Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[MukkTB]

I am going to get a perverse glee watching the 4e/5e edition wars, having eaten some grenades in the 3.x/4e edition wars.

[KnightDisciple]

@Narsil: Yet unlike you, I found the changes in 4e's assumed "generic setting", and the "setting" as a whole, far more interesting than Blandhawk (Greyhawk is very meh, or at least the core rulebook presentation is).

So, it's a conundrum, isn't it?

[navar100]

I am going to get a perverse glee watching the 4e/5e edition wars, having eaten some grenades in the 3.x/4e edition wars.

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

[Eldan]

There is sort of a basic setting for pre-4E D&D, it is just never really explained out of Planescape, and even that only makes the barest attempt. Core never went into it much, I think.

It's based on the assumption that everything, all the settings ever published are part of the same universe. You can play any setting without ever going there, but it exists. A bit like how you can read comics without ever hearding of the big DC or Marvel universe, but more insane.

Everything you read in earlier books is sort of assumed to be a part of that.

[Seerow]

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

I'm already predicting complaining a lot about 5e healing, if any of the rumors have any sort of merit.

[Fatebreaker]

Really? The Hospitaler, Rainbow Servant, Warmage, Green Star Adept, Mage of the Arcane Order, Wayfarer Guide, Knight of the Chalice, Knight Protector and Master of the Unseen Hand are basically all pretty much generic, with sample organisations attached in places. I mean, seriously. A hospitaler is as generic a term as templar, given that it has vaguely the same origins in an old religious chivalric organisation back in the Middle Ages. Are you going to call the paladin and ranger setting-specific now as well?

So that leaves the Black Flame Zealot and the Thayan Knight as prestige classes connected to the Forgotten Realms. The rest? All Greyhawk, with the Seeker of the Misty Isle, Shining Blade of Heironeous and Suel Arcanamach all being connected to Greyhawk deities or to Greyhawk nations.

*sigh* That's not what I'm saying.

In my original example, I compared and contrasted the "Purple Dragon Knights" from Complete Warrior with the real Purple Dragon Knights of Cormyr from Forgotten Realms. PDK of Cormyr exist within the context of a setting, complete with friends, enemies, goals, history, territory, and so on and so forth. The PDK of Complete Warrior is, to quote my past self, an "ephemeral group of knights from nowhere in particular who fight unspecified battles against undescribed foes for no particular goal." However, their fluff treats them as a very specific group, and conveniently avoids telling us anything relevant about them.

That the PDK of Cormyr is originally from Forgotten Realms is only important as a contrast between fluff within a setting and fluff without nouns. It doesn't matter if they were originally from Forgotten Realms, or Dragonlance, or Ravenloft, or Greyhawk, or Eberron -- just that they had a specific setting where their fluff was integrated with the whole.

The other prestige classes I cited are all further examples of classes which have class-specific fluff which requires a change in your setting. Some (such as the Hospitalers or the Knight of the Chalice) require a formal order which acts within the world. Some have a specific origin (such as the Rainbow Servants, who are taught their magic by couatls atop ziggurats deep in "the jungle"). Some have specific goals (such as the Seeker of the Misty Isle, whose existence creates not just an order, but an entire missing island paradise whisked away by a god). The relevance of citing them is that each of them, in some way, imposes on your setting, but makes no real effort to interact with anything beyond itself. So you could (theoretically) have a generic homebrew world which includes all of them, with no real sense of where each one is or how they interact with one another. It's like living in a house with a dozen strangers, but you never talk to one another or even make eye contact. That is a not a setting which inspires any real sense of immersion.

Now, you can refluff them... but if you're doing that anyway, it doesn't matter what their original fluff is.

Which draws back to the original point -- you contend that 3.x Monster Manuals were better because the monster entries had more fluff. But, much like our Purple Dragon Knights of Nowhere In Particular, that fluff was tied to a setting which didn't exist as a coherent whole (as opposed to the PDK of Cormyr, whose fluff was integrated with a coherent whole). So you either ended up shoehorning in the fluff to your setting or you ended up changing the fluff, which fairly neatly invalidates the point of having it in the first place.

I much preferred how 4e provided mechanical stats in the Monster Manual, and fluff in the various campaign guides and fluff books. It makes it much easier to swap monsters between campaign worlds ("here, orcs have formed a desert kingdom, while here, orcs have formed a dessert kingdom"), and it doesn't saddle you down with assumptions that don't always hold true. I'm not trying to convince you that 4e had better fluff than 3.x. The point I'm trying to make is that 3.x tried to have it both ways: fluff that was both setting specific and setting neutral. It comes off as weird and surreal. It does not create immersion, nor does it even create a setting. It lacks the context necessary to make anything relevant.

One of the biggest strengths of D&D (if not the biggest) is how it has within itself the capacity for so many fantasy worlds. It straddles the line between a genre system and setting specific system. Probably (one of) the best thing(s) Wizards could do for 5e is to make the rules are setting neutral as possible and crank out campaign books for each setting, and then crank out new ones. But the key to making that work is to not behave like the 3.x books. Make the mechanics viable in any campaign world, and let the DM's tell the stories they want in the world of their choosing.

Outside of that, no... there's nothing wrong with changes in theory. Except if they have this whole thing of contradicting what has come before to such a degree that it completely changes what many of the earlier fans liked about the setting. And yes, they made a lot of needless changes in the switchover from AD&D to 3e... but it's nowhere near the scale of change that was brought about during 4th edition.

-snip-

And ultimately this is going to be a make-or-break for 5e when it comes many fans like myself, who came from older editions.

How in the world is creating a new setting contradictory to your old setting? I still have the old Forgotten Realms books, and I use those just fine in my 4e games. It doesn't matter that 4e has a Forgotten Realms campaign setting, I own both old and new material and pick what is true from each. We are literally talking about a game where you define reality as you see fit at your table.

@Narsil: Yet unlike you, I found the changes in 4e's assumed "generic setting", and the "setting" as a whole, far more interesting than Blandhawk (Greyhawk is very meh, or at least the core rulebook presentation is).

So, it's a conundrum, isn't it?

When 4e first came out, we ran a "default setting" game just to test the system. No homebrew, no houserules, just took the system at face value and went from there.

We enjoyed the Nentir Vale so much, we never bothered to create our own world. Theirs was just way too much fun!

Edit: And fey. I always thought fey were silly pre-4e. The 4e Feywild was awesome.

[Scots Dragon]

How in the world is creating a new setting contradictory to your old setting? I still have the old Forgotten Realms books, and I use those just fine in my 4e games. It doesn't matter that 4e has a Forgotten Realms campaign setting, I own both old and new material and pick what is true from each. We are literally talking about a game where you define reality as you see fit at your table.

It's contradictory for me because it uses several things from the old settings, but with many inherent changes.

But ultimately my experiences with 4th edition were soured early on, with the very anemic core system, the idiotic-as-hell 'fighters get special powers now' system, and the vast, sweeping changes to the Forgotten Realms and the overall setting cosmology pretty much turned me off from the game. The whole idea of Nentir Vale isn't even something I dislike, and if they'd stuck to making Nentir Vale the only setting where these changes were implemented, I'd actually probably feel a lot better about it. But they didn't, and most of the older settings were changed to fit the new paradigm.

Greyhawk was pretty much strip-mined for ideas to include in Nentir Vale, for the first instance. And then the Forgotten Realms was practically blasted apart and had needless tielfings and dragonborn inserted into it. And most of the elven characters became eladrin. The Great Wheel was just removed, and replaced with a pretty bland 'astral sea' model to the multiverse.

And then Ravenloft was retconned to be part of the Shadowfell. And then there were Eladrin in Dark Sun.


The simple fact of the matter is that if all of these changes had remained within Nentir Vale, there would not be a problem. But they didn't, and they'll now have an additional problem trying to reconcile it all with the shift over to 5th edition and bringing in the players of older editions. Hell, they pretty much know that, which is why one of their pre-5e products is an edition-neutral Forgotten Realms sourcebook written by Ed Greenwood to be released later this year.

I personally can't wait for that.

[2xMachina]

5th Edition simply can't win on this particular issue, as it can only be made to be conversion-able to either 3rd or 4th Edition but not both. So they are doing what I consider the safe thing and don't attempt either and instead try something entirely new.

Then the fanbase is split again. This time, into 3 sides.

[Scots Dragon]

Then the fanbase is split again. This time, into 3 sides.

That would actually be a reduction, when taking into account all of the myriad pre-3e fans as well. Such as the Classic D&D fans, the 1st edition AD&D fans, the 2nd edition AD&D fans, the various fans of the Rules Cyclopedia and Basic D&D, and those who've become enthusiasts of the various retroclones released over the past ten years.

[WitchSlayer]

Whoa whoa whoa

Hey

Eladrin in Dark Sun were AWESOME. Mad djinn raiders from a world that was destroyed.

[Kurald Galain]

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

Prediction two: the complaint will be that 5E made the same mistakes as 4E, and that WOTC should simply put 3E back in print.

Prediction three: people will compliment 5E on going back to D&D's roots to resemble 1E mechanics, even if it does nothing of the sort.

[Scowling Dragon]

Eladrin in Dark Sun were AWESOME. Mad djinn raiders from a world that was destroyed.

They can go die in a ditch in the para-elemental plane of silt for all I care about them.

Dark sun isn't about otherworldly influences or planes (Except for the hyper dangerous and uninhabitable elemental planes)

The point of the world is a post apocalyptic world that used to be a paradise!
The world itself was the wonderland, which was then destroyed! There is no escape!

In addition the Races of Athas are specifically different, as the effects of the world changed them after thousands of years. Elves are running nomads without the concentration to learn lots of magic. Instead they RUN RUN RUN and RUN some more.

Dwarves HATE hair, and are bald and beardless!

But NO 4e just HAD TO shove its pointless races into the mix!

Well I have a place where they can all be shoved!

[Tyndmyr]

I am going to get a perverse glee watching the 4e/5e edition wars, having eaten some grenades in the 3.x/4e edition wars.

I admit, I don't understand the point of arguing over it yet...we don't know exactly what 5 will be like. Now, once I play 5, I'll probably have a strong opinion one way or the other, but until then, why bother?

That would actually be a reduction, when taking into account all of the myriad pre-3e fans as well. Such as the Classic D&D fans, the 1st edition AD&D fans, the 2nd edition AD&D fans, the various fans of the Rules Cyclopedia and Basic D&D, and those who've become enthusiasts of the various retroclones released over the past ten years.

I know a gent who is deep into the older D&D culture. As in, writing retro-modules and getting them published and such. His attitude toward 5e is "I'll buy it if it's compatible with the earlier versions". He considers 3.5 compatible because he can use those adventures in earlier versions with minimal changes, but does not consider 4e to be, because he can't.

Wotc doesn't need to make everyone HAPPY, just...happy enough to buy.

[bokodasu]

I am really interested to see how the convertability works out. They claim to be trying for both. (And older editions too.) I can... sort of murkily imagine that it would be possible? But I haven't played 4th outside of Gamma World, so I'm no expert here.

Obviously you're not going to be able to convert your L20 character that used 15 different sourcebooks to build, no matter which version you're converting from. They're not going to put all the previous splats into the new core, so we can ignore that case right from the start. But what is reasonable to expect to be able to convert?

I would say any combination of core race/class from any edition, in such a way that it can create the same results as the original character, even if the mechanics of how those results are created change. If a 3e wizard can cast Fireball, the 5e conversion should be able to cast Fireball. If the 4e wizard has an encounter power that lets it shoot flame at an enemy, the 5e conversion should be able to burn an enemy once per encounter. Those don't really seem incompatible, given the right menu to pick from.

If the 3->5e conversion winds up being able to shoot flame once per encounter in addition to casting Fireball, I don't consider that an incompatibility. But does that mean that 5e character will have to be more powerful than either a 3e or a 4e one, just to encompass all of the possibilities? Again, given the right menu, I don't think so. How that menu is going to be set up, though, I have no clue.

Or maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong angle - maybe we should all be divorcing class from ability even further, as suggested by some of the previous arguments. If class describes what you can do, then there's no reason why a 3e wizard couldn't convert to "Vancian Wizard" and a 4e wizard to "Sorcerer" (or whatever name you like). Again, it's not the name that's important, but the functionality.

Does this sound like a functional track, or a recipe for a 700-page Player's Guide?

[Tyndmyr]

Obviously you're not going to be able to convert your L20 character that used 15 different sourcebooks to build, no matter which version you're converting from. They're not going to put all the previous splats into the new core, so we can ignore that case right from the start. But what is reasonable to expect to be able to convert?

Depends on conversion guidelines. For instance, going from 2 to 3, or 3 to 3.5, you could convert fairly easily in most cases even if you used different sources. The same is true for 3.5 to pathfinder.

So, at least in theory, it's possible for a comprehensive conversion guide to exist. I'm glad I'm not the guy who has to write that, tho.

[Scots Dragon]

Wotc doesn't need to make everyone HAPPY, just...happy enough to buy.

Indeed. Though it seems that the greatest compatibility is between the first three editions are inter-compatible enough, though with 3e being less so, so it's probably going to be the case that 5e takes more from those earlier editions. And, given what I've seen of preliminary materials, that does actually seem to be the case, with the wizard having a Vancian progression track, for instance.

Does this sound like a functional track, or a recipe for a 700-page Player's Guide?

You speak as if those two are mutually exclusive. Gigantic books of tomely goodness are to be encouraged.

[Scowling Dragon]

Unless you want to scare away buyers, huge expensive tomes are to be discouraged.

Even if its amazing, I wouldn't buy a set of 700 page 60$ rulebooks.

[Scots Dragon]

Unless you want to scare away buyers, huge expensive tomes are to be discouraged.

Even if its amazing, I wouldn't buy a set of 700 page 60$ rulebooks.

Shush you. We don't need that kind of logic here. :P

[Scowling Dragon]

Also:

Stop the supplement treadmill. Its a (If not THE) edition killer.

It looks like it can give you some serious cash , but its the thing that kills your edition the quickest.

Everybody wants the splatbook, but with splatbooks come bloat. Bloat kills the edition.

Instead, make well-written campaign settings (With rare and appropriate splatbooks).

I think the problem is that most modern D&D fluff simply isn't very interesting. Its...OK, but its just based around shoveling more classes and splats rather then just being interesting or well written with a couple of splatty stuff thrown in.

Look at Dark sun. Its a very in depth setting.

In depth it describes Elves and Thri-Kreen (Highly in depth) with a book for each. At the end of the book are a couple of stuff made for the races. Very little bloat but incredibly useful for players and (Especialy) DMs.

I would Totally buy a reprint of the Veiled alliance even though it contains:

No new magic items or classes or anything. Just some well written stuff.

[Tom Foolery]

Prediction: The complaint will be 5E went back to the 3E model for something 4E fixed but 5E made broken again.

I disagree it will still be 3ed vs 4th ed. Both sides will be blaming the other for whatever perceived flaws they think it has.

3rd ed ranter: This rule is clearly the same as 4th edition thus it sucks and ruins the game.
4th ed ranter: This rule is clearly the same as 3rd edition and thus no longer feels like my D&D.

[KnightDisciple]

Also:

Stop the supplement treadmill. Its a (If not THE) edition killer.

It looks like it can give you some serious cash , but its the thing that kills your edition the quickest.

Everybody wants the splatbook, but with splatbooks come bloat. Bloat kills the edition.

Instead, make well-written campaign settings (With rare and appropriate splatbooks).

I think the problem is that most modern D&D fluff simply isn't very interesting. Its...OK, but its just based around shoveling more classes and splats rather then just being interesting or well written with a couple of splatty stuff thrown in.

Look at Dark sun. Its a very in depth setting.

In depth it describes Elves and Thri-Kreen (Highly in depth) with a book for each. At the end of the book are a couple of stuff made for the races. Very little bloat but incredibly useful for players and (Especialy) DMs.

I would Totally buy a reprint of the Veiled alliance even though it contains:

No new magic items or classes or anything. Just some well written stuff.

Ok, but how are they actually going to make money?

No, I'm dead seriously.

It seems like you're basically asking them to release 1 set of 3 core books (or 2, or whatever), then release a few campaign settings with similar numbers.

That's great in theory, but it won't make them money.
Which, you know, they kind of have to. To stay in business, pay their bills, repay their stockholders, etc.
I mean, this isn't a charity guys.

I don't think "no splatbooks" is reasonable.
"Better pacing on splatbooks", "well thought-out splatbooks", "splatbooks that don't revisit the same stuff", or things like that, those make sense and are reasonable.

But "no splatbooks ever" is just silly. We all know they'll do it.

And what if some of us players want options for something that's not released in the books they print initially (no matter what, this will happen)?
Are we relegated to Homebrew no matter what?

[Scowling Dragon]

Uh.....Isn't that what 2e did? And didn't it stay afloat for like....ten years?

Also: I mentioned that extra stuff is added to COMPLEMENT the new fluff. Not the other way around.

[DefKab]

Unless you want to scare away buyers, huge expensive tomes are to be discouraged.

Even if its amazing, I wouldn't buy a set of 700 page 60$ rulebooks.

Really? o_O Because to me, it seems better than a 200 page 40$ rulebook.

Lookatit.... You got your cover page, your dedication page, your splash page, the intro page, the basic premise page, all in the front of every book, and then you have your glossary, index, location of tables, quick reference, and advertisement pages in the back... My PHB lost me some 20 pages due to fat, and still cost a rediculous amount of money... Adding 300 pages of actual worth for only a fraction of the cost? I dont care if that bee is 10 pounds, I'll buy it.

Then again, I'm a hypocrite, and a liar. I'll probably download it instead...

[Draz74]

Ok, but how are they actually going to make money?

Lots of small, high-quality (probably paperback) books. Which are either Campaign Setting Supplements (mostly fluff; light on crunch except for monster stat blocks), or adventure modules.

Plus, continue 4e's subscription-based model for income. 21st century, and all that. 4e's Character Builder was generally a smashing success. If you make an equally good VTT (as 4e promised but never delivered), and tie it all to a system that doesn't have 4e's mechanical problems, I think you'd be able to build a very large customer base that is willing to pay you $10/month ongoing.

Tie all this to a SMALL base of crunch-heavy rulebooks (including, but not limited to, a Core PHB and DMG) and WotC can do just fine. As long as their game design skills don't suck.

* * *

Crazy new idea that just occurred to me:

For customers who just love new "crunch" material and don't care about bloat, what if you included a significant amount of new mechanical material in each Dragon magazine (which, like in recent years, is available in pdf form via monthly subscription), but you're just plain honest about putting a "DM beware of balance issues!" sign on the cover? Basically be upfront about giving Dragon content the same "caution: unofficial" status that most people assumed about 3e Dragon Content? And not consider it official material for e.g. tournament play? Basically, Dragon Magazine just becomes a big pile of published homebrew that can give groups ideas if they are looking for more mechanical options for their game.

Then, you could even make your few, crunch-heavy splatbooks a Compendium of the most popular, most balanced Dragon content that has been out for at least a year. Like, take all the best magic items from Dragon issues, slap some errata and fixes on them, and publish it as "Dragon Compendium: Tome of Artifice" or something.

[Scowling Dragon]

That would work.

Point is that the "Treadmill of supplements" causes heavy burnout.

3e lasted for only 8 years, and that was with a huge errata. 4e lasted for barely 5.

If you can just make quality material, and just good writing, people will buy your stuff.

[hamlet]

Point of order: TSR learned the hard way that you inherently limit your profits if you intend to make profit on selling books that, by their nature, appeal to only 1 out of 5 or 6 members of each D&D group. Adventures and DMG's are profit loss items, really.

What I'd love to see is the publication of lots of new setting books, either as two book sets separated into player knowledge and DM knowledge, or as one book but with a clear and explicit divider between player and DM sections like the original Arcana Unearthed did.

Modules can, and almost should in a way, be made available online either free or very cheap. Cut the cost of printing and still offer them for sale. Or POD if desired.

Much as I am loathe to say it, though, the best way to bilk money out of the gaming crowd is to print lots of books aimed at players with lots of fun new crunchy rules that they might not be required to have, but really really want.

[Scowling Dragon]

Unfortunatly it lasted 3e only 8 years (With a large errata so technically 5). So even with TSRs stuff its still better then what WOTC did.

Ive found the setting books of 3e and 4e to be SO BORING. Its just not conveyed in an interesting way!

[Tyndmyr]

Also:

Stop the supplement treadmill. Its a (If not THE) edition killer.

It looks like it can give you some serious cash , but its the thing that kills your edition the quickest.

Everybody wants the splatbook, but with splatbooks come bloat. Bloat kills the edition.

Instead, make well-written campaign settings (With rare and appropriate splatbooks).

I think the problem is that most modern D&D fluff simply isn't very interesting. Its...OK, but its just based around shoveling more classes and splats rather then just being interesting or well written with a couple of splatty stuff thrown in.

Look at Dark sun. Its a very in depth setting.

In depth it describes Elves and Thri-Kreen (Highly in depth) with a book for each. At the end of the book are a couple of stuff made for the races. Very little bloat but incredibly useful for players and (Especialy) DMs.

I would Totally buy a reprint of the Veiled alliance even though it contains:

No new magic items or classes or anything. Just some well written stuff.

I'm pretty ok with splatbooks. I own all the 3.5 ones, I think. Well, the official ones, anyway. I've got a few of the others too, but there's rather a lot out there.

You don't HAVE to use them all for a given game, but lots of people like to use at least some. After all, we buy em, right?

I'm not against lots of campaign settings as well, but it need not be a "no splatbook" plan.

[hamlet]

Unfortunatly it lasted 3e only 8 years (With a large errata so technically 5). So even with TSRs stuff its still better then what WOTC did.

Ive found the setting books of 3e and 4e to be SO BORING. Its just not conveyed in an interesting way!

I'd wager that that second bit is due to the ever increasing and falacious equation of more rules to depth of writing. I find the original greybox Forgotten Realms setting fabulously more interesting, by orders of magnitude, than the 4e Forgotten Realms setting. And I'm not talking about rules preference, just the basic writing of the setting in and of itself. The greybox is, simply put, more evocatively written, more inspiring, just flat out more interesting as a campaign setting than the latest WOTC version, and it has virtually no rules info in it except for a few NPC statblocks and an adventure.

I think WOTC would be greatly benefited if they went back to those old campaign setting books and just relearned what made them so good in the first place. That would be a great thing.

[DefKab]

Ive found the setting books of 3e and 4e to be SO BORING. Its just not conveyed in an interesting way!

Mostly 'cause they're just 'here's a city of ALL UNDEAD!' and 'Here's one... in the sky'... Unless you're talking about Faerun, and Dark Sun, in which case, lolwut? You probably don't like their hype... Since neither 3e or 4e had a setting, their adventure supplements had to be stand alone, which made them feel exactly what they were: several pieces that if thrown together showed obvious stitchings and a lack of cohesion between writing styles. Like... Sticky notes, if someone wrote a different one each time, that tried to explain a setting, except no one was allowed to look at the other sticky notes that were already posted...