whatever arbitrary distance works best) you have to move stealthily, you roll a die, and that determines what you encounter, be it a sentry, a locked door, some other environmental hazard, or nothing. If it's a locked door, then your lockpicker gets to work (automatic success if DC is 10+Disable Device or lower, roll if not), but if it's a Sentry, the Sentry makes a Perception check, and if said Perception check beats anyone's Stealth Class, they are detected, and the party has pretty much one readied action to silence him. If he successfully sounds the alarm but the party sneaks away, future Sentry encounters get a bonus on their Perception checks. Once this happens, one of the results on the die changes to "Discovered." If that is rolled, then the PCs can decide to either fight it out or run (initiating chase rules), or try and talk to them or however else they intend to deal with this possibility. Of course magic or abilities would allow you to re-roll a sentry's perception check, or otherwise modify this basic formula. Attacking a sentry who doesn't see you incurs a -6 penalty for an untrained sneak attack, no penalty for those who have the Sneak Attack ability.

That's about how I see Stealth working. It's not a whole lot of rolling, nothing too fiddly, with opportunities to use a small variety of skills, and everyone can sneak along with some degree of stealth.

Anyways, that's just for Stealth. Diplomacy's a whole different mess, and I have to go, so this is going to get posted a little pre-maturely.

tl;dr - Classes should be able to cover more than one role, though not necessarily simultaneously, separate in-combat and out-of-combat progression entirely, include simple mini-games for 5-10 minute (real time) stealth, chase, or environmental scenes. Diplomacy needs to have something, too, but it's a bag of worms so I understand if it doesn't get done terribly well.

Alejandro
2012-01-10, 05:50 PM
It may be a money grab, but at least be optimistic about it. I can see D&D dying if they don't manage to get the entire fanbase behind them. Look at it: 4e probably isn't making a huge profit (if a profit at all). 3.5? Too many people left 3.5 to go to 4e, so if they tried to print new 3.5 books there wouldn't be enough players left for them to make a profit. Their only hope is to put forth a new edition and have everyone rally to their cause.

It's also in our best interest. Yes, more games mean more fun. But - those games could find themselves of closing down and without us getting any more if the flagship game of them all can't even turn a profit.

So look at this optimistically. Is it a money grab? Of course. WotC is a business. But as a customer we have to hope they are successful.

You are entirely right. And I am sure 4E is not making as much money as Hasbro wants, or else this would not happen at this time. But at the same time, my group refuses to use 3.5 any more, because we got tired of non caster classes becoming mostly useless after level 9 or so. (Your mileage may vary.)

So, we can't go back, only forward.

Incidentally, I and several members of my group are registered for:

http://www.baldmangames.com/ddxpnews/

And will be playing in:

The D&D Special and Seminar area will be in a special fenced off area. You cannot enter this area without having a valid NDA on file. No exceptions. No cameras or recording equipment will be allowed without prior approval from BMG and Wizards of the Coast.

D&D Secret Special: Caves of Chaos Playtest
Join the first public playtest of the next iteration of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. The playtest offers players the chance to run pre-generated 1st-level characters through the Caves of Chaos, a four-hour D&D adventure. Wizards of the Coast staff will be running several tables each day. As part of the playtest, participants must sign a special non-dislcosure agreement for playtesters.
--
Needless to say, I am looking forward to it.

killem2
2012-01-10, 06:01 PM
Edit: ^Eff no. Why is everyone abusing the poor word "mana" so much? And I dislike mana bar casters it feels like such a boring, flavourless mechanic. It's just dull, and I've seen it a million times. Give me binding, or incarnum, or vancian. A mechanic you can build a world, or at least an adventure around.

Its better than the 40 year old mechanic of spells per day crap. Its easier for new people to grasp, more new people = more money = more developement.

In addition, it scales much better than spells per day, and it follows the standard of rpgs since.. well the last 30+ years now.

If there is one thing d&d just got wrong, it was the way casters work.

So, yeah, give me mana bars.

Vanzanze
2012-01-10, 06:18 PM
Can I have a wish here?

I'd REALLY love a throwback to the "monsters from Earth's lore" that we used to have in 1E/2E. Lamia, Medusa, Phoenix, Roc, Harpy. Stuff that anyone who ever set foot in a Mythology class (and intended to be there) would recognize.

Am I the only one tired of buying a Monster Manual and having 14,000 creatures from "other planes of existence" who look like something I threw up after a drinking binge with eyes/mouths/ears/blood/arms plastered all over them higgledy-piggledy, and have to scour for the ones I used to remember, only to find that they won't be included until the next Manual comes out?

I mean, come on. When I buy a bestiary book, I actually want to be able to use the critters in them, not wonder what the hell the designers and staff artists were all smoking or injecting when they came up with them. Then again, I'm probably one of the only people in the world who still thinks that on a world full of people-ish creatures, people-ish creatures should pose the majority of the problems, not Cari'thex the Abjudorant from the 9 1/2th Dimension and his army of 500-nostriled servants.

gkathellar
2012-01-10, 06:31 PM
Can I have a wish here?

I'd REALLY love a throwback to the "monsters from Earth's lore" that we used to have in 1E/2E. Lamia, Medusa, Phoenix, Roc, Harpy. Stuff that anyone who ever set foot in a Mythology class (and intended to be there) would recognize.

Am I the only one tired of buying a Monster Manual and having 14,000 creatures from "other planes of existence" who look like something I threw up after a drinking binge with eyes/mouths/ears/blood/arms plastered all over them higgledy-piggledy, and have to scour for the ones I used to remember, only to find that they won't be included until the next Manual comes out?

Of course, of the five creatures you mention, all but the Phoenix are included in the core Monster Manual for 3.5 and 4E. So uh ... do you want to give some better examples?

Eldan
2012-01-10, 06:37 PM
I think Vancian casting is very fluffy. It provides its own fluff right there in the mechanic. The wizard spends an hour contemplating whta spells he will need that day. He is a planner and a strategist. He then casts the spells almost to completion. He needs preparation, as magic is not natural and inborn to him. He stores those spells in head.

I just think the entire idea of a mage trapping pre-constructed magical templates in his head is wonderfully creative and miles above any "you have five gallons of magical energy left" mechanic.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 06:39 PM
I think Vancian casting is very fluffy. It provides its own fluff right there in the mechanic. The wizard spends an hour contemplating whta spells he will need that day. He is a planner and a strategist. He then casts the spells almost to completion. He needs preparation, as magic is not natural and inborn to him. He stores those spells in head.

I just think the entire idea of a mage trapping pre-constructed magical templates in his head is wonderfully creative and miles above any "you have five gallons of magical energy left" mechanic.

So I'm guessing you hate all of the spontaneous casters, because they have spell slots but no preparation?

Stubbazubba
2012-01-10, 06:50 PM
I can appreciate the appeal and the internal logic of Vancian casting, however, I don't want it to be the default magic mechanic. I would make it an optional class feature which lets you successfully cast spells you have prepared, bypassing whatever activation roll or whatever else is required of casting non-prepared spells. It would not be the entirety of your magic work for the day.

navar100
2012-01-10, 07:03 PM
With a few unfortunate exceptions(Risen Martyr, that Exalted feat that provides a bonus to poisons), not really. That said, the exceptions were all terrible.

So, it's a pretty reasonable concern.

Actually, it's more a commentary on some others here hoping 5E would have it.
:frown:


I know exactly what D&D needs: Mystery.

Starting with 3E and going over the top in 4E, the game has lost all of it's mystery. The players are too focused on the game part of everything, and not the role playing. Players don't care about the fluff ''oh that scary tentacled monster, sure, whatever...what's it's ac?''. Even more so, all character abilities are straightforward. If a character casts a spell, or uses an ability a set, exact thing happens.

1.Get rid of Knowledge checks. Or at least come up with a system to make them less of an impact. I've seen too many games where the players just ''read the MM page'' by making a high knowledge check, and then win the fight in two rounds by exploiting the monsters weakness and what they know about it. This type of thing must stop. The idea that a simple roll gives you knowledge of every single monster in the multiverse is dumb.

A great twist would be to make knowledge checks something like 50% unreliable. After all, not every sage is a know it all, and sometimes whole nations will believe the wrong thing.

2.Add simple variants to monsters. A lot like mini templates or monster class abilities. That way, no monster is 'by the book'. So no one can know exactly what a single monster can or can't do. Make things like spell like abilities more like ''can cast one 2nd level arcane spell 3/D'' not just ''casts knock 3/d''. Maybe even a system where monsters can 'cash in' abilites and switch them for others.

3.Make magic dangerous. So that when anyone uses any magic, anything can happen. Not so much that they die, just might be harmed or effected. Make it dangerous to use magic vs magic, have wild things happen, both good and bad. Give magic the awe and wonder it should have. Get rid of spellcraft and such, make magic so unique that no one can really understand it...all you can do is just use your experience and go by what you see. But get rid of the ''I have ranks in spellcrat so I know every single spell and magic effect in the multiverse'' crap.

4.Add more mystery to events. When ever a character tries something, always have a random chance that something might happen, good or bad. So a character can't just 'I swing my sword'', as something else might happen. You could build up a network of feats, classes and spells around this...with the risk of making events more extreme.

5.Make the DM ruler, not the rule books. So page one of each rule book says something like ''the rules here are second to what your DM says''.

Yeah, how dare players know stuff! Who do they think they are, feeling entitled to know about the world? They must forever be weakling ignoramuses because only the Almighty Holy Il Duce Ayatollah Fuhrer DM should have any PWER!

CTrees
2012-01-10, 07:10 PM
I'd REALLY love a throwback to the "monsters from Earth's lore" that we used to have in 1E/2E.

I mean, come on. When I buy a bestiary book, I actually want to be able to use the critters in them, not wonder what the hell the designers and staff artists were all smoking or injecting when they came up with them.

To be fair, there was a lot in 1E/2E that was really friggin' bizarre. See the wolf-in-sheep's clothing, for a "used as avatars on this forum" example:
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/d&D%20beasts%20wolf%20in%20sheeps%20clothing.jpg

Coidzor
2012-01-10, 07:12 PM
To be fair, there was a lot in 1E/2E that was really friggin' bizarre. See the wolf-in-sheep's clothing, for a "used as avatars on this forum" example:
http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/d&D%20beasts%20wolf%20in%20sheeps%20clothing.jpg

Clearly the artist was recently divorced. So that's at least some explanation, I suppose. Then again, most of the squiddly, fishy monsters get the someone read too much Lovecraft explanation.

gkathellar
2012-01-10, 07:17 PM
Clearly the artist was recently divorced.

What you have made me see, I cannot unsee.

Seerow
2012-01-10, 07:32 PM
I don't get it, why did this thread get moved to "Other Systems" while the other 4 5e threads are still in the Roleplaying Games section, and Legend is still in the 3.5 section?

rmg22893
2012-01-10, 07:35 PM
What I want are two things, either/or:

1) Durable lightweight sourcebooks (lugging around 20 or so moderately heavy hardback books gets ridiculous)

2) Official PDF sourcebooks

Seerow
2012-01-10, 07:37 PM
What I want are two things, either/or:

1) Durable lightweight sourcebooks (lugging around 20 or so moderately heavy hardback books gets ridiculous)

2) Official PDF sourcebooks

If they give a free copy of the pdf with every hardcover bought, I'll be a very happy person.

KicktheCAN
2012-01-10, 07:39 PM
I want linear power progression in the classes instead of the exponential progression so much of 3.5 has; then we could have some meaningful multiclassing. I want a Wizard 10/Fighter 10 to be just as powerful as a a Fighter 20 or a Wizard 20.

Coplantor
2012-01-10, 07:52 PM
My hopes for 5th edition? Well, I dont care about the rules, I dont care if characters have saves or defences, I dont care for powers, at-wills, maneuvers or spells, I dont care for rituals, skills, feats and levels. I certainly dont care about classes, which are cooler, which are stronger, which are broken. I dont care for the races, if there is one to many scaly creatures as base races, if there are half or full orcs or how many halves can a character have. Dont care about setting, rules light or rules heavy, roleplay or rollplay.

What I do care, however, is that I can understand the basics of it reading the core book(s) only once! That things gets explained as they show up. The player's handbook should explain me how to play at the same time that it teaches me how to roll my first character. At the end of my first read through, I should have (even if very basic) a complete character. 2nd edition was somewhat good at it, 3.5 did it right and 4th edition was almost as good as 3.5 for that matter.

I want the books to be clear about what they mean, I dont want "Iron Heart Surge" like confussions. I've been mostly (and almost exclusively) a DnD player, one of the first non DnD games I checked was Exalted and I got tired of going back and forth between pages as I made my first character because the information I needed didn't followed a clear line as much as it just exploded and fell randomly between the pages of the book.

Mechanics should be easy to find if I need to check the mid-game. Some DnD editions had in the last few pages, a copy of every single table present in the book, boy was that helpful.

Mark Hall
2012-01-10, 09:11 PM
The Mod Wonder: Double posts prior to this should not be reported; they are likely artifacts of thread combination.

Coidzor
2012-01-10, 09:28 PM
If they give a free copy of the pdf with every hardcover bought, I'll be a very happy person.

With the way smartphones and tablets and laptops are becoming more and more of a thing, it does seem like it'd make a certain amount of sense. :/


What you have made me see, I cannot unsee.

I am sorry. :smallfrown: If it's any consolation, it was a cracked(?) article detailing a drunken misadventure through an oldschool D&D module that brought it to light for me. By explicitly calling it out.

Thought it was a fairly commonly mocked monster and at least partially for that reason though. Might be grossly misremembering that old article about stupid D&D monsters and its sequel that get trotted out semi-regularly.

MukkTB
2012-01-10, 09:49 PM
A) Rules that are consistent with the concept of being a world simulator. Not as in the DM having to work through rules to figure out everything that happens in the world, but in the sense of the world making logical sense if the rules are taken literally as the game world's version of physics.
B) Complex and varied options and interactions, in both fluff and mechanics.
C) A simple reliable metric for character (and monster) power, such that knowing this one number (character level, challenge rating, or equivalent) is enough for DMs to judge likely encounter difficulty, possibly with caveats about the presence or absence of particular abilities.

Yes, these requirements (particularly B and C) place conflicting and opposing demands on the nature of the rules system that are difficult to resolve. Resolving them anyway is WotC's job and doing it successfully would justify a high price for the game.

Win.
C isn't so important though.

Coidzor
2012-01-10, 10:13 PM
Win.
C isn't so important though.

Still, what it would indirectly say about how consistently put together the system was would generally be roughly positive-ish, and it does seem like it would be more convenient for the people running the game, especially when new.

killem2
2012-01-10, 10:18 PM
After some more consideration, I'd like to see them return to 3.5 rule base if possible. I don't see it happening though. It would be nice to have some real conversions created so people could interchange between the editions,

Delvin Darkwood
2012-01-10, 10:21 PM
Does anyone even think its at all vaguely possible to even satisfy each of the different edition camps with 5th edition?