D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[billd91]

Sorry, but in 3.x that was actually sadly true. Your example wworks for ADnD. But 3.x removed nearly everything going for the fighter. Not on purpose, i guess, but still. 4e remedied this problem in an intersting way.

Pretty much hyperbolic BS at worst, cherry-picking cases at best. Fighters can contribute just fine to the game in 3e-based games. The example works OK for 3e even if it doesn't work as well as it did in AD&D.

 

[P1NBACK]

I want to hear the actual play reports of these all-Druid, all-Wizard adventuring parties.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Apparently you find something in my post that hits a little too close to the mark for you. I'd say that has more to do with what you think about you, than what I think about you...

But since you're the one that keeps bringing this up:

Yes, conclusions can be drawn. Though with the amount of info we have, the conclusions that can be drawn only have a chance of accuracy the more non-specific they are. And, choosing to voice only negative conclusions is far from objective or fair. I'd go as far as to say it borders on fallacious.

So yeah, I'd say that choosing to focus on the potential negative is making up your mind to be against it.

There's so many possible varieties of response, from full-on fanboy, hopeful optimism, and even straight objective neutrality, that choosing to be expectantly pessimistic is a large indicator of one's mindset and approach.

So, just as you say you're able to draw conclusions about D&D Next, we have more than enough info to draw conclusions about your state of mind on this.

I don't really see how making this personal advances the discussion at all.

In light of that, I have a proposal. How about you list here the parts of the D&D Design Goals, any statements by the Design Team, and revealed parts of the system that you have problems with and why you believe they are leading to a game you won't care for...and we'll discuss them.

I only ask one thing, that the assumed negativity be left out of the conversation and it remain objective. I'll do the same. No expectant pessisism on your part, no hopeful optimism on mine.

Maybe it will even help you distill down your objections into a form that you can express on the WotC forums in a constructive manner. Seems to me that being a positive and constructive part of making a game that plays the way it needs to for you and other 4E fans, serves you much better in the long run than just giving unconstructive and negative criticism, and deciding it's not going to be your kind of game before you see it...


What do you say...?

Big picture stuff. As I've said, I don't personally care about reunification, and I have no enthusiasm for bringing back old stuff. I see trying to appeal to everybody with a modular game as most likely to result in either a watered down half-assed game or a clunky frankenstein's monster of ill-fitting mismatched pieces. I saw 4E's slaughtering of sacred cows and modernizing of D&D to be a good thing, and see the focus on bringing back all the old crap as bad news. 3E multiclassing, Vancian magic, and the Great Wheel are aspects of D&D I was glad to see gone. All three have been stated by the dev team as core for 5E, and again nothing but bad news.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We're playing B/X right now, so that's sort of where I was coming from with that particular post. Still, I played 3.x for years, and we never had a problem with Fighters being pointless characters. Maybe we played it wrong?

Granted, we never really went past 12th or so level. So, maybe this is a higher level issue?

The problems began to arise at about level 9 or so when dominate person comes into play. mind flayers, ghosts, etc and you fighter usually fights against the group.

ususally i didn´t had too much problems. D&D 3.x plays great until level 7 or so. The fighters did contribute and i loved them. But saves were so miserable it was a bit unfunny. As A DM you had to constantly make sure, the fighter gets his resistance items.... the biggest issue of all.

The save mechanix of D&D 3.x is terrible. Sure it looked good and i really liked it when i started playing 3.x (and I played it for its whole life cycle).

[MENTION=72717]Ex[/MENTION]ample: I liked the druid and the wizard or the cleric. As long as no permanent metamagic feats were applied. When only allowing PHB material and not allowing every feat from all splatbooks allowed the fighter to contribute well enough.
I only did te mistake once to let the high level druid making all other characters useless.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I'm inclined "to some balance is better than 4E balance" all day but, please, don't give me more of the Wizard vs Fighter is balanced in earlier editions.

That's just not true.

Maybe in OD&D which I never played.

Frankly, balance just isn't as important in early edition games. Player agency and creativity plays a larger roll, because there's not a metric crap-load of rules, getting in the way. The boundaries are more fluid.

The Fighter has excellent saving throws, which remain constant, regardless of the MU level. He's also likely to have a few aces in the hole, thanks to misc. magic and magic weaponry. And yes, you have to take that into account because it's part of the game. Just like henchmen are. Followers, etc.

 

[DMKastmaria]

The problems began to arise at about level 9 or so when dominate person comes into play. mind flayers, ghosts, etc and you fighter usually fights against the group.

Gotta ask. Why is this an issue? Bad things can happen to your PC, in D&D. Because, it's D&D and it has teeth! I can understand someone not liking that type of game, but how is this anything but personal preference? Hence, not a problem, but a feature some people don't like.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Pretty much hyperbolic BS at worst, cherry-picking cases at best. Fighters can contribute just fine to the game in 3e-based games. The example works OK for 3e even if it doesn't work as well as it did in AD&D.

Too sad: no.

there were enough cases, where the fighters nonability to contribute, if the wizard didn´t help him out had shown. Even a charm person on level 1 can make the fighter turn against his allies. A wizard that maximizes his DC has a very good chance to make him his pet. I am not saying it happens all the time. Neither is the fighter usesless, as long as you pay attention as DM and don´t just ignore him.
The low will save for the fighter is really a big problem. In all levels.

In ADnD a fighter in melee was abe to shut down enemy casters as well as the fighter of 4e can bund enemies on him.

The 3rd edition fighter has feats, which are cool and make him fun to play. And as long as noone targets his will. His big weakness, he can contribute very well to combat.

On a different note: in ADnD the fighter had quite a lot of weapon and nonweapon proficiencies for use out of the game. The 3.x fighter only has 2+int skillpoints, which usually means 2. Which means his contribution out of combat is also quite pathetic. No percepton as class skill... i mean a fighter not noticing what is going on around him... that is quite sad. And a non multiclassed fighter can´t really shine in and out of combat. A fighter that multiclasses just one or two levels into one or two different classes is a completely different matter.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Gotta ask. Why is this an issue? Bad things can happen to your PC, in D&D. Because, it's D&D and it has teeth! I can understand someone not liking that type of game, but how is this anything but personal preference? Hence, not a problem, but a feature some people don't like.

It matters because the Fighter doesn't get anything like that itself, and ends up bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

[P1NBACK]

Big picture stuff. As I've said, I don't personally care about reunification, and I have no enthusiasm for bringing back old stuff. I see trying to appeal to everybody with a modular game as most likely to result in either a watered down half-assed game or a clunky frankenstein's monster of ill-fitting mismatched pieces. I saw 4E's slaughtering of sacred cows and modernizing of D&D to be a good thing, and see the focus on bringing back all the old crap as bad news. 3E multiclassing, Vancian magic, and the Great Wheel are aspects of D&D I was glad to see gone. All three have been stated by the dev team as core for 5E, and again nothing but bad news.

Cool! Sounds like you won't like 5E. So stick with 4E!

 

[DMKastmaria]

It matters because the Fighter doesn't get anything like that itself, and ends up bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The fighter doesn't need to be able to Dominate, etc. I'll agree that 3.x had some problems in this area, but again, the ungodly number of prestige classes and feats gave him plenty of options, in regards to special powers, etc.