Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

[Tequila Sunrise]

Well I just read Monday's article on magical items in 5e, and wow!

"We don't assume magic items are a part of a character's abilities." But no acknowledgement that they do affect character power, particularly +X items. And no mention of any guidelines about handling characters that do acquire these items.

"In either case, the item is part of the story, not part of a math equation." (And it shouldn't be both because...?)

Wow, this is some heavy-duty double-layered chintzy retro curtaining. Clearly, 5e is not for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well I just read Monday's article on magical items in 5e, and wow!

"We don't assume magic items are a part of a character's abilities." But no acknowledgement that they do affect character power, particularly +X items. And no mention of any guidelines about handling characters that do acquire these items.

"In either case, the item is part of the story, not part of a math equation." (And it shouldn't be both because...?)

Wow, this is some heavy-duty double-layered chintzy retro curtaining. Clearly, 5e is not for me.

This certainly isn't for everyone but I consider it a promising development.

 

[Greg K]

This certainly isn't for everyone but I consider it a promising development.

As do I. At the moment, however, it is one of a handful things that I have heard and liked about Next to date.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As do I. At the moment, however, it is one of a handful things that I have heard and liked about Next to date.

I am still pretty optimistic, but I do get the sense that they are struggling a bit to understand the different camps as they sculpt the new edition. To be fair they are arguably trying to please and unite the most divided player base ever. Even during the 90s when there was sone serious splintering in my own gaming area due to WoW and Magic, I never saw things like they are now. So I hope they can pull it off and if the end product doesn't thrill me, while I wont play a game I am not interested in, I wont hold it against them. They have taken on a big challenge here.

 

[Greg K]

I am still pretty optimistic, but I do get the sense that they are struggling a bit to understand the different camps as they sculpt the new edition. To be fair they are arguably trying to please and unite the most divided player base ever. Even during the 90s when there was sone serious splintering in my own gaming area due to WoW and Magic, I never saw things like they are now. So I hope they can pull it off and if the end product doesn't thrill me, while I wont play a game I am not interested in, I wont hold it against them. They have taken on a big challenge here.

At this point, I don't expect it will thrill me (and, currently, it does not). Ability Scores more important then ability scores, Hit Point as Threshold for spell effects and, possibly, things like disarm, talk of removing clerical healing from the spell list, the current rules for non-magical healing are all turn offs for my friends and I.

 

[SKyOdin]

Well I just read Monday's article on magical items in 5e, and wow!

"We don't assume magic items are a part of a character's abilities." But no acknowledgement that they do affect character power, particularly +X items. And no mention of any guidelines about handling characters that do acquire these items.

"In either case, the item is part of the story, not part of a math equation." (And it shouldn't be both because...?)

Wow, this is some heavy-duty double-layered chintzy retro curtaining. Clearly, 5e is not for me.

I agree. That entire article made it sound like they are going to dump the entire responsibility for making sure the game even functions correctly on the DM's shoulders, then calling that a feature. Nothing described in that article sounds even coherent, let alone balanced.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that helps explain why an individual may see no difference.

Absolutely, it can help explain why a person perceives change in one way, even if it might not be the full extent of the change actually in the game itself.

But then that's the wonderful thing about opinions.

Sure, but don't forget the balance fallacy: if two different opinions are expressed, they should be considered equally valid.

If one opinion is "the edition that 3E is most similar to is 4E" and the other is "the edition that 4E is most similar to is 1E", the former is clearly more valid, in the sense of the legitimate arguments that could be made for it. Just because someone has stated an opinion does not mean it is unassailable. After all, why express an opinion on a discussion forum if you don't wish it discussed?

"We don't assume magic items are a part of a character's abilities." But no acknowledgement that they do affect character power, particularly +X items. And no mention of any guidelines about handling characters that do acquire these items.

"In either case, the item is part of the story, not part of a math equation." (And it shouldn't be both because...?)

This is an example of another big change between 2E and 3E: the assumption of PC magic items, building them into the math, and the resultant wealth-by-level guidelines. Nothing like this was considered before 3E.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree. That entire article made it sound like they are going to dump the entire responsibility for making sure the game even functions correctly on the DM's shoulders, then calling that a feature. Nothing described in that article sounds even coherent, let alone balanced.

I'm hoping that what it really means is that they're planning on dumping +X items altogether (or severely limiting them to +1 or +2). That seems a bit of a dream, though.

 

[Bedrockgames]

At this point, I don't expect it will thrill me (and, currently, it does not). Ability Scores more important then ability scores, Hit Point as Threshold for spell effects and, possibly, things like disarm, talk of removing clerical healing from the spell list, the current rules for non-magical healing are all turn offs for my friends and I.

That is fair. I agree removing cleric heals from the spell list is a mistake. They are definitely making design choices I dont like. This just looks much better than 4e to me.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This is an example of another big change between 2E and 3E: the assumption of PC magic items, building them into the math, and the resultant wealth-by-level guidelines. Nothing like this was considered before 3E.

"The DMG doesn't say whether the PCs are expected to have magical items, so they're not necessary" is a fairly common perception, but I think it's another case of illusionism at work. Gygax, Arneson and TSR designers may not have written WBL charts or parcel guidelines, but they sure designed dragons, demons and devils that require +X weaponry to hit. To me, that makes it pretty clear that magical items have been an assumed part of character growth from day one. Personally, I'm not even convinced that Gygax and Arneson didn't more or less assume that higher level PCs would have +X armor too.

But to each their own. Who am I to say that the illusion is badwrongfun?