D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[deuterio12]

3.5 does not have special "DM only" material. It does have 600 sourcebooks with material usable from level 1. Yes, it can in fact take forever to make a level 1 character.

Please, all those sourcebooks are completely optional. You only need to read some sections of the PHB to make a 1st level character.

Also I wasn't aware you needed to read city, campaign building, experience/treasure granting and NPC generation rules to play a character.

[DoctorGlock]

Please, all those sourcebooks are completely optional. You only need to read some sections of the PHB to make a 1st level character.

Also I wasn't aware you needed to read city, campaign building, experience/treasure granting and NPC generation rules to play a character.

Optional and still legal and valid. Just because you refuse to allow splats does not make it the predominant attitude

And when that setting book includes vital world background and 8 PrCs, yes, you do need to read it to know about these options.

[Silus]

Personally, here's what I want to see in 5E:

A return to the 3.0/3.5 style of magic (Spells over powers and such). Lot more variety and re-opens the "traditional" magic items. Hated the way magic items were done in 4E.

More customization. Seriously. Multi-classing was limited in 4E (imo), which I found as a turnoff. Just....more options.

No more of the "Controller" or "Minion" or what have you with monsters. Goblins should be like goblins, not 1hp schmucks with a pigsticker.

Basically....hire on some of the Pathfinder people to help make 5E and iron out the kinks.

[deuterio12]

Optional and still legal and valid. Just because you refuse to allow splats does not make it the predominant attitude

And when that setting book includes vital world background and 8 PrCs, yes, you do need to read it to know about these options.

No, you don't need it. You can "gasp" make single-based characters!

It's irrelevant if it's legal and/or valid, the point is you don't need to read hundreds of splats to play the game. Even if it's a game in Eberron with all splats allowed, a core barbarian+Eberron's Player Handbook is a valid and legal character. Just because you didn't read Magic of Incarnum, Fiendix Codex II, Book of Exalted Deeds, DMG II and a dozen other random splats will not suddenly make your character unplayable by any means.

[DoctorGlock]

No, you don't need it. You can "gasp" make single-based characters!

It's irrelevant if it's legal and/or valid, the point is you don't need to read hundreds of splats to play the game. Even if it's a game in Eberron with all splats allowed, a core barbarian+Eberron's Player Handbook is a valid and legal character. Just because you didn't read Magic of Incarnum, Fiendix Codex II, Book of Exalted Deeds, DMG II and a dozen other random splats will not suddenly make your character unplayable by any means.

And I'd argue that a core only fighter/monk/paladin/ranger is unplayable.

[Silus]

And I'd argue that a core only fighter/monk/paladin/ranger is unplayable.

Depends of the level of your optimization.

[Matthew]

This made me laugh:

[The-Mage-King]

By which of course you mean that demihumans choose their multiclass at 1st level and split their experience points, and humans get to dual-class, starting over again at level 1, right? Because obviously that's proper multiclassing.

Actually, yes. That IS what I mean.

[Tyndmyr]

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.

I've seen these in games before. They are, in my experience, either an entire waste of space or an actively bad thing, encouraging abusive GMs that they are justified by the rules.

If the group wants to modify the game, they need no permission to do so. I'd rather that the designer spent more time on making the game work instead of writing explanations of why they didn't.

[charcoalninja]

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)

This again with the addition of 4e's monster rules. I love the monsters in 4e so much every time I sit down and play PF (a system whos class mechanics I vastly prefer) I want to bust out 4e monsters rather than the relatively bland 3.5/PF critters.

honestly the more I read the 5e threads the more I want to go back and try to sandwich PF and 4e together again lol.

[Seerow]

I've always taken a different approach. If you want a boss, you play him like a boss. For most adventures in 3e and 4e, and even some of 2e, 'bosses' were made simply by making them be bigger and stronger and with more magical doohickeys. But they weren't played any smarter. Bosses should be smart. The first few times the party encounters them, they should stick around just long enough to gloat, and possibly kill a PC if the party is too confident. They have lackeys to fight for them. They don't need to be in the front line. Most of the time they aren't even on the battlefield.

The toughest boss my party ever defeated was a 5th level wizard. The party were all level 10+ at the time.

But in that case, was it the boss they remembered, or dealing with all of his lackeys and traps? Yes, a weak puppet master does have its place, and not every BBEG needs to be an elite, or even high level. But one you expect to be a central part of the final combat and not get squished as quickly as everything else is needs to be a little tougher, even if it stretches verisimilitude slightly.

I suppose you could make templates that make people elite though. Put a LA or equivalent cost on it high enough most PCs won't really be interested ("So wait I can be worth two PCs... each worth 3 levels lower than me? Sounds like playing a Mystic Theurge, I'll pass"), so then it is a player option, just not a particularly encouraged one.

But then again I still don't see the verisimilitude break from having elites/minions as opposed to the way templates work in 3.5. After all, most of those templates have very different penalties depending on if you're a PC or NPC. For example, Half-Celestial is anywhere from +1-3 CR, but +4 LA. People may gripe about thinking LA is stupid and gimps characters, but I've never seen someone say that it shatters verisimilitude for them.

I agree the enhanced action point economy (d10 instead of d6) isn't a big deal in terms of how big a bonus it actually is. But in terms of getting the player's attention at the table, making him remember what his character has, and encouraging more active participation in the group, it does the job wonderfully. It's not a power enhancement; it's a participation enhancement.

But here's the thing: Feats shouldn't need to be the thing encouraging participation. They're a source of customization, but you shouldn't need to remember each of your feats. That is what powers are for. Feats are there to make sure that Fighter A is a bit different from Fighter B, so you can have big tough soak all the hits fighter, or cut anything to ribbons fighter, or nobody can move within 30 ft of him fighter. They might have all the same powers (though they likely won't) and will still feel and play differently just because of the passive modifications their feats grant. That is what I feel feats should do. If that means individual feats are a little bit boring, that's okay because there are plenty of other places for interesting things the player needs to remember to be.

[Ashtagon]

But in that case, was it the boss they remembered, or dealing with all of his lackeys and traps? Yes, a weak puppet master does have its place, and not every BBEG needs to be an elite, or even high level. But one you expect to be a central part of the final combat and not get squished as quickly as everything else is needs to be a little tougher, even if it stretches verisimilitude slightly.

I suppose you could make templates that make people elite though. Put a LA or equivalent cost on it high enough most PCs won't really be interested ("So wait I can be worth two PCs... each worth 3 levels lower than me? Sounds like playing a Mystic Theurge, I'll pass"), so then it is a player option, just not a particularly encouraged one.

But then again I still don't see the verisimilitude break from having elites/minions as opposed to the way templates work in 3.5. After all, most of those templates have very different penalties depending on if you're a PC or NPC. For example, Half-Celestial is anywhere from +1-3 CR, but +4 LA. People may gripe about thinking LA is stupid and gimps characters, but I've never seen someone say that it shatters verisimilitude for them.

I'll be honest here. I don't even see how this would work. What is the CR adjustment on "play this NPC like he has a double-digit Intelligence score"? Why should that even be a template, and how would you adjudicate it when a player says that your NPC can't do <<something sensible>> because he doesn't have the template?

Consider Xykon. The party know who he is, and have even met him twice. But both times, they didn't really defeat him. The second time, he casually killed a PC. Yes, he is insanely high level. But he is a boss because he plays it smart, not because he is death-on-legs.

But here's the thing: Feats shouldn't need to be the thing encouraging participation. They're a source of customization, but you shouldn't need to remember each of your feats. That is what powers are for. Feats are there to make sure that Fighter A is a bit different from Fighter B, so you can have big tough soak all the hits fighter, or cut anything to ribbons fighter, or nobody can move within 30 ft of him fighter. They might have all the same powers (though they likely won't) and will still feel and play differently just because of the passive modifications their feats grant. That is what I feel feats should do. If that means individual feats are a little bit boring, that's okay because there are plenty of other places for interesting things the player needs to remember to be.

From the point of the player with that fighter, he may well notice that he has a static bonus feat granting +X to die roll Y. But no one else at the table will notice, know, or remember. Giving them additional situational uses forces that awareness into the other gamers at the table.

[Seerow]

I'll be honest here. I don't even see how this would work. What is the CR adjustment on "play this NPC like he has a double-digit Intelligence score"? Why should that even be a template, and how would you adjudicate it when a player says that your NPC can't do <<something sensible>> because he doesn't have the template?

Consider Xykon. The party know who he is, and have even met him twice. But both times, they didn't really defeat him. The second time, he casually killed a PC. Yes, he is insanely high level. But he is a boss because he plays it smart, not because he is death-on-legs.

Actually he is pretty much a boss due to being death on legs. Do you honestly think he'd be half as much of a threat if he weren't a epic level spellcaster?

But regardless the template I was referring to was one to make a character elite, not one to play them smarter. I'm sorry for the confusion/non sequitor. (Note I was talking about making the character tougher to fill a major spot in the encounter right before mentioning a template. The text before that was mostly agreeing with you that you can have a low level BBEG who plays it so smart he's ahead anyway, but that it shouldn't be every BBEG)

From the point of the player with that fighter, he may well notice that he has a static bonus feat granting +X to die roll Y. But no one else at the table will notice, know, or remember. Giving them additional situational uses forces that awareness into the other gamers at the table.

Once again, does it matter if the other players at the table know specifically what the Fighter has and doesn't have? The Fighter is still going to have cool powers, so while they may not notice his feat, they will notice his abilities that are actually meant to be cool. They may not recognize or care that the fighter has +x to hit, but they will recognize and notice that the fighter in their party never seems to miss, even on really low rolls, and reliably deals huge amounts of damage. They may not notice that the Fighter has feats that gives DR5/-, extra AC, and extra HP, but when he stands at the bottleneck to buy the party time to run away, they will notice that he manages to hold there for 5 rounds when any one of them would have long since been dead, and he still somehow manages to miraculously catch up with them and escape.

It's not about big flashy things. That's what powers are for. You are STILL in the mindset of "feats need to be cool things because they're all I have". Do you consider a wizard boring because nobody knows that he has spell focus giving him +1 to spell DCs, or even because he has Arcane Thesis, which is making his metamagic feats cheaper, something nobody but him will ever notice? No!

So your only reason for complaining about passive feats is the assumption that classes will default closer to the 3.5 fighter than the 3.5 wizard. I have been arguing from the baseline opposite assumption the whole time. Everyone already has plenty of cool things to keep them entertained, but feats are there to provide a little more diversity among how the cool things are used.

[Lappy9001]

This again with the addition of 4e's monster rules. I love the monsters in 4e so much every time I sit down and play PF (a system whos class mechanics I vastly prefer) I want to bust out 4e monsters rather than the relatively bland 3.5/PF critters.

honestly the more I read the 5e threads the more I want to go back and try to sandwich PF and 4e together again lol.

I'd be down with that. While I generally didn't like too much of 4th Edition, the Monster Manuals were fantastic...

[Person_Man]

Articles discussing 5E (which some people are calling "D&D next" - they haven't settled on an actual name yet) can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Most discuss actual play testing.

Key take aways:

• Initial reactions have all been positive.
• Mike Mearls is the lead designer.
• They haven't decided what they're doing about an OGL.
• A key component of 5E is that it incorporates "the best parts of previous editions."
• 5E will be "a universal rule set which unifies all players under one single system."
• “Just like a player makes his character, the Dungeon Master can make his ruleset,” says Mearls. “He might say ‘I’m going to run a military campaign, it’s going to be a lot of fighting’… so he’d use the combat chapter, drop in miniatures rules, and include the martial arts optional rules.”
• "They’re simple without being stupid, and efficient without being shallow. Combat was quick and satisfying; we got through most of an adventure in just a few hours. And I get the sense that fifth edition will bring back some of the good complexity of previous versions, allowing players to create unique characters and new worlds."
• There will be some sort of open comment period on the rules before they are published. WotC is collecting emails now on their main sight if you're interested.
• Players will get their first chance to play-test the proposed changes this month at the Dungeons & Dragons Experience convention – running January 26-29 in Fort Wayne, Indiana. (Do any Playgrounders live in Indiana?)

So, simplified core rules with optional rules layered on top, drawing upon the best parts of previous editions. What will this look like?

My best guess:

• A core mechanic of 1d20 + (1/2 level) + relevant attribute vs something, which will be used to resolve most mechanical issues.
• Simple rules for grapple, equipment, encumbrance, etc, with optional more complex tables of rules for people who want to track that sort of thing.
• The return of powerful/crazy/varied magic in some form (as opposed to the more limited/balanced 4E Power system), and perhaps parallel systems for non-magical classes.

The biggest issue that they need to resolve is that 4E Power system (At-Will/Encounter/Daily, gained from a set chart at the same rate for all players, with Powers being very limited, duplicative, and traded out for slightly more powerful versions every time you gain a level) is incompatible with every previous edition. They need to choose.

[DoctorGlock]

4e had shiny art. 5e should have shiny art as well.

[Kerrin]

With regard to battle mats...

I've run both 3.5 and 4.0 combat encounters without using a battle mat just to try it out. It worked out pretty much the same as when we've played RPGs that don't have any notion of a battle mat in their rules. So both existing versions are unplayable without one.

A battle mat has its pros and cons. It just depends upon how your group wants to run their combat-ish encounters.

[Manateee]

I made and started playing my first D&D 3.0 character in less than 20 min. Really, if you're not a caster, you just need to take a quick look at the feats and basic equipment. The bases are pretty simple, roll a 1d20, add modfier, compare to DC, move on. Roll some other die here and there.

Even if you're a caster, there's not that many 1st and 0th level spells to choose from. You only need to read the rest as you level up, which really won't be that fast. Or if you want to abuse the game by reading the DM-only material, but that's only required for purposedly breaking the game, not playing it.

The assumption here seems to be that somebody else in the group has read the hundreds of pages of rules, knows all the things that happen in combat, has a general idea of how casters get and cast spells, knows what weather does, knows what constitutes an interesting encounter, knows how to find how far a character goes on a specific jump check, etc.

What I meant was that that doesn't really have to be the case anymore. It wouldn't be hard to set up a pretty light program that contains all that information and implements it without user learning required - it would just take a lot of work hours, something WotC can do better than most publishers.

[paddyfool]

I was initially surprised, but thinking about it - people aren't excited about 4e any more. The longer they wait between new editions, the more fanbase they'll lose to other, newer, games. And this might be a way to get people to look back at them who haven't played a game of 3.5 or 4e in ages. So this makes oodles of commercial sense for them.

I hope for a game where fights can be honestly lost as well as won without bringing the game to a halt.

You may want to look up the "cheating death" rules from Fantasy Craft for that one. Not sure how well they'd translate to other games with a generally lower level of cinematics, but it could be doable.

[Eldan]

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

Not really, no, I quite like playing them in fact, and the flavour of inborn magic is also pretty nice. However, for these a point mechanic would indeed make more sense than a slot mechanic. I'd say make the psion charisma dependent and call it sorcerer, and leave the wizard. That should get you your bases covered.

It's not about big flashy things. That's what powers are for. You are STILL in the mindset of "feats need to be cool things because they're all I have". Do you consider a wizard boring because nobody knows that he has spell focus giving him +1 to spell DCs, or even because he has Arcane Thesis, which is making his metamagic feats cheaper, something nobody but him will ever notice? No!

See, I don't take these feats on a wizard, or only rarely. I take a reserve feat, or invisible spell, or silent spell, or Transdimensional spell, or a feat that doesn't even help a wizard much at all. They are just more interesting than one that maybe helps me win more often in combat, but doesn't add anything to the character.

[GungHo]

Oh great... poor Ed Greenwood's gonna have to cull another crop of gods. Nice knowing you, Asmodeus.

[Vanzanze]

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?

I know. I gave bad examples of what I wanted to see, but I can give good examples of the kinds of crap I don't want to see, just because I feel like it clogs up room for things I could actually use:
- Aboleth
- Achaierai
- Arrowhawk
- Chaos Beast (maybe)
- Darkmantle (maybe)
- Delver (maybe)
- Digester
- Ethereal X
- Gibbering Mouther
- Grick
- Howler
- Phantom Fungus
- Phasm (just looks weird in the picture and is just another version of the Mimic/Doppelganger/etc.)
- Rast
- Tendriculos
- Tojanida
- Xorn
- Yrthak

Granted, it's not a large list, but have we really run out of things that scare us on this plane of existence?

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:

Spoiler

Show

Oh, I agree. There's lots of weirdness in 1E/2E monsters. But, for some reason, I feel like the people who did 3.0/3.5 really jumped over "variations of things that intrinsically prey on humans' fears" and went straight for the part where they got to put arms, mouths, and eyes on a big blob of goo and call it something extraplanar.

[Yora]

Good list, except aboleths. These things have a lot of background lore and are best buddies with beholders and mind flayers.

What I also really dislike is very boring stuff like "rat with 8 legs", "lion with 6 legs", "panther with a hand on the end of its tail", and "rat with the face of Steve Buscemi".

[Vanzanze]

What I also really dislike is very boring stuff like "rat with 8 legs", "lion with 6 legs", "panther with a hand on the end of its tail", and "rat with the face of Steve Buscemi".

Agreed.

Just, please, no more absurd pictures/creatures for the sake of being absurd. Star Trek was amazingly successful (after its initial run) with lots of aliens that had interesting powers/guns/etc., but all looked like humans in masks/makeup.

If it's a "rat with 8 legs," make it a rat-spider hybrid or something and give it interesting powers that would compel me to use it in a dungeon in place of either a rat or a spider.

I just hate a manual full of monsters that would never EVER have evolved under ANY set of circumstances in a natural world. EVER.

[Eldan]

I know. I gave bad examples of what I wanted to see, but I can give good examples of the kinds of crap I don't want to see, just because I feel like it clogs up room for things I could actually use:
- Aboleth
- Achaierai
- Arrowhawk
- Chaos Beast (maybe)
- Darkmantle (maybe)
- Delver (maybe)
- Digester
- Ethereal X
- Gibbering Mouther
- Grick
- Howler
- Phantom Fungus
- Phasm (just looks weird in the picture and is just another version of the Mimic/Doppelganger/etc.)
- Rast
- Tendriculos
- Tojanida
- Xorn
- Yrthak

Granted, it's not a large list, but have we really run out of things that scare us on this plane of existence?

Can I just say that this list includes some of my favourites? Sadly, 3.5 really didn't put in a lot of their fluff. But if you can get your hands on one of the Planescape monster manuals for AD&D, you'll see that some of these things are absolutely fascinating.

Edit: We live in a world of sea cucumbers, giraffe weevils, mole rats, gulper eels, dancing spiders, pistol shrimp, ant-controlling fungus, giant deep sea amphipods, star moles, axolotls, platypodes, barrel-eye fish, yeti crabs and Mike, the headless chicken.
Surely, you can't say an eight-legged insectivore is out of the question?

[Yora]

Something having more legs than usual is not a problem. But it sucks when that is everything that makes it different from an ordinary animal.
Displacers Beasts have six legs, but they also have tentacles and a crazy illusion effect. What you are fighting is something very different from a six legged lion.

The osquip is just a big rat that looks goofy.

[CTrees]

I just hate a manual full of monsters that would never EVER have evolved under ANY set of circumstances in a natural world. EVER.

A wizard did it. IIRC, that was literally the explanation for some of the early monsters.

- Aboleth 1E
- Achaierai 1E
- Arrowhawk
- Chaos Beast (maybe) 2E
- Darkmantle (maybe)
- Delver (maybe)
- Digester
- Ethereal X
- Gibbering Mouther 1E
- Grick
- Howler
- Phantom Fungus
- Phasm (just looks weird in the picture and is just another version of the Mimic/Doppelganger/etc.)
- Rast 2E
- Tendriculos
- Tojanida
- Xorn 1E
- Yrthak

Just saying, several of those go a long way back (and some of the ones I didn't list are probably from 1E/2E; I just don't remember and can't find the reference quickly enough). You're really dealing with a D&D problem, not just a 3e/3.5e/4e problem. Also... several of those are plant creatures, specifically. I LIKE having plant creatures other than treants and... more treants.

[Eldan]

Howler was certainly in 2E. A lot of Ethereal Xs too, I think. Probably the Arrowhawk too.

[TheArsenal]

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.

Which is why 5e will not succeed. I want the exact OPPOSITE of what you want =P .

With everybody wanting different stuff- It sucks.

[Seerow]

Which is why 5e will not succeed. I want the exact OPPOSITE of what you want =P .

With everybody wanting different stuff- It sucks.

You and a couple other people. Incidentally there are a lot of people who play PF/3.5 and feel the same way I do, they just disliked what 4e did on the player side of things. I've seen very few people who actually DM regularly complain about 4e NPCs.


They may not be able to get everyone, but I think if they did it right they could get 75-80% of the major groups, which would be a huge victory.


That said, my confidence in them isn't extremely high. The articles they've been putting out about design philosophy have been a lot of garbage. But they could pull something out that actually works, you never know.