Minor 5th Edition Updates for Monday, 16 January, 2012

Morrus · Jan 16, 2012

Some little snippets about the upcoming new edition of D&D here and there to share with you. I've added these to the D&D 5E Info page.

Monte Cook talks about the new edition in his latest Legends & Lore column. Two quotes of note explain the ambitious goals of the design team. And, yep, they're pretty darned ambitious!

"......this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."
"...this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there."

Read the full article for more.

Reynard · Jan 16, 2012

The more they talk, the more pie in the sky it all sounds.

OpsKT · Jan 16, 2012

Monte Cook said:
"......this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide."

Emphasis mine.

In a way, they have started this already. Essentials works with 4e, right out of the box, no funny math required. A person playing an Essentials Fighter does not have to take as many options (powers) as the guy playing the PHB1 Fighter.

So, it is possible.

Is it possible on the scale they are working towards? That is another question. At what point, no matter how well balanced, does the Castles & Crusades style fighter start to feel left out when compared to a fully optimized 4e style AEDU Ranger/Druid Hybrid with the perfect Expertise Feats for his chosen weapons?

PaulofCthulhu · Jan 16, 2012

Interesting.

I wonder what the supplements/published scenario text is going to look like in such a case?

I also wonder what that means for those who've opted for the "simple" character gen. system. Sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the 3E-esque characters are still being created?

If they're both equally effective at play, in a mixed style group - I know which I'd opt for.

Reynard · Jan 16, 2012

I don't think it can work. Even if you can manage to have the 1E players and 4E player happy mechanically, you can't run a game that is simultaneously a 1E style game and a 4E style game.

unan oranis · Jan 16, 2012

wow sounds great, I'm super curious as to how it works.

Will the basic burger fighter actually be as strong as the triple stacker? Maybe he'll get insta-kill on a crit or something.

Windjammer · Jan 16, 2012

Hmm, I'm not sure this is worth its own news entry, when the same info made the news a mere 5 days ago:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/3...gn-goals-healers-art-open-gaming-license.html

Check the entry by Schwalb.

""So if you are a diehard BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia enthusiast or have embraced 4th edition, loved 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or never moved on from 1st edition, we’re creating this game for you. Imagine a game where you can play the version of D&D you love best. And then imagine everyone plays at the same table, in the same adventure." "

Someone · Jan 16, 2012

With the amount of ingenuity and sheer defiance to the laws of the universe that designing that set of rules requires they could be inventing something easier, like the art of transmuting base metals into gold.

Henry · Jan 16, 2012

I don't know if they will succeed, but I like to have faith.

Reynard said:
Even if you can manage to have the 1E players and 4E player happy mechanically, you can't run a game that is simultaneously a 1E style game and a 4E style game.

Keeping in mind that "1E style" can mean different things to different players, in my games, 4E style is closer to 1E style (or more accurately, Basic D&D style) than 3E was, for sure. I ran a Keep on the Borderlands conversion once for 4E that had just as much wheeling and dealing with the monsters as it had just kicking down doors and taking stuff. A D&D kobold and a kobold minion really don't look very different to a fighter pasting the floors with them using a mace - and those traps don't care if the fighter can "tide of iron" or not.