Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
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.
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.
__________________ It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one’s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
– Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
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.
Knowledge (local) being trained only, and not a class skill for many classes, means that your average human may well not be able to identify other humans! This may explain the exceptional quantity of half-human hybrids.
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?
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.
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.
__________________
Swordmaster in the playground.
Last edited by Metahuman1 : 01-09-2012 at 11:46 AM.
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.
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
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.
__________________
Avapony by Dirtytabs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes
Finding out that the ennui and cynicism of our times is not, after all, an unavoidable unreverseable fate does kind of throw your world-view off, potentially.
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
__________________
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miscast_Mage
You're a frickin' ninja below me, too!? You got mad skills, Vknight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbane
Rogue vs. Dog. (The new Cat vs. Commoner, only not amusing!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay R
You are making the assumption of rational planning. After 37 years of dungeon crawling, I still have zero evidence that the average dungeon was designed by the sane.
"Sleep is optional, just ask Vknight" Someone I Forget but thanks... I don't
Also, PCs and monsters that function by the same rules, for the sake of world consistency please
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.
__________________
If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic. No, really. Don't bite my head off for saying the Fighter is way overpowered, or how Wizards need more spells per day to keep up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The random background generator is awesome. I got a NG dwarven magus who was involved in a "pleasure" scandal with some arcane experiment backfire as well. My imagination is running off with that.
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?
__________________
Lord Raziere herd I like Blasphemy, so Urpriest Exalted as a Malefactor
Meet My Monstrous Guide to Monsters. Everything you absolutely need to know about Monsters and never thought you needed to ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf
One of the unwritten rules of Giantitp is that Urpriest is always right.
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.
__________________
If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic. No, really. Don't bite my head off for saying the Fighter is way overpowered, or how Wizards need more spells per day to keep up.
The random background generator is awesome. I got a NG dwarven magus who was involved in a "pleasure" scandal with some arcane experiment backfire as well. My imagination is running off with that.
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.
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).
__________________
Avapony by Dirtytabs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes
Finding out that the ennui and cynicism of our times is not, after all, an unavoidable unreverseable fate does kind of throw your world-view off, potentially.
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.
__________________
Avatar by A Rainy Knight
Spoiler
My Characters (So I don't forget them): Aldrin Cress, level 9 Human Sorcerer Tireas Slate, level 4 Tiefling Ninja
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) and combine it with significant, meaningful, fun powers (3.X, 3.5R, 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.
RSS Feeds: 
D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times
