Well, it'll be fun to see their attempt to compete with Pathfinder.Greg Tito said:
http://www.heroesetc.com/prodimages/FF35.jpg
Speak Your Mind in the Next Version of Dungeons & Dragons
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
http://www.heroesetc.com/prodimages/FF35.jpg
Not even out 4 years and they're developing the new edition, huh? Sounds like WotC is already running out of ideas for splatbooks to make people spend money. I notice in the history of releases in the Wikipedia article that while revisions and touch ups occur regularly, the actual shifts in edition tended to take 10 years or so, though the 3rd to 4th span was only 8 years.
My own game group just switched over to Pathfinder mostly because we like where Paizo took the 3rd edition mechanics. D&D 4th ed tried to hard to achieve balance and made every class too samey for our tastes.
My own game group just switched over to Pathfinder mostly because we like where Paizo took the 3rd edition mechanics. D&D 4th ed tried to hard to achieve balance and made every class too samey for our tastes.
It needs to be both. I DM in an online group and it works great (we've been going strong for 3+ years now and DM duties rotate and all sorts). Very flexible and great for me as in my local area in the UK there is very little way of finding a face to face group.TsunamiWombat said:
That said, I recently ran a few face to face games for some guys at work and it was great. A very different experience than playing on the net (harder from a DM perspective actually) but I really enjoyed it. I wouldn't want to never play face to face again, but I also wouldn't want to lose the convenience and flexibility of having an online group to play with.
You are right that the online aspect needs to be embraced though and the D&D insider tools (with char builder and monster builder) are (while a little niggly) brilliant. I love having them available to me, esp if I want to roll up chars for new players.
Now, I will come out and say, I'm a nerd and a geek. But I've never played a game of DnD, mainly due to my lack of real life friends. I only just began to collect the 4th edition books for artwork sake alone, maybe I'd find a group.
One thing I've never understood, why do people hate 4th edition so much? What was about it that people just seem to dislike? I'm just very curious as to why.
One thing I've never understood, why do people hate 4th edition so much? What was about it that people just seem to dislike? I'm just very curious as to why.
Because it over-streamlined the game from 3.5. Now 3.5 had its issues, some of which have already been stated, but a lot of the storytelling and DM-centric parts of the game were removed in favor of a more dynamic battle system that's a lot more WoW-esque, with larger battles and more abilities for the PCs that all ran together creating a very homogeneous set of rules that limited PCs ability to feel unique.dragongit said:
Pathfinder and Spycraft 1.0 are currently the best versions of the 3.5 ruleset and that's all me and my friends currently play. If 5e can bring back some more of the customization of the old editions, and not make me feel like I'm playing exalted, who knows... maybe we'll switch. But for now, I won't be holding my breath, or saving up any scratch.
Same for me, but it was also released about the same time my regular gaming group broke up so I've never had a decent game with it. Maybe its like Doctor Who and everyone's favourite is their first Doctor?Scars Unseen said:
While I agree they do need to go down this route, it should not be online only. My gaming group was a group of 6 who all hated clubbing and drinking so instead of going out on a Friday night, we'd meet up and play PnP RPGs instead and they were always a lot of fun. Your "Nerd in a dark room alone" is true, but that doen't mean the nerd doesn't enjoy going out every so often and PnP RPGs ware a great reason. Also, don't forget going online means fighting for space against every single MMO and multiplayer game there is. If I wanted to sit at my PC on my own with friends online, its easier and cheaper to all join an MMO.TsunamiWombat said:
All I want for Christmas is a decent set of rules concerning overland exploration/survivalism.
Grognards and simulationists are sad.
To be honest it doesn't matter if I'm running OGL rule sets like 3.x, Pathfinder, Legends or even Dice pool systems like Shadowrun or nWOD I will always create a batch of homebrew rulesets that make sense for me and my group.
That being said I never have understood the massive amounts of pure unadulterated neckbeard rage at the newest additions of their favourite systems, the core mechanics may have changed slightly and admittedly there are a few flaws that are counterintuitive and some that just flat out don't make sense mechanically but that is why we DM's use our discretion.
I don't believe that any system should act as a stumbling block for roleplaying because all pen and paper game rulesets use a very similar core system, contested rolls. I didn't like 4e but I think that had more to do with the GROUP I played with rather than the ruleset itself.
The biggest issue I had with 4e was the orthogonal power proportions between for example, an Infernalist pact Warlock and a run of the mill Eladrin Wizard. Their powers were very similar in terms of game mechanics or "crunch" but it seemed that they had different lore and flavor built around these very (almost identical) powers, so the one thing this direction seemed to espouse is an UNGODLY long time to resolve combat situations.
The encounters were ridiculously protracted for this reason. New players considered their moves much more carefully and because this also extended towards martial classes now fighters were taking awhile longer to decide if they wanted to use their daily powers or not.
But don't you see why they did this? Remember 3.x CoDzilla? If you roll a martial character and you end up in a higher level campaign with core races and feats, most newer players won't use their environment creatively and your sessions will end up like this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA
So I can respect Wizards attempt to give martial characters something to do, but FUUUUCK, the only real difference between these powers pretty much boils down to flavor text.
So that is why my 4e game sucked, because our DM was interested more in a: ENCOUNTERS, FLAVOR TEXT EXPOSITION, A SKILL ROLL OR TWO, RINSE REPEAT approach rather than a much more varied and dynamic stance on how to run one of these things.
In my sessions, the players will deal with 1-2 encounters at the very most and our games last for 6-12 hours and believe me, we do more than just receive adventures from puissant and poorly veiled BBEG's and slay a group of trolls. So the one lesson Wizards should hopefully walk away from 4e with is that people need actual gameplay variety, not COKE vs PEPSI.
Grognards and simulationists are sad.
To be honest it doesn't matter if I'm running OGL rule sets like 3.x, Pathfinder, Legends or even Dice pool systems like Shadowrun or nWOD I will always create a batch of homebrew rulesets that make sense for me and my group.
That being said I never have understood the massive amounts of pure unadulterated neckbeard rage at the newest additions of their favourite systems, the core mechanics may have changed slightly and admittedly there are a few flaws that are counterintuitive and some that just flat out don't make sense mechanically but that is why we DM's use our discretion.
I don't believe that any system should act as a stumbling block for roleplaying because all pen and paper game rulesets use a very similar core system, contested rolls. I didn't like 4e but I think that had more to do with the GROUP I played with rather than the ruleset itself.
The biggest issue I had with 4e was the orthogonal power proportions between for example, an Infernalist pact Warlock and a run of the mill Eladrin Wizard. Their powers were very similar in terms of game mechanics or "crunch" but it seemed that they had different lore and flavor built around these very (almost identical) powers, so the one thing this direction seemed to espouse is an UNGODLY long time to resolve combat situations.
The encounters were ridiculously protracted for this reason. New players considered their moves much more carefully and because this also extended towards martial classes now fighters were taking awhile longer to decide if they wanted to use their daily powers or not.
But don't you see why they did this? Remember 3.x CoDzilla? If you roll a martial character and you end up in a higher level campaign with core races and feats, most newer players won't use their environment creatively and your sessions will end up like this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA
So I can respect Wizards attempt to give martial characters something to do, but FUUUUCK, the only real difference between these powers pretty much boils down to flavor text.
So that is why my 4e game sucked, because our DM was interested more in a: ENCOUNTERS, FLAVOR TEXT EXPOSITION, A SKILL ROLL OR TWO, RINSE REPEAT approach rather than a much more varied and dynamic stance on how to run one of these things.
In my sessions, the players will deal with 1-2 encounters at the very most and our games last for 6-12 hours and believe me, we do more than just receive adventures from puissant and poorly veiled BBEG's and slay a group of trolls. So the one lesson Wizards should hopefully walk away from 4e with is that people need actual gameplay variety, not COKE vs PEPSI.
KKDragonLord said:
I agree completely with both of these complaints - to summarize: WoTC needs to streamline the combat system (or at least make its more baroque excesses optional) so that there's time left for story-telling/role-playing.Eusebiusdreams said:
Best advice, don't listen to what anyone says. All they'll do is ladel their opinions on you and that may or may not be any use whatsoever. Also, not everyone hates 4e. Just as many people like it as hate it, just the people who hate are more vocal :-/dragongit said:
Personally, I listened to the Penny Arcade podcasts when they first came out. I had never played any tabletop game before but I thought it sounded fun when I listened. I found myself an online group (no fact to face groups in my area) playing 4e and I joined. 3+ years later and we're still having a blast (and i'm currently DMing).
My group contains new gamers and old school gamers, all of whom really like the system. Over the 3+ years we've also had members come and go who were new and old school who did not like the system.
Bottom line, try it. If you enjoy playing it, who cares what anyone else says. If you don't, try some of the other recommended systems.
I only have three suggestions.
1. Better rules for skill based encounters.
2. Don't go overkill with the number of classes that fit into a single archetype, but don't under do it either. One controller in the first phb was just pathetic, as was the abundance of strikers throughout the system's history. As an addendum to this suggestion, keep the overall feel of the classes varied.
3. KEEP THE FUCKING HYBRID SYSTEM OF MULTI-CLASSING! I read that part of phb3 and tried to make my group make the jump to 4th edition that very instant. It is a multi-classing system that actually gives you abilities that match up with the other members of your party without you having to munchkin. I love it.
1. Better rules for skill based encounters.
2. Don't go overkill with the number of classes that fit into a single archetype, but don't under do it either. One controller in the first phb was just pathetic, as was the abundance of strikers throughout the system's history. As an addendum to this suggestion, keep the overall feel of the classes varied.
3. KEEP THE FUCKING HYBRID SYSTEM OF MULTI-CLASSING! I read that part of phb3 and tried to make my group make the jump to 4th edition that very instant. It is a multi-classing system that actually gives you abilities that match up with the other members of your party without you having to munchkin. I love it.
About time. 4e needs an overhaul to say the least. I wonder if they're gonna come out with a new edition of Star Wars before this release like they've done before? Saga really wasn't my cup of tea.
You know this has me worried.
I remember when Metallica said they were going back to their roots and drawing inspiration from their old works.
Remember how well that worked out? Remember what they made? St. Anger! That was the piece of garbage they created out of their old work!
I fear that D&D 5th edition will be some sort of horrible unplayable mess.
So I'm going to grab my 3rd edition books again, and just play with those and ignore all the drivel that is to come.
I remember when Metallica said they were going back to their roots and drawing inspiration from their old works.
Remember how well that worked out? Remember what they made? St. Anger! That was the piece of garbage they created out of their old work!
I fear that D&D 5th edition will be some sort of horrible unplayable mess.
So I'm going to grab my 3rd edition books again, and just play with those and ignore all the drivel that is to come.
4e gameplay was fairly terrible. Not only did a lot of the powers make no sense but they were both overpowered and EVERYONE had them so they got boring.
The non-combat "challenge" system just didn't work that well and lost a lot of flexibility over "roll the dice and ill make an outcome based on the roll".
The biggest downfall of 3e IMO was the abandonment of E-Tools. If WotC came out with software that automated away most of the paperwork that DMs needed to do it would go a long way toward alleviating DM burnout. The oss community tried to fix this problem with PC-gen and that was still half assed (as of many years ago last time I tried it).
As a DM I want to function within the rules but the rules shouldn't prevent me from doing stuff that is cool in game, it should create a consistent framework so that the players can make intelligent decisions about their character's actions.
And I disagreed with a lot of the 4e philosophy. Maybe an individual round of combat was boring for a fighter but the overall gameplay of the fighter as a class was better. The reason is because the overall gameplay of a fighter was different than a cleric, or ranger, or wizard. Unlike 4e where everyone has basically the same powers but with different names.
One thing I really did like about 4e was the "templateizing" of the races and classes. A cleric had power set X, an elf had ractial abilities Y. So an elf cleric had x+y active powers to choose from that may or may not synergize with each other. But it was great for players because it meant that enemy kobolds really did act fundamentally different than enemy goblins in a unique way.
Overall I'm excited about 5th edition and hopefully WotC learns from the mistakes of 4th and brings back the awe and discovery of playing 3rd.
The non-combat "challenge" system just didn't work that well and lost a lot of flexibility over "roll the dice and ill make an outcome based on the roll".
The biggest downfall of 3e IMO was the abandonment of E-Tools. If WotC came out with software that automated away most of the paperwork that DMs needed to do it would go a long way toward alleviating DM burnout. The oss community tried to fix this problem with PC-gen and that was still half assed (as of many years ago last time I tried it).
As a DM I want to function within the rules but the rules shouldn't prevent me from doing stuff that is cool in game, it should create a consistent framework so that the players can make intelligent decisions about their character's actions.
And I disagreed with a lot of the 4e philosophy. Maybe an individual round of combat was boring for a fighter but the overall gameplay of the fighter as a class was better. The reason is because the overall gameplay of a fighter was different than a cleric, or ranger, or wizard. Unlike 4e where everyone has basically the same powers but with different names.
One thing I really did like about 4e was the "templateizing" of the races and classes. A cleric had power set X, an elf had ractial abilities Y. So an elf cleric had x+y active powers to choose from that may or may not synergize with each other. But it was great for players because it meant that enemy kobolds really did act fundamentally different than enemy goblins in a unique way.
Overall I'm excited about 5th edition and hopefully WotC learns from the mistakes of 4th and brings back the awe and discovery of playing 3rd.
I would actually like to see entirely new settings. Not just Dark Sun and Eberron reboots.
Well... I wouldn't mind Spelljammer because like the demotivational says, "Star Trek meets D&D it's like porn for nerds."
Well... I wouldn't mind Spelljammer because like the demotivational says, "Star Trek meets D&D it's like porn for nerds."
Simply put, because it's more like a tactics board game with a lot of video-gamey elements thrown in with the "RP" part of "RPG" mostly ignored. It attempted to address the loss of the table-top market to MMORPGS by aping the weaknesses in MMORPGs and incorporating them into the table-top game rather than emphasizing the strengths of playing with a real live DM.dragongit said:
For a longer explanation, read this:
http://avoidingtherapy.blogspot.com/2012/01/d-forever.html
~Cheers!
I'm excited about the changes to the rules. From the vague statements regarding the changes it sounds like something I'll enjoy playing. I'm also excited that they're taking in fan feedback since the most vocal fans are no doubt the most experienced D&D players around.
I'm also feeling like a bit of a chump. I literally bought the essentials Red Box and a few books two weeks ago.
Just sort of makes the whole essentials idea pointless. Almost like they were using essentials to test 5e rules... Ah well at least I haven't sunk THAT much money into it and I discovered I enjoyed D&D. I'll be holding off on book purchases until the new version comes out.
I'm also feeling like a bit of a chump. I literally bought the essentials Red Box and a few books two weeks ago.
Just sort of makes the whole essentials idea pointless. Almost like they were using essentials to test 5e rules... Ah well at least I haven't sunk THAT much money into it and I discovered I enjoyed D&D. I'll be holding off on book purchases until the new version comes out.
Cool, I'm not too tied up in any previous edition, it'll be interesting to see how this broader 5th edition plays. I'm not worried either way, I usually only end up playing about two times a year anyway but when I do play, I play all damn day.
I'm not impressed. I seriously doubt anything they'll do with 5th edition will be enough for me to buy any new books. My friends and I bought a lot of 3rd books and I bought the core books for 4th and a few extras. No one in my circle wanted to play 4th at all, so it was a complete waste of money, especially when I bought some of the extras and it turned out to be nothing but repainted classes that pretty much had the same abilities at the core classes. I liked the combat system in theory but it seemed to drag on even longer than combat in 2nd or 3rd edition. There was absolutely no support for storytelling in this system. In all, it was garbage and now sits on my shelf collecting dust.
I'm excited to hear that there is some way to incorporate the editions previous. Im really excited to hear more