WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

catsclaw227 · Jan 11, 2012

talok55 said:
Really? You must search the forums a lot more than me. I have not seen one thread or heard of one instance of this. Not a single one.

I am not going to go digging around again, but I have seen it at least 6-7 times in the past couple of weeks. Though in some instances it has been a person describing his/her experience and then another quoting and saying "me too" or adding XP saying "My experience too".

pauljathome · Jan 11, 2012

gamerprinter said:
I understand that this was changed in 3x to make clerics more playable and inviting to an adventure group. I think this diminishes cleric in flavor, despite enhancing them in power.

I like the balance in Pathfinder. Almost all clerics are good healers (of both hit points and conditions) but there are enough differences in their Domain abilities that clerics of different Gods actually DO feel somewhat different.

I play a lot of PFS, though. In that context it is very valuable that the simple statement "cleric" implies a LOT about the character. Many, many sessions start with people negotiating what characters they will play.

gamerprinter · Jan 11, 2012

pauljathome said:
I like the balance in Pathfinder. Almost all clerics are good healers (of both hit points and conditions) but there are enough differences in their Domain abilities that clerics of different Gods actually DO feel somewhat different.

I play a lot of PFS, though. In that context it is very valuable that the simple statement "cleric" implies a LOT about the character. Many, many sessions start with people negotiating what characters they will play.

Believe me, I prefer PF myself - I just preferred a wider difference than exists now. I'm not so interested in 5e, but to put in my 2 cents - that's all I could think of.

MichaelSandar · Jan 11, 2012

At this point, if they make a gaming system that brings all of my players (who are fans of various editions with distinct dislikes of certain editions) to the same table at the same time, I'm a happy DM.

UngeheuerLich · Jan 11, 2012

I just want to add:

if they just won´t take away the CB, most 4e fans will not be upset.
Taking it away would be really be frustrating. The plan however is to retain it. And 60000 people subscribing to it are 60000 people subscribing to it...
If 5th edition is a success, no need to take it away. If it is not, also no reason. Just make sure, that the old edition CB is somewhere on a page where new people don´t stumble about it when they try to seek out, how the current iteration of the game is like.

[MENTION=6762]avin[/MENTION]: for me it was a reason to stay... it is a lot more confortable now... but I understand your decision.

Walking Dad · Jan 11, 2012

gamerprinter said:
While it makes clerics weaker in the overall game, I've always preferred clerics with access and limited access to various 'spheres of influence' based on the portfolios of the gods worshipped, like it had been in 2e and prior. The fact that Thor the god of lightening provides the exact same spell access as a priest of Anubis, just doesn't make sense, thematically speaking. I'd rather differentiate clerics by the influence of their deities, providing specialtists like wizards, instead of all clerics being 'generalists'. And perhaps having granted powers (Su) and (Sp) more closely hewn to their gods influences and specific goals, in place of some of the loss of spell access.

I understand that this was changed in 3x to make clerics more playable and inviting to an adventure group. I think this diminishes cleric in flavor, despite enhancing them in power.

I don't expect this to change in 5e, but thought it was worth mentioning.

I only played AD&D 2nd, but the clerics in this PHB all had the exactly same abilities and spell access. But there were options for different abilities and spells in "Complete Priest" and the Forgotten Realms/ Darksun Setting books at least. Following the intended modularity, I would expect a similar approach for 5e.

Walking Dad · Jan 11, 2012

Bagpuss said:
To which I respond the increasingly popular Savage Worlds, rules. The core rule book is very thin pretty and only about £6. While you can run a game with it, really if you want to use it, you get a setting book with additional rules or buy one of the many add on rules like they have for Pulp, Supers or Fantasy, so it could almost be called incomplete.

I vastly prefer Savage Worlds Deluxe over the Explorer's Edition you are mentioning. AFAIK, I'm not alone on this and many fans who already had the small book "upgraded".
So Savage Worlds is a sample of a game with good "basic set", but also an available "complete" game in one product (with additional setting and world books available, too).

---

Back to the original thought, are these popular retroclones really thin?

And the currently quite popular Pathfinder has a quite big tome of a basic book.

Darrin Kelley · Jan 12, 2012

I have looked through my 4th Edition D&D books, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. It is a good game, for what it is.

However, what isn't needed is a new edition. That's an absolutely unnecessary step. Which just shows more company jackassery.

I'm going to outline what is needed. And I'm going to be concise.

A basic set. One that is a complete game in and of itself. Which can be enhanced at the buyer's option with additional books and accessories. But this basic game should be the core of the property. Easy to get into, and easy to understand.

Removal of the focus on miniatures. Make them the entirely optional accessory they are. There is no need for pressure tactics to try and make a buyer believe they need them when they don't.

Return 4th Edition to the OGL. Release a true SRD for it. And give up on the absolute jackassery of trying to repeal the OGL. Because it was those actions that caused the core fanbase to believe the company gave them a big middle finger.

Give us full products. None of this garbage about "exclusive online content". When I buy a game book, I want all of the information that was supposed to be in it. No trickery, no BS.

SlyDoubt · Jan 12, 2012

I bought 4E because it was the new edition.

I will do the same. I look forward to checking it out and reading through it. I think everyone that follows the d&d world saw this coming at least a year ago.

Really pumped to see Monte Cook on the list of designers.

Just hoping this isn't Essentials v2.0. 4E has always felt awkward to me and I am worried 5E won't actually tread a whole lot of new water. The way things are being phrased actually makes it sound awful. Trying to please people of multiple editions equally is going to be an incredible task.

I'm not sure it's really possible though I do wish them the best. Hopeful that the end result isn't a diluted and uninteresting product that's stretched in too many directions to feel fully developed.

Should be fun though. It'll be an exciting year for sure.

Spinachcat · Jan 12, 2012

bhandelman said:
I think it's highly debatable that a VTT is "the only thing that can possibly invigorate D&D in the current era" or is even that relevant. There are tons of VTTs out there, some pretty decent, and they aren't making an impact. They also didn't say anything to lead one to believe there won't be a VTT, only that they consider tabletop gaming the most important part of their market.

It's not debatable. We live in an era of digital gaming. People expect to be able to play their favorite game 24/7 from home. If you can't give them that experience, your game will just be yet another dead tree product in the tiny, shrinking niche of TTRPGs. The money is in the digital realm.

Also, there are no VTTs with any kind of marketing or advertising so they essentially don't exist in the marketplace. The 4e PHB promised us a VTT and 4e failed because WotC did not deliver it.

bhandelman said:
Can't happen, as the GSL doesn't allow it to happen. This is the major criticism of the OGL, it allowed someone else to pick up the previous addition and make DnD it's own competitor.

Using the OGL to recreate 4e can be done easily and legally. If you aren't sure, go pick up OSRIC and compare it to AD&D. More importantly, the GSL is a non-issue and was proven a non-issue when PDF publishers cranked out 4e stuff without the GSL.

The only question is whether an existing RPG company thinks creating 4.5e is a good investment of capital.

WotC Seeks Unity with a New Edition

catsclaw227

First Post

pauljathome

First Post

gamerprinter

Mapper/Publisher

MichaelSandar

First Post

UngeheuerLich

Legend

Walking Dad

First Post

Walking Dad

First Post

Darrin Kelley

First Post

SlyDoubt

First Post

Spinachcat

First Post

Similar Threads