Poll

Would you prefer D&D 5th Edition to be more similar to (or based off of)

D&D 4th Edition(/"4.5")
D&D 3.0/3.5
Pathfinder
AD&D(Second Edition)
AD&D(First Edition)
Other(please specify) I might add an option for you
D&D/Chainmail/Outdoor Survival

Author Topic: D&D 5th Edition  (Read 5191 times)

Offline JohnnyMayHymn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 657
  • Former Lord of the Kitchen Sink
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
    • Faux Blast
D&D 5th Edition
« Topic Start: November 23, 2011, 11:57:56 PM »
Well it's mostly self explanetory, tell us why you chose. 

Your vote can be changed, so you can think on it.

Edit: slightly changed the options:
Grognars, please correct me if I messed up the earlier editions...
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 01:05:41 AM by JohnnyMayHymn »
The Emperor
Can you find the Wumpus?

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Sneering
  • Respect: +22
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #1: November 24, 2011, 01:37:42 AM »
Definitely based off of 3.5, but seriously addressing how casters skip over gradual defenses and simply beat mundanes.

If things step further in the direction of rocket tag, especially at even lower levels, I wouldn't touch the thing.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline JohnnyMayHymn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 657
  • Former Lord of the Kitchen Sink
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
    • Faux Blast
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #2: November 24, 2011, 03:11:41 AM »
I think balance could be ironed out, look at the Tiers, pick one and steer all of the classes in that directon...  simple, albeit tedious and difficult to pull off..

On the other hand, any of the editions could be altered to enable rocket tag, so the question could be considered, without considering balance...
The Emperor
Can you find the Wumpus?

Online veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5226
  • Chaos Dice
  • Respect: +56
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #3: November 24, 2011, 10:45:59 AM »
^^
Such a change would do well if the extensive bestiary remains applicable. Its one of the game's great strengths. Aiming for a Tier would help, but only slightly,  T4s do best if you want a more 'teamy' game, since role protection tends to be stronger there.
Rocket Tag is a major issue, since it makes combat extremely swingy(most of the fight is determined within 3 d20 rolls. Enemy's init, your init, and your ultimate attack's roll), especially optimized rocket tag. So you need to close the gap between optimized and unoptimized somewhat(which isn't a problem, optimization finds a way, but if you intend for a gap in power, the gap would soon be enormous), and improve defenses and soak(effect/damage mitigation) relative to offense.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Ryu Hayabusa

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • I'm new!
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #4: November 24, 2011, 01:46:30 PM »
3.5 or Pathfinder, though the odds of that happening approaches zero. I can't imagine they're going to do an about face on this.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #5: November 24, 2011, 09:08:03 PM »
I loved older edition's skill trees and caster weaknesses. 3.5 is great except those two.
Excuse the Handbook spamming. It's been nearly a year of slow work, mainly archiving other people's threads. I'll post my projects, many of which aren't finished. I have so much nearly finished I can't keep track of them all, so much of the unfinished information is to remind myself what to finish.

Offline Nachofan99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 111
  • I'm new!
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #6: November 26, 2011, 05:13:03 PM »
Great thread.  I wish that 5e went more back into 3.X - which seems to be what a lot of other people want - but obviously more balanced and more streamlined *only* where it needs to be streamlined.

For example, I think 4e had the right Skills, but the wrong skill system.  Combining Climb/Jump/Swim into Athletics and Balance/Tumble into Acrobatics is a step in the RIGHT direction IMO and I believe in the option of many others.  But the skill challenge system was completely disfunctional as originally written in 4e and then got so easy it became completely worthless.  So, yes on the simplification on skills, no on skill tests.

Remove grappling.  This is another thing that 4e did.  However, giving every monster in the entire game ludicrously powerful synergistic abilities - all the while telling DMs to take it easy on parties - makes me sick.

There are a lot of little things they need to do.  The biggest thing, however, is to try and make the base classes at least marginally balanced off of each other based on a set of assumptions that makes sense for actual table top play.  You can't assume a standard 8 hour adventuring day when Rope Trick is a 2nd level spell.  There were too many easy ways around actually using resources in 3.X.  Of course, 4e went overboard (imo) with At Will/Encounter/Daily powers because the feel of them was waaaaay too MMO.  I'm obviously giving some specifics when I should be more general.

You can keep casters powerful if there is *actually* a cost to playing them.  You can keep mundanes *less anime* if there's actually some good stuff they can do.  IMO, 4e made everyone "anime" and "mmo" which makes it have the flavor of bacon in a dip; lots of people like bacon, some people like dip, almost no one wants the flavor of bacon IN a dip.

Just my 2cp.

Offline caelic

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • fnord
  • Respect: +18
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #7: November 27, 2011, 07:57:01 PM »
Bluntly: they need to make it ONE game.  3.5 was not.

Let me explain what I mean by that:

Rules mastery has always had an impact.  A rules master in first edition could make a character with an edge--say, one who could do half again as much damage as one played by a neophyte.  The optimization gap increased somewhat in second edition, with all of the "Complete" books, and increased significantly in 2.5...but you were still dealing with characters who were at least in the same ballpark of viability.

In 3.5, the gap between rules master and rules neophyte is, quite literally, infinite.  Someone who has fully mastered the rules can create a character at essentially ANY power level, up to and including Pun-Pun--something that couldn't be done in first and second edition.  Meanwhile, someone who HASN'T mastered the rules can create a character who is absolutely useless--again, something that really couldn't be done in first or second edition.

D&D 3.5 as played by members of the CO board is not the same game as D&D 3.5 played by those with a reasonable mastery of the rules.  D&D 3.5 as played by those with a reasonable mastery of the rules is not the same game as D&D 3.5 played by those who have no mastery of the rules at all.

That's a significant problem, because it leads to player base fragmentation--and the player base of D&D is already BADLY fragmented, to the point where it's arguably not the "big name" tabletop RPG anymore. 

A new edition SHOULD restore rules mastery to being an advantage--not a game-changer.  Mastering the rules should not allow you to become more powerful with no upward limit; FAILING to master the rules should not mean it's possible to cripple your character unintentionally.






Online veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5226
  • Chaos Dice
  • Respect: +56
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #8: November 27, 2011, 10:45:52 PM »
Quote
A new edition SHOULD restore rules mastery to being an advantage--not a game-changer.  Mastering the rules should not allow you to become more powerful with no upward limit; FAILING to master the rules should not mean it's possible to cripple your character unintentionally.
That'd require an eye to avoiding filler material(see most feats) and intentionally overpowered material(Ivory Tower game design). The latter might be avoidable, but the former is unlikely to be.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 530
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #9: November 28, 2011, 02:37:21 AM »
Quote
A new edition SHOULD restore rules mastery to being an advantage--not a game-changer.  Mastering the rules should not allow you to become more powerful with no upward limit; FAILING to master the rules should not mean it's possible to cripple your character unintentionally.
That'd require an eye to avoiding filler material(see most feats) and intentionally overpowered material(Ivory Tower game design). The latter might be avoidable, but the former is unlikely to be.
Plus the designation of what constitutes 'filler' is variable. It's like saying 'only the 10 best things are useful, everything else is filler', the meaning changes when you have 12 options versus when you have 200.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Online SolEiji

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1306
  • The mother clucker is overtaking you!
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #10: November 28, 2011, 03:02:37 AM »
While it's more complicated than this, a little bit of Pathfinder, a little bit of 3.5.  For example, I like them Pathfinder skills and it balanced out some things, but Pathfinder also made nerfs where nerfs should not be.  3.5 has the right style, the right ability to make many things, the right flavor, but it's balance is all over and the fact they actually have trap choices is terrible. 

I heard they were actually doing 5th edition, I geuss it's offical, huh.  Doesn't it seem.... too soon?  I don't follow the economics of it.  Did 4e bomb badly?
Check out all my homebrew at http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/User:Eiji-kun  LOTS AND LOTS of articles and counting.

Quote from: From Shattered Love, Shattered Roses.  A Sonic the Hedgehog romance fanfic.
Obama chuckled. "You mean the Chaos Emeralds?"

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5812
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #11: November 28, 2011, 08:48:47 AM »
Quote
A new edition SHOULD restore rules mastery to being an advantage--not a game-changer.  Mastering the rules should not allow you to become more powerful with no upward limit; FAILING to master the rules should not mean it's possible to cripple your character unintentionally.
That'd require an eye to avoiding filler material(see most feats) and intentionally overpowered material(Ivory Tower game design). The latter might be avoidable, but the former is unlikely to be.

I blame that for puting MTG designers on charge of D&D. I could swear on one article they admited to making plenty of filler material just because it was the norm in the card game.

I heard they were actually doing 5th edition, I geuss it's offical, huh.  Doesn't it seem.... too soon?  I don't follow the economics of it.  Did 4e bomb badly?

It didn't exactly  "fail", but when they're selling just as much as Pathfinder (that mostly put some add-ons on 3.5), it certainlly falled much below their expectatives.

I still remember the few months just before 4e was released. From the tone of their articles, they were expecting nothing less than total conversion (including plenty of articles on how to end your current campaigns and some playtesters claiming they had gotten rid of their own 3.X material). But then a big chunk of the playerbase decided to stay with 3.X, and still haven't changed their minds.

Even if they managed to get several newbies, a massive amount of old players just didn't like 4e, and suddenly Pathfinder actually rivals them for new players. For a company of the size of Wotc, that's not exactly good news. It's bad mojo for a gaming company when a significant percentage of your players refuse to acept your rule "updates".

« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 08:55:56 AM by oslecamo »

Offline skydragonknight

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #12: November 28, 2011, 09:00:19 AM »
Both 3.5 and 4th have worthy points. 5 wants better multiclassing/hybrid options than 4E, but better game balance than 3.5 (opportunity costs for the best options and remove the pointless ones).
You can get more money, but you can't get more time. Unless you're a Chronomancer.

Online veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5226
  • Chaos Dice
  • Respect: +56
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #13: November 28, 2011, 12:48:48 PM »
Quote
It didn't exactly  "fail", but when they're selling just as much as Pathfinder (that mostly put some add-ons on 3.5), it certainlly falled much below their expectatives.

I still remember the few months just before 4e was released. From the tone of their articles, they were expecting nothing less than total conversion (including plenty of articles on how to end your current campaigns and some playtesters claiming they had gotten rid of their own 3.X material). But then a big chunk of the playerbase decided to stay with 3.X, and still haven't changed their minds.

Even if they managed to get several newbies, a massive amount of old players just didn't like 4e, and suddenly Pathfinder actually rivals them for new players. For a company of the size of Wotc, that's not exactly good news. It's bad mojo for a gaming company when a significant percentage of your players refuse to acept your rule "updates".
Yeah, major mismanagement on their part for the release, especially the tone some of the marketing had taken("Hey! Ditch your unbalanced 3.5 and play a REAL game!"), soured people before they even started in on the rules. The complete chassis overhaul wouldn't be so bad except many old characters basically have no relevance to the new rules(further delaying adoption and losing momentum). And then the change to the OGL. And the second wave of Essentials(even amongst 4e fans I don't hear good things, so they botched the marketing bad).

A lot of the first wave was over-sold and felt like a rush job as well(the articles on how using different weapons were going to radically change combat(they didn't, not when you pick your powers and then your weapons are kinda stuck with whatever's compatible), the earliest epic destinies). And they were extremely hush-hush about the basic mechanics of advancement and abilities until release, which wasn't so hot when you want people to get used to the idea of the new rule system gradually before launching.

Then you get to the setting specific botches:
-Points of Light is cool(besides, many GMs have been using it since ages past, the art of Making Shit Up As You Go Along), but the complete blank slate does not bode well for storytelling. The limits and boundaries tell as many tales as they restrict. It could have been a great opportunity to launch another setting to sell people on.
-Blowing up FR in general to make the world more magical and replace everything with the new system isn't going to draw many old FR players over. It'd just break them up(New FR 4E, Old FR 4E conversion, Old FR 3.5 stalwarts), and turn them away from the setting. Might have done better to straight out convert old FR to fit the new mechanics and present an alternative to the default 'blank' Points of Light.
-Cosmology. Breaking from the Great Wheel to a brand new cosmos loses the old Planescape and Planescape derivative fans.

So...the fight was kinda lost before they even got to the actual product.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1517
  • Sneering
  • Respect: +22
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #14: November 28, 2011, 03:47:18 PM »
I've heard it said like this:
Each edition was a revision of the previous, unifying the mechanics and tightening loose ends in the rules. Finally, 3.5 unified most mechanics and had the rules down pat. The only thing wrong with 3.5 was the fact that it can be broken as all get out, especially at high levels--and that mostly because a lot of the "filler" material interacts with itself in unforseen ways due to poor product testing.

4E does not fix 3.5's problems. 4E is nothing like 3.5. Rather than tighten the rules, basically make the abundant house rules that players use into official rules like older editions did, they just scrapped everything and made no attempt to embrace previous editions' players.

4E is not an improvement; it is a different games. May even be a good game, but it isn't D&D, at least not the D&D that had grown and evolved over the years.

I hear it's a pretty good miniature wargame! D&D? RPG? Not quite.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5812
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #15: November 28, 2011, 04:00:34 PM »
-Blowing up FR in general to make the world more magical and replace everything with the new system isn't going to draw many old FR players over. It'd just break them up(New FR 4E, Old FR 4E conversion, Old FR 3.5 stalwarts), and turn them away from the setting. Might have done better to straight out convert old FR to fit the new mechanics and present an alternative to the default 'blank' Points of Light.
-Cosmology. Breaking from the Great Wheel to a brand new cosmos loses the old Planescape and Planescape derivative fans.

So...the fight was kinda lost before they even got to the actual product.

Indeed. I never knew much about FR, but they just blowing it up felt to me it wouldn't really score points with those people who knew it.

And don't mention the cosmology. The fact that they removed LE and CG was a WTF moment for even those people who liked everything else on 4e. So no more carefully planning evil or rebellious good? Really?

I really hope they've at least learned something from all of this for 5e. On the other hand, it would be hilarious to see them starting to badmouth 4e just like they did with 3.5.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 530
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #16: November 28, 2011, 11:02:12 PM »
I will say, I never really cared for the Great Wheel. My favorite was the planar setup from Eberron. If you're going to have other planes as conceptual constructs, better to have them as actual identifiable concepts, rather than the already-hard-to-nail-down alignment grid. The 4e cosmology was nicely flexible, because you could create as many Astral domains as you wanted, and they didn't have to be tied to only one alignment.

Let's say you're doing a multi-pantheonic setup with the 3e Deities & Demigods collective. Do you put all the lawful evil gods in one plane, waaaaay over there, or do you have a cluster of astral domains tied to the pantheon, so you can have Hel, Asgard, Niflheim, Muspelheim, and so on in a linked group, giving a reason to have them all tied together? Especially when you have gods with a particular alignment, but nothing about them linked with the Wheel's planar description?

Losing CG and LE is kind of a blunder, but it does give room (especially in the trimming of alignment rules) to simply drop alignment altogether. Unaligned isn't going away, even if we get back the other 3x3 setup.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5812
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
  • Respect: +60
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #17: November 29, 2011, 12:29:18 AM »
I will say, I never really cared for the Great Wheel. My favorite was the planar setup from Eberron. If you're going to have other planes as conceptual constructs, better to have them as actual identifiable concepts, rather than the already-hard-to-nail-down alignment grid. The 4e cosmology was nicely flexible, because you could create as many Astral domains as you wanted, and they didn't have to be tied to only one alignment.
You realize Eberron  started in 3.5 and thus that's not a 4e advantage right?

Losing CG and LE is kind of a blunder, but it does give room (especially in the trimming of alignment rules) to simply drop alignment altogether. Unaligned isn't going away, even if we get back the other 3x3 setup.

And dropping proper multiclassing, dropping proper utility powers that don't cost gold, droping skill rules that work, droping knowing more than a dozen powers even if you're max level, etc, etc. Hmm, what's exactly left after all that droping?

Offline Optimator

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • The Dude abides.
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #18: November 29, 2011, 02:09:29 AM »
3.5 4 lyfe.

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 530
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: D&D 5th Edition
« Reply #19: November 29, 2011, 03:56:19 AM »
I will say, I never really cared for the Great Wheel. My favorite was the planar setup from Eberron. If you're going to have other planes as conceptual constructs, better to have them as actual identifiable concepts, rather than the already-hard-to-nail-down alignment grid. The 4e cosmology was nicely flexible, because you could create as many Astral domains as you wanted, and they didn't have to be tied to only one alignment.
You realize Eberron  started in 3.5 and thus that's not a 4e advantage right?
Did I ever give the impression I outright favored 4e over 3e? I was just stating I liked the Eberron cosmology and the 4e cosmology over the Great Wheel.

Losing CG and LE is kind of a blunder, but it does give room (especially in the trimming of alignment rules) to simply drop alignment altogether. Unaligned isn't going away, even if we get back the other 3x3 setup.
And dropping proper multiclassing, dropping proper utility powers that don't cost gold, droping skill rules that work, droping knowing more than a dozen powers even if you're max level, etc, etc. Hmm, what's exactly left after all that droping?
Was I talking about that? Don't put words in my mouth. I much prefer 3e style multiclassing myself, and while I like 4e's ability to keep non-primary skills for any given character relevant, I never said I disliked 3e's. I think Pathfinder's option is an interesting alternative, making in-class and non-class skills distinct while making them closer than 3e core by reducing the difference in cost. The other issues, I'd have to examine more specifically, but why dump all this stuff, just because I said I like the 4e cosmology and the Unaligned option from 4e?

Please don't attack me for stating I like a couple things. And don't assume because I state I like a few things, I fully embrace every change they made in 4e. You're just attacking me for no reason, out of anger it sounds like. Why is that?
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!