D&D 5.0 In The Works

[Autumn]

It's hit the geekdom like a hurricane, but in case you've missed it, Wizards of the Coast has announced work on a new version of Dungeons & Dragons. The wrinkle this time? They're asking for input from the fan base. Oooh boy.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.a...d/4ll/20120109

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.

And some context please?

[CrimsonFox]

Translation...we fucked up the last one and we're plum out of ideas.

[Thomkal]

do we really need a 5.0? how long ago did 4.0 come out?

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

do we really need a 5.0? how long ago did 4.0 come out?

Not very long...08 it looks like.

[Matthean]

It's reeks of a money grab.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I've never played 4.0. I have read over some of the rule books and it didn't look all that appealing. It seemed like they were trying to make a table-top version of "World of Warcraft." There were just a lot similarities between how WoW plays (a game I've only ever played once for about an hour, but know a lot about) and how 4.0 played. It seemed to strip out a lot of what made D&D unique.

I am all for the new change and will check it out at a bookstore or something.

That said, unless the system blows me away I can't see investing in it. I don't role-play all that often anymore because my group is a bit scattered. We get together maybe 5-6 times a year, tops. We're all pretty comfortable with 3.0/3.5 and use some Pathfinder books as supplements. It works fine.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't role-play all that often anymore because my group is a bit scattered. We get together maybe 5-6 times a year, tops. We're all pretty comfortable with 3.0/3.5 and use some Pathfinder books as supplements. It works fine.

I think they would be better off trying to find ways to put it on a computer format so players get past the distance part. We are slowly getting to the point where a group of friends can get together and play a session on their iPads while anywhere in the world or in the same room.

[Autumn]

I think they tried to add a computer element to 4.0 but I haven't heard anything about it.

I've never actually played 4.0, though my gaming group has tried it a couple times. I think it turned a lot of people off with the videogame like elements, though some people seem to be warming up to elements of it over time.

I think the impetus for 5.0 is A) trying to revive the business and brand and B) the huge revival of older D&D versions. There's not only people playing Pathfinder and 3.0/3.5, there's a very vocal group of bloggers who play older versions and have been putting together all sorts of work for that community. It seemed they're trying to reach out to all these gamers with the idea that they could all find something in the new edition (making it modular or some such).

Frankly, I don't have much interest in actually playing D&D, other than as an occasional lark. There's so many other much better games that have come out, to me D&D is just nostalgia. But getting new people into roleplaying would be great, so I hope they find a way to appeal to new gamers (without pandering to them as it seems they might have done in 4.0).

[Marc Vaughan]

My take on D&D losing its fanbase over time is similar to why we created the Football Manager Handheld game tbh - D&D started off as something reasonably simple which anyone could pick up ... then as the user base matured and got more experienced they added more and more to it each iteration in an attempt to keep people interested and engaged - but by doing so it became harder and harder for newcomers to get into the product, they need to allow new users to get into the hobby in a way which is engaging and easy to pick up (they also need to frankly fix the current AD&D rules which look a travesty to me tbh, but thats a seperate issue entirely).

If I was going to modernise D&D for today then first and foremost I'd go back to the original game - ie. Basic, Expert Boxed sets etc.

They're cheaper than buying the individual books and more likely to suck people into the whole 'Roleplaying' experience ... then release adventure series with the first in a series 'free' - think the 'Giants' series from the original AD&D etc.; the first sucks people into the series and once you ahve them its like a series of books they're almost obliged to see them through to the end (also have them available both as downloads and paper copies).

Finally take a instruction from Games Workshop - people love pretty things, ensure that you promote proper figures, scenery etc. and I just don't mean flimsy cardboard stuff at extortionate prices ... oh and while I'm at it ffs if you're doing computer games ensure that at least SOME of them reflect the actual D&D game by being turn based ...

PS - My last experience with D&D was when they released the 'new boxed set'; I bought it hoping it'd be along the lines of the old basic D&D set ... it wasn't it was a half-assed set of flimsy part-rules from the current (version 4?) rule base - it was confusing as heck, to the extent that rather than use that I made up my own RPG rules for Space Hulk and have been playing those with my sons instead .. its a shame as I LOVED D&D and am still quite passionate about roleplaying (I've always viewed my games as soccer RPG's to a large extent tbh).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I think they would be better off trying to find ways to put it on a computer format so players get past the distance part. We are slowly getting to the point where a group of friends can get together and play a session on their iPads while anywhere in the world or in the same room.

One of my friends keeps trying to push something like this. I know it's my own personal feelings, but I just can't really get into the idea of playing a RPG with people over a screen. To me it's a significant barrier. I still really enjoy role-playing and would do it more often if people were closer, but the on-line thing using whatever method just doesn't appeal.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

My take on D&D losing its fanbase over time is similar to why we created the Football Manager Handheld game tbh - D&D started off as something reasonably simple which anyone could pick up ... then as the user base matured and got more experienced they added more and more to it each iteration in an attempt to keep people interested and engaged - but by doing so it became harder and harder for newcomers to get into the product, they need to allow new users to get into the hobby in a way which is engaging and easy to pick up (they also need to frankly fix the current AD&D rules which look a travesty to me tbh, but thats a seperate issue entirely).

If I was going to modernise D&D for today then first and foremost I'd go back to the original game - ie. Basic, Expert Boxed sets etc.

They're cheaper than buying the individual books and more likely to suck people into the whole 'Roleplaying' experience ... then release adventure series with the first in a series 'free' - think the 'Giants' series from the original AD&D etc.; the first sucks people into the series and once you ahve them its like a series of books they're almost obliged to see them through to the end (also have them available both as downloads and paper copies).

Finally take a instruction from Games Workshop - people love pretty things, ensure that you promote proper figures, scenery etc. and I just don't mean flimsy cardboard stuff at extortionate prices ... oh and while I'm at it ffs if you're doing computer games ensure that at least SOME of them reflect the actual D&D game by being turn based ...

PS - My last experience with D&D was when they released the 'new boxed set'; I bought it hoping it'd be along the lines of the old basic D&D set ... it wasn't it was a half-assed set of flimsy part-rules from the current (version 4?) rule base - it was confusing as heck, to the extent that rather than use that I made up my own RPG rules for Space Hulk and have been playing those with my sons instead .. its a shame as I LOVED D&D and am still quite passionate about roleplaying (I've always viewed my games as soccer RPG's to a large extent tbh).

I found the whole 3.0/3.5 system, which is essentially the D20 system, to be pretty simple. It's much easier to play than say 2.0 or Advanced D&D. There are some complicated rules, but they can be streamlined pretty easily.

[Autumn]

I know they tried a couple things with 4.0 Essentials and stuff like that, I think trying to replicate that easy entry into the game. I'm not sure if it jsut didn't work, or if they just didn't market well.

I think the biggest thing they could do is, as you say, start making a lot of modules again. Let people who don't really know what they're doing, or don't have time to create tehir own stuff, play very easily. This also helps create a shared world, characters, that you can market in ohter ways.

I think probably their biggest problem is marketing. Who pays attention to their stuff other than people who already are into D&D? They need to create some sort of content that appeals in other forms (movies, videogames, etc) that then draws people into the game.

Marc, for what it's worth, there's a ton of other RPGs out there that actually excel at what they do. If you want the experience of gaming again, I suggest you just look elsewhere. Like most industries i guess the innovation hasn't been in the big firm for a long time.

[Glengoyne]

Well as someone who introduced their kids to the game last year, I really like fourth edition. I played versions 1 and 2 back in "the day", and four is a dramatic improvement. Since introducing my kids, I've been lured into a weekly game with a group with an average age fifteen years my junior. I love it.

The redesign isn't a "money-grab" At least not in the traditional sense. They are losing market share to Pathfinder. Pathfinder, as I understand it, is a result of the Open gaming license TSR came out with before selling to WOTC. Companies like pathfinder essentially licensed the 3.0 or 3.5 edition of the game, and ran with it making their own settings, supplements, and additions to the rules.

As I understand the changes between 3 or 3.5 and 4th edition, is largely that the characters are VERY balanced in 4th ed. Where melee and magical characters are roughly equal in power as well as equally interesting to play. This was done by making relatively complex powers that are very tactical in nature. "Slide", "Push", and "Pull" all move a target, but have very different definitions. This makes 4th edition more tactical in nature as well. I'd also say that there are interesting non combat abilities available in 4e, but they are most often ignored. This because, in order to use that cool social encounter ability, you have to skip on a cool combat ability. Did I mention that combat is SO DAMN FUN?

As I understand it the Pathfinder fans say that 4e is all about combat. "It is a miniatures game not an RPG." Some of them are also upset that WOTC walked away from the OGL that TSR started. I do see the "all about combat" argument. All too often the answer to a tense situation is to roll initiative. Combat is SO DAMN FUN after all. I think it depends a lot on the DM. The group I'm in rotates, and some are much better than others at bringing RP out of an RP shy group of players. There have been nights where no dice were rolled in anger. All social encounters and RP with no combat.

The biggest problem I have with 4e, is that because every player has so many interesting powers and a variety of actions in a single turn, an individual player's turn can take several minutes what with table chatter and all. It can be a long time before your place in the initiative order comes back up, and if you've been stunned by one of the games cool conditions, your turn is over right away. So if they figure out a way to balance the cool and powerful action(s) in a player's turn with streamlined play, I would consider it a welcome improvement.

All that said, I'm not a fan of them abandoning 4th edition so relatively soon. Especially since once they realized that they were losing market share, they walked away from the base game about the time I discovered it. They did this by introducing "D&D Essentials", which was a simplified, I say "watered down" implementation. Essentials kept a lot of the character elements, but minimized some of the choices required in leveling and in combat. The problem is that they mis-diagnosed the issue. It wasn't that 4th Ed was too complex for those Pathfinder players. It was that Pathfinder is also an interesting game system. I'm not sure what the problem with 4th Ed was, but Essentials didn't correct it, so there will be another edition.

[Matthean]

Initial Impressions of the New D&D : Critical Hits

http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=dnd5e

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As I understand the changes between 3 or 3.5 and 4th edition, is largely that the characters are VERY balanced in 4th ed. Where melee and magical characters are roughly equal in power as well as equally interesting to play.

I totally disagree that they are all intereesting to play especially the fact since they've made all the characters so equal they also have drained them all of their uniqueness and individuality. 4.0 sucks bigtime and why? It's not d&d AT ALL. instead of making it d&d they made a tabletop MMO. (which is a dumbass decision)

I'd even take Attack of opportunity, 3.0 grappling rules, 2.0 NWPs, and 1e's 10" BS over everything in 4e.

[Dutch]

Seeing as how I'll never have the desire (or the opportunity really) to ever "play" D&D again, I just want something that is easily portable to a Tactical CRPG. Of course, we haven't had a good one of those in a damned decade now...so I'm not holding my breath.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I totally disagree that they are all intereesting to play especially the fact since they've made all the characters so equal they also have drained them all of their uniqueness and individuality. 4.0 sucks bigtime and why? It's not d&d AT ALL. instead of making it d&d they made a tabletop MMO. (which is a dumbass decision)

I'd even take Attack of opportunity, 3.0 grappling rules, 2.0 NWPs, and 1e's 10" BS over everything in 4e.

I find the classes very different and interesting. In the past few months i've played an invoker, controller role. That character was all about pushing enemies around the tabletop and creating big rounds where other players had plusses to hit and damage. A battlemind, defender(tank) role, that I Geared toward doing damage. That guy was a blast. Currently i'm playing a warlord, leader role, a martial leader/ healer. This character puts himself at risk to create opportunities for other player's characters to attack with advantages. That is just the three that I've played recently. All dramatically different from one another in roles and in tactical play. All very fun to play as well.

I find 4th a tremendous improvement over what I used to play in ad&d. There most everything did feel the same.

As far as a tabletop mmo. Well I think the comparison misses the mark. I would say a tabletop tactical combat game with roleplaying to set up the tactical encounters and advance the story. I do see where you are coming from though. They did create a diverse development and advancement system similar to what one could find in an MMO. To me this is just is a logical advancement.

I do see problems with 4th Ed. notably the social encounter system, called skill challenges. It really seems forced and unwieldy in play. It is notably ignored around the tables I play at. Also the length of players turns is an issue. We've had single encounters dominate a night's play.

The plusses for 4th include the balance between classes, and streamlined monster builds that reduce the required prep time for DMs, and require different tactics to be used from encounter to encounter.


Most of the folks I've met that share your opinion on 4th rejected it outright with little direct exposure. Some have rejected WOTC more than the product. Where do you fall in the mix? Have you played much 4th Ed? Also what if anything do you play instead?

[Mustang]

I'd get back into D&D if I had people around here to play with. If I got back into it, I'd just stick with 1st Edition. I loved to play D&D because of the roleplaying/story elements. The combat mechanics and such were just not a big part of my enjoyment. (Although, I do love me some rolemaster charts)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I'd get back into D&D if I had people around here to play with. If I got back into it, I'd just stick with 1st Edition. I loved to play D&D because of the roleplaying/story elements. The combat mechanics and such were just not a big part of my enjoyment. (Although, I do love me some rolemaster charts)

I think the combat mechanics are what you make of them. If you slavishly stick to them and don't allow any streamlining, flexibility or improvisation then they can really bring a game down. You just need to have a GM and group of players who all sort of understand that and are willing to make combat flow better.

One thing I have noticed of late in a lot of new RPG systems is giving people bonuses for "describing things well." I understand that it's trying to give players an incentive to role-play and really create the scene and get into what's going on in the game beyond, "I draw my sword and swing at the orc." Maybe it's because I've been playing these things for 37 years now and have been fortunate enough to find a good group of players all of whom really enjoy the role-playing story-telling aspect of a game, that such incentives seem kind of silly and superfluous.

Perhaps they do help some folks, but it seems odd to put the GM in a spot saying, "Ok. Great description, John. You get a +3." "Bill, that was pretty good. So, you get a +1." Could cause some strife and tension in a game.

[Autumn]

My group has played 4E a few times, but I haven't played it with them. The thing that strikes me from the outside is that the new classes feel very generic, or very meta to me. When I hear someont talking about an invoker controller, it sounds to me like a description of waht the player will be doing tactically in teh game. I don't hear people talk about their characters in an in-game fictional way. As in I would tell you the last 3.5 character I played was an orog, half ogre, half orc, who was a gigantic tank, but a good hearted pursuer of adventure. The mechanics are a way I created that character, but they are secondary, and even could have been done many different ways. I never hear people I know describing their 4E characters that way. Maybe it's just that the rules are new and so they're drawing all the attention. But it seems to me that the older classes defined the fictional character: thief, paladin, bard - and less the mechanics.

And frankly I think that approach would work better for D&D going forward in marketing the game to new people. Focus on the fiction. Focus on adventure modules. That's going to draw interest more, I think, if you talk about the elf ranger you can be, and the monsters you can face, more than the tactical role you can play.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Autumn

My group has played 4E a few times, but I haven't played it with them. The thing that strikes me from the outside is that the new classes feel very generic, or very meta to me. When I hear someont talking about an invoker controller, it sounds to me like a description of waht the player will be doing tactically in teh game. I don't hear people talk about their characters in an in-game fictional way. As in I would tell you the last 3.5 character I played was an orog, half ogre, half orc, who was a gigantic tank, but a good hearted pursuer of adventure.....

Regarding the Invoker character in the Controller role. I get you. I was addressing the question of whether the characters "played" differently in the game. That particular Dwarven Invoker was an Indiana Jones style archaeologist who viewed himself as somewhat of a protector of the world and its citizens. "For 110 years, I have fought to forestall your doom. That ends today." was his way of doing Samuel L Jackson saying "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger...". None of that was written on his character sheet. That he could create and ignore difficult terrain at will was. The fact that he continually created difficult terrain around his allies just because he thought it was cool, that was me.

The character's character has nothing to do with the version of the game. It is all about the player, his or her gaming group, and how much they want to invest in playing the character. 4th Edition doesn't prevent anyone from role playing. Yet that is what I hear time and time again.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

...

One thing I have noticed of late in a lot of new RPG systems is giving people bonuses for "describing things well." I understand that it's trying to give players an incentive to role-play and really create the scene and get into what's going on in the game beyond, "I draw my sword and swing at the orc." Maybe it's because I've been playing these things for 37 years now and have been fortunate enough to find a good group of players all of whom really enjoy the role-playing story-telling aspect of a game, that such incentives seem kind of silly and superfluous.

Perhaps they do help some folks, but it seems odd to put the GM in a spot saying, "Ok. Great description, John. You get a +3." "Bill, that was pretty good. So, you get a +1." Could cause some strife and tension in a game.

I'm doing the Mouse guard RPG with my kids, and there is some of this going on there. If you want to assist another player with a helping die, you need to describe it in character and role play it. Also at the end of the session the players get bonuses they can use in the next session based on whether they accurately portrayed their character's stated beliefs, instincts, and goals.

It really encourages players to RP. I'm hoping those incentives help my kids begin to understand the difference between RP and boardgames.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm doing the Mouse guard RPG with my kids, and there is some of this going on there. If you want to assist another player with a helping die, you need to describe it in character and role play it. Also at the end of the session the players get bonuses they can use in the next session based on whether they accurately portrayed their character's stated beliefs, instincts, and goals.

It really encourages players to RP. I'm hoping those incentives help my kids begin to understand the difference between RP and boardgames.

I think that's a great idea for kids. To help them really get into their characters and learn how to role-play. Never hurts to have a carrot to chase.

[Autumn]

And games like Mouse Guard, Burning Wheel, are completely built around the idea of fostering game fiction. It's not just "get a bonus 'cause you described so well." It's that the game functions around characters going after their interests and beliefs, or what you want the character to go after. That's how advancement works in these games. I agree that just pressuring people into describing things more isn't really a step up.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Regarding the Invoker character in the Controller role. I get you. I was addressing the question of whether the characters "played" differently in the game. That particular Dwarven Invoker was an Indiana Jones style archaeologist who viewed himself as somewhat of a protector of the world and its citizens. "For 110 years, I have fought to forestall your doom. That ends today." was his way of doing Samuel L Jackson saying "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger...". None of that was written on his character sheet. That he could create and ignore difficult terrain at will was. The fact that he continually created difficult terrain around his allies just because he thought it was cool, that was me.

The character's character has nothing to do with the version of the game. It is all about the player, his or her gaming group, and how much they want to invest in playing the character. 4th Edition doesn't prevent anyone from role playing. Yet that is what I hear time and time again.

I don't doubt that, and I was thinking more of the friends I know who have played. I just used your example since I don't actually know the names of the classes in the game.

Certainly some people will roleplay more or less, regardless of the game or version. However, I don't agree that the versions are roleplaying-neutral. To me, the character classes in 4E are classes on a tactical level and don't speak at all to the fiction. That is very different than a game where you choose between a sorceror, or a cavalier, or a blade singer. That's just one way a game supports, or doesn't, role-playing, but I think it has a big impact on the way we conceptualize and create characters. It orients the new player towards the mechanics and the tactics rather than encouraging them to imagine a character or a story.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The things I didn't like about 4e is simply the lack of spells. From what I remember, there wasn't a huge amount of spells to pick and choose from that would allow mages to be a little more unique.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I think they would be better off trying to find ways to put it on a computer format so players get past the distance part. We are slowly getting to the point where a group of friends can get together and play a session on their iPads while anywhere in the world or in the same room.

This



Is what I want.

[WVUFAN]

Wizards announced an open playtest of the new 5th edition rules (now called D&D Next) beginning May 24th. People who sign up for the playtest (on the D&D website) will get the basic rules, an adventure and 4 pre-gens to give the game a try and provide feedback. In the weeks that follow, more will be added (characters will level to 10th, then character creation rules will be added)

[cadmus2166]

I loved the 2nd edition of Advanced D & D. I haven't played in awhile, but getting me to use an updated version(any of them) wouldn't fly with me. I still think that version is far and away the best.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Wizards announced an open playtest of the new 5th edition rules (now called D&D Next) beginning May 24th. People who sign up for the playtest (on the D&D website) will get the basic rules, an adventure and 4 pre-gens to give the game a try and provide feedback. In the weeks that follow, more will be added (characters will level to 10th, then character creation rules will be added)

Sounds like its time for a dynasty!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Wizards announced an open playtest of the new 5th edition rules (now called D&D Next) beginning May 24th. People who sign up for the playtest (on the D&D website) will get the basic rules, an adventure and 4 pre-gens to give the game a try and provide feedback. In the weeks that follow, more will be added (characters will level to 10th, then character creation rules will be added)

I'm sure I'll be seeing this at Kublacon at the end of the month. I'm going to try and see if I can get into a session.

My local group might even take a crack at it.

On the negative side of this whole new edition, Monte Cook who was brought in as new blood to head up the new edition just left WOTC over "disagreements with the company, not his fellow designers".

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm sure I'll be seeing this at Kublacon at the end of the month. I'm going to try and see if I can get into a session.

My local group might even take a crack at it.

On the negative side of this whole new edition, Monte Cook who was brought in as new blood to head up the new edition just left WOTC over "disagreements with the company, not his fellow designers".

In what world is Monte Cook 'new blood'?

[Glengoyne]

Well good point.

I perceived him as coming in to "right the ship" and bring something different to the mix. Granted he was coming back to the product, if not to WoTC.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well good point.

I perceived him as coming in to "right the ship" and bring something different to the mix. Granted he was coming back to the product, if not to WoTC.

I think they should bring in John Wick, that guy would shake things up.

[Autumn]

I think they need to stop trying to reinvent the game every few years, and focus on ways of attracting new gamers instead.

[SirFozzie]

They tried to. They hoped to make it more like the miniatures games and try to hook the WoW crowd with all kinds of fancy abilities, and more elf-races.

That didn't go well.

[Autumn]

Right, that's reinventing the game. I mean marketing - like making more worlds and content, tying it into video games and board games, books, finding ways to hook people who don't play games like this.

And they definitely have done some of that. I think they'd be better off continuing to work on that aspect rather than changing the game to try to appeal to eight different markets.

[SirFozzie]

They tried that. They timed one of their world books to coincide with the release date of the D&D MMO, Neverwinter.

Then Neverwinter got delayed till 2013 and sold to a new publisher who is busy completely remaking the game.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On the negative side of this whole new edition, Monte Cook who was brought in as new blood to head up the new edition just left WOTC over "disagreements with the company, not his fellow designers".

That's not a negative. Cook was primarily responsible for the utter drek that was D&D 3.0 -- the worst edition of any RPG in history.

Cook leaving shows me that they won't necessarily just move back to a 3.0-ish game again. Gives me hope.

Then again, I'm perfectly happy with 4.0, so ...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's not a negative. Cook was primarily responsible for the utter drek that was D&D 3.0 -- the worst edition of any RPG in history.

Cook leaving shows me that they won't necessarily just move back to a 3.0-ish game again. Gives me hope.

Then again, I'm perfectly happy with 4.0, so ...

Huh. I kind of like D&D 3.0/3.5

I think it's perfectly fine. And I have played a ton of RPGs over the last 32 years, all kinds of systems, and I can assure it's far, far far from the worst in RPG history.

I have never played 4.0, but I have sat down and read some of the books and didn't care for the changes they made at all.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Huh. I kind of like D&D 3.0/3.5

I think it's perfectly fine. And I have played a ton of RPGs over the last 32 years, all kinds of systems, and I can assure it's far, far far from the worst in RPG history.

I have never played 4.0, but I have sat down and read some of the books and didn't care for the changes they made at all.

To each his own.

I find 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder incredibly unbalanced, boring to do combat (no tactics at all), with redundant skills that are hardly ever used. 4.0 provides interesting combat with varied and balanced classes/races.

Then again, there was balance issues in 1st and 2nd editions as well.

[sterlingice]

(Not saying anyone is doing this here) I always love when 1.0 fans talk about how unbalanced and un-fun future generations of the game are. It just kindof falls on deaf ears.

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

To each his own.

I find 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder incredibly unbalanced, boring to do combat (no tactics at all), with redundant skills that are hardly ever used. 4.0 provides interesting combat with varied and balanced classes/races.

Then again, there was balance issues in 1st and 2nd editions as well.

I have never found 3.0/3.5 combat to be boring. Then again, I have only played it with one GM and the same group of players (been playing a campaign for 6 years). We tend to have combat be a bit more, say, cinematic than tactical (as in miniature-games tactics, which I understand is pretty prevalent in 4.0). We tend to improvise a lot, giving bonuses for certain moves and tactics. We've changed up feats, invent new ones, etc.

I have never been a huge fan of miniature gaming, so I don't think I'd care for a system that makes D&D combat like a miniatures game. There is some of that in 3.0, but we largely ignore it.

I do understand the balance issue. But, again based on only what I've read, they almost seemed to go to far in 4.0. They really seemed to strip away a lot of nuances and individuality of the character classes. I mean, no spell books? Dumping the vast number of available cleric/druid/mage spells in favor of progress trees just doesn't seem right. Where is “Tensor’s Floating Disk”? “Bigby’s Crushing Hand”? I love all of those crazy spells, even if we tend to just fall back on a few mainstays more often than not.

I just didn't care for the MMOizing of D&D.

[Passacaglia]

There's aren't really any 1.0 fans, are there?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

...
I do understand the balance issue. But, again based on only what I've read, they almost seemed to go to far in 4.0. They really seemed to strip away a lot of nuances and individuality of the character classes. I mean, no spell books? Dumping the vast number of available cleric/druid/mage spells in favor of progress trees just doesn't seem right. Where is “Tensor’s Floating Disk”? “Bigby’s Crushing Hand”? I love all of those crazy spells, even if we tend to just fall back on a few mainstays more often than not.

I just didn't care for the MMOizing of D&D.

I'm not sure what the talk of a lack of spells or spell books is about. Part of the rationale of introducing "essentials" was that the number of spells available was daunting. Specifically not to try and pick apart your post, but rather to show that you might have some misconceptions... There is a Tensor's floating disk, albeit a ritual rather than a spell. And our party wizard cast Bigby's floating hand just the other night. Also, Wizards are the only class with "spell books". They can take feats to acquire additional spells, and then swap out what they have available daily.

I think I'm mostly with WVU Fan, in that I like where they took 4.0. But I've admittedly only dabbled with 3.0 and 3.5. I was not a fan of their attempt to draw in the masses by dumbing down the line with essentials.

I'll also add that I did have some worry that Monte Cook would over "pathfinder" the new edition. I did like a lot of what he talked about with the skill system he outlined.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

There's aren't really any 1.0 fans, are there?

There's a huge amount of them. There's been a sort of online movement of fans going back to the original rule sets and tweaking them. A large part of this 5.0 thing seems to be an attempt to win those fans over to the game again (as 4.0 seemed to drive a lot of them away completely). Like in anything there's a swing of the pendulum, a lot of people wanting to go back to the simpler rules of the original. Kind of funny to someone who started gaming as the swing was heading towards storytelling, roleplaying not "roll" playing and kind of against the tactical origins of D&D. Now apparently I'm old enough that people are feeling nostalgic, as well as coming to appreciate things that the original game did right.

Myself I'm really not attracted to the original game (or the modern game really). I grew up on 2.0 and that will always be nostalgic for me, but there's 100 games out there that I think do roleplaying much better than D&D does.

[WVUFAN]

For those interested, they updated the Playtest rules for D and D 5th (now called D&D Next) to allow builds up to 20th level. It has a very 1st Edition feel with some 3.0 and 4.0 stuff in there.

Anyone interested in giving it a try?

[SirFozzie]

Sure!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

There's aren't really any 1.0 fans, are there?

My favourite were the original D&D rules - ie. Basic set, Advanced set etc.

Those were simplistic but fun, which is the essence of the game imho.

(Advanced D&D wasn't bad either - but by revision 3.0 I'd stopped playing mainly because of changes in my social group rather than 'want' tbh)

[Autumn]

My friend is about to run a Dungeoncrawl Classics campaign, which his very much based on those original sets. The fans are alive and well.

I haven't looked at the 5.0 stuff yet.

[Glengoyne]

After playing the earlier play test iterations and some Pathfinder, I think I've come to understand what the folks who don't like 4.0 are saying.

Usually the point I hear made is that "You can't RP in fourth edition...Or...You can't tell a story in fourth edition" Well that is utter crap.
'cause I've seen it done. People can RP and a GM can craft a story without any more difficulty than in other editions.

The deal is, the combat encounters are SO much more involved than in other editions, that they take time. SO much time that the overall experience of the game play changes. So much time that the number of encounters of any kind in an evening is reduced. This means that an inordinate amount of time is spent in combat, and that the number of play sessions required to tell/advance a story increases.

Since my group plays weekly, this was less evident to me, but I can absolutely see this being a problem for a group playing once or twice a month or less frequently. It became evident to me in a big way, when the number of encounters, social and combat, soared when playing with the Next play test rules.

Combat in fourth edition is awesome and well balanced among the classes, but that awesome does come with a price.

All in all I'm excited to see this latest play test stuff, and see where they've taken it.