D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Celestian]

And here's a compromise! Compatability with one old system, which, ipso facto, means it isn't compatable with any more modern system. As far as I know, none of the 3e or 4e fans are asking for this.

Actually you can make it compatible with AD&D and still have features of other versions that are worth keeping. Ascending AC and BaB is easily converted for a AD&Der... Stat blocks that are usable is a biggie for me and that means the HP bloat is an issue with newer versions though perhaps they can find a work around that satisfies.

You do not need to be 100% the same game to be compatible. 1e and 2e and even Basic D&D were compatible but not the same game. That is what I am looking for.

 

[Badapple]

As for the rest of your post...your position is much clearer and not what it sounded like in the paragraph that blew up in the thread, and I withdraw my "not D&D" critique. In fact, some of what you talk about is congruent with my position on 4Ed itself- that it's a good game that could have been better had it ditched more D&Disms.*


* All of them, in fact. I think 4Ed's mechanics make for a poor version of D&D, but could have been an epically good FRPG divorced from being linked to any predicate elements from D&D's past...and then sold with its own identity as a new game wiith a new name all its own.

Thanks for that. And thanks for presenting/inspiring a "what if" scenario that I find particularly fascinating... Here's my take that (may) be a similar take to what you have?

What if we went back in time to the announcment of D&D 4E. At that time D&D 3.5 was my far and away favorite fantasy game, but at that time we were involved in two very long running campaigns where the party was around 13th level or so. That, to me, was where some of the shortcomings of 3.x reared itself... growing imbalances between the player characters and that it was gettting harder and harder to DM. But it was still far and away the reigning king of rpgs and the OGL had utterly energized the rpg industry. After playing 3.0 since release, I was ready for something a little new, but what exactly that would be I hadn't decided yet. I had plans to start a new campaign using Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and I was very interested in the upcoming Pathfinder take on 3.x. In the absence of fourth edition I would have probably gravitated away from core 3.x rules, but the alternatives available at the time weren't as drastic a change from that ruleset as 4E's would prove to be.

What if Wotc had retained it's close partnership with Paizo (maybe bought them out?), and in fact worked out a business model with them for Paizo's developers to put out the next edition of D&D and the fourth edition of D&D wound up being something very similar to Pathfinder?

Meanwhile Mike Mearls and Rob Heinsoo and all the other various designers of D&D 4E designed a brand new fantasy game from scratch, called it "Points of Light" and put "a new fantasy RPG from the makers of Dungeons and Dragons" on the box and gave it similar marketing support?

WotC could have both Pathfinder (labelled as 4E D&D: Pathfinder) AND fourth edition (labelled as a totally different game) on the shelves simultaneously. Paizo would be a part of WotC and their excellent adventure paths could find their way into both products. There would be no product confusion among consumers, as they are two totally seperate games. Both games could freely use each other's copyrights and material, since they are owned by the same company. The OGL could continue to apply to D&D 4E pathfinder, but not apply to "Points of Light". Pathfinder could have WotC's online presence. Gamers could make digs at each other good naturedly on the boards, but since both product lines are being supported would probably markedly reduce the "editon war".

Also, both these flavors of D&D could be improved incrementally through seperate future editions... Future new releases of D&D/Pathfinder and Points of Light would be focused in their direction, serve a specific base, have adventure modules and campaign sourcebooks that are still relatively compatible, etc.

Meanwhile... the 3rd party companies would have the AD&D market left to fight over, so the retroclones and internet support that OE fans have currently enjoyed would have perhaps hit the scenes and provided support to that gaming base sooner...

Heck, this thread's original purpose was "Tell us what would you like to see no matter how unrealistic or selfish?" So just throwing it out there, heh.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Meanwhile Mike Mearls and Rob Heinsoo and all the other various designers of D&D 4E designed a brand new fantasy game from scratch, called it "Points of Light" and put "a new fantasy RPG from the makers of Dungeons and Dragons" on the box and gave it similar marketing support?

Beyond even that, I look at the bones of 4Ed and see an engine that could be used for a wide variety of genres, though I don't think it is quite flexible enough to be a toolbox system like HERO or GURPS.

 

[pemerton]

a Monster Manual barely worthy of the title

For what it's worth, I think the 4e MM is an excellent book and I still use it all the time (it is very easy to change the damage numbers to fit the MM3 maths).

It has excellent descriptions of a wide range of monsters, many with far-and-away the most interesting mechanical implementations that I have seen. It unifies a very disparate range of story elements (eg giants, titans, dwarves, azer, galeb duhr) into a single coherent backstory. And it is also the only Monster Manual to have contained such tidbits as the secret history of the Abyss, the secret history of goblinoids, and the fact that Lolth was once a god of fate who learned the art of weaving by studying spiders.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'll just clarify this point. I'm not calling it a conspiracy, I'm calling it a business model. The idea was to release a PHB that didn't have all the classes/races you'd expect, a DMG with hastily conceived and poorly developed rules, and a Monster Manual barely worthy of the title to encourage people to buy more books or subscribe to DDI.

And that is such a different version to the 4e I played that I wonder if we ever actually read the same books.

The PHB had a wide range of races and classes. 8 classes was about on a par with the 2e PHB and more than 1e. It just wasn't as many as 3e - and I think that the only differences in class they had between the 2e PHB and the 4e were that they have openly admitted they did not know what to do with the Bard in the PHB1 (the Bard being different in literally every edition of D&D) but instead included the Warlord, and they didn't have the specialty priest from 2e that was the druid. That you chose to expect a 3.X model for 4e rather than more like 2e or 1e is your issue.

There are precisely three DMGs I consider worth using for games outside their own. Those are the Gygax-written 1e DMG, and the 4e PHB 1 and PHB 2.

And as for the Monster Manual, it compares favourably in terms of fluff to the 2e Monstrous Manual, never mind the washed out versions we got in 3e. And in play it kicks the ass of any other edition's monster manuals, especially the 3.0 and 3.5 ones which it makes look literally half-finished. ("Casts as a nth level wizard" is a literally half finished monster). What the 4e Monster Manual was not was a coffee table book or bedtime reading. Instead it's one of the best written monster manuals there has ever been in actual play (no need to wade through half a side of text to find the stats for a goblin chieftain right in the middle of a paragraph, thank you 2e, and no need to actually finish off writing the monsters, thank you 3e) - and all the other competitors are from 4e (I can literally make the case for any monster manual 4e has produced to be the best monster manual D&D has ever seen, with the sole exceptions of the MM3 for being too niche, and Dark Sun for being too setting specific).

I distinctly recall there being conversion guides, although they may have lacked for detail.

They did - incredibly so. The player-produced conversion guide ran to 2.9 MB zipped and that was literally just detailing the changes in PDF format. (I.e. not the 4e replace everything format).

It might not be pefectly balanced, but one can take a 3.0 monster right out of the book and throw it against 3.5 PCs, or vice versa. There are a few things to watch out for, but the numbers are the same and they scale the same way, feats are still feats, SR is still SR, etc. etc.

You aren't making the case that this is any different from the 1e/2e change here. An edition is marked by publishing model.

To do it in 4e, you'd again have to throw out its stats and start over with powers and roles, as they don't exist in 3e.

Actually, no. You don't actually need roles in 4e for anything. What they are is monster design guidelines with many indirect effects but no actual direct impact on play. The reason 3e monsters would be hard to use in 4e is that they are fundamentally unfinished. It's the feats and the spells that are the problem - both of which are part of the monster stats but not actually in the statblock. And you make comments about the 4e monster manual!

Converting 4e monsters to 3e on the other hand is a lot easier because the stats you need are already there. And the math has been made obvious. Take 25 hit points off every 4e monster (doubled for elites, quadrupled for solos) and then 11 off the fort/ref/will. And they will be workable although scale differently (doubling every 2 levels in 3.X, every 5 in 4e). Add 10 to the attacks vs fort/ref/will and call them DCs.

I don't see the claim that 3rd edition is an edition (singular) as being a particularly controversial one.

Why is 2e a different edition from 1e as an edition then?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why is 2e a different edition from 1e as an edition then?

To your point, because it says so in the books. It's a publishing thing. "An edition is marked by publishing model."; thus if it is called out as being 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition, that must make it so. There are 4 editions of D&D (and innumerable variants thereof) because the publishers have decided to put numbers ranging up to 4 on the books.

And that is such a different version to the 4e I played that I wonder if we ever actually read the same books.

Well, I read the first set of core rulebooks pretty thoroughly when they were new, and other 4e products and related materials pretty sporadically thereafter. In any case, it feels like you've gone back on your original point (as to whether considering 4e in terms of its original core books rather than its full run is appropriate) so I don't know that there's much else to say. I have no doubt that 5e will likewise be judged on its initial releases far moreso than anything that comes out afterwards, just like any other version of the game.

For what it's worth, I think the 4e MM is an excellent book and I still use it all the time

To each, his own. As to the thread topic, I wonder how they will create a new one that appeals to both audiences. From my perspective, I have not been impressed with the 4e monsters we have seen thusfar.

 

['Arry]

In answer to the OP, I don't think it can. I don't need another fantasy RPG as I already have enough. I don't even want another fantasy RPG, I'm quite satisfied with what I have.

If 5e blows my socks off when it comes out I might think about buying it, but money's tight at the moment.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To your point, because it says so in the books. It's a publishing thing. "An edition is marked by publishing model."; thus if it is called out as being 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition, that must make it so. There are 4 editions of D&D (and innumerable variants thereof) because the publishers have decided to put numbers ranging up to 4 on the books.

There are a lot more than 4 editions - Brown Box, oD&D, BECMI, and RC come to mind. And 3.5 does not say the same thing as 3.0.

Well, I read the first set of core rulebooks pretty thoroughly when they were new, and other 4e products and related materials pretty sporadically thereafter. In any case, it feels like you've gone back on your original point (as to whether considering 4e in terms of its original core books rather than its full run is appropriate)

My point was that the two were very different. And that was why there were so many arguments. I certainly haven't gone back on that.

To each, his own. As to the thread topic, I wonder how they will create a new one that appeals to both audiences. From my perspective, I have not been impressed with the 4e monsters we have seen thusfar.

And from the perspective of a 4e player, the monsters are simply risible by 4e standards. By the standards of the filler monsters in the MM1 (the worst mechanically designed MM) that were just put in there to be there, they are ill thought out (seriously, "impale" - the Hook Horror was a filler monster in the MM1 and even that didn't imply it stuck those hooks right the way through an enemy). That said, I'd far and away rather use them than the literally incomplete 3.X monsters that require you to look in numerous other sourcebooks or even other pages on that sourcebook to be able to say what they actually can do.

If anything they are closest to a watered down version of the 2e Monstrous Manual. But then the whole thing appears to be closest to a 2e retroclone - and what made 2e good was emphatically not the rules or mechanics.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There are a lot more than 4 editions - Brown Box, oD&D, BECMI, and RC come to mind. And 3.5 does not say the same thing as 3.0..

There are plenty of variants, but the term "edition" and the use of a number is pretty unambiguous. The term "revised third edition" or "version 3.5 revision) (which is what is in the books) also pretty clearly delineates that they are still part of 3e.

And from the perspective of a 4e player, the monsters are simply risible by 4e standards. By the standards of the filler monsters in the MM1 (the worst mechanically designed MM) that were just put in there to be there, they are ill thought out (seriously, "impale" - the Hook Horror was a filler monster in the MM1 and even that didn't imply it stuck those hooks right the way through an enemy). That said, I'd far and away rather use them than the literally incomplete 3.X monsters that require you to look in numerous other sourcebooks or even other pages on that sourcebook to be able to say what they actually can do.

I suppose that-more germane to the thread topic, this is one of the issues WotC has to address. It sounds like you are a person who uses the monsters that are in the book without much modification, and, on top of that, looks at the book during a game session and reads the statistics and expects them to be complete.

I, OTOH, typically walk into a session with a small pile of books, but no monster manuals. I expect my monster manual to give me something more akin to a class progression, as I want to be able to develop a detailed, customized, distinctive exemplar of the monster in question, which I do weeks or months before the session. I don't want all the monster's abilities to be fully explained in its stat block because it ends up being an enormous waste of space to repeat the same abilities over and over again; I expect my monsters to have many class abilities, and I expect to refer to the class descriptions to find them. By my standards, the 2e presentation was pretty poor, 3.0 was mediocre, 3.5 was decent, the new ones from late 3.5 were a huge step back, and 4e was probably even worse than 2e (and 5e is pretty uninspiring thus far).

Not that there's anything wrong with the contrary; I'm well aware that plenty of people do use monster books during the game, which I'm sure has advantages and is perfectly reasonable. Making monsters to satisfy everyone sounds like it will be a tough job.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I suppose that-more germane to the thread topic, this is one of the issues WotC has to address. It sounds like you are a person who uses the monsters that are in the book without much modification, and, on top of that, looks at the book during a game session and reads the statistics and expects them to be complete.

I, OTOH, typically walk into a session with a small pile of books, but no monster manuals. I expect my monster manual to give me something more akin to a class progression, as I want to be able to develop a detailed, customized, distinctive exemplar of the monster in question, which I do weeks or months before the session. I don't want all the monster's abilities to be fully explained in its stat block because it ends up being an enormous waste of space to repeat the same abilities over and over again; I expect my monsters to have many class abilities, and I expect to refer to the class descriptions to find them. By my standards, the 2e presentation was pretty poor, 3.0 was mediocre, 3.5 was decent, the new ones from late 3.5 were a huge step back, and 4e was probably even worse than 2e (and 5e is pretty uninspiring thus far).

Not that there's anything wrong with the contrary; I'm well aware that plenty of people do use monster books during the game, which I'm sure has advantages and is perfectly reasonable. Making monsters to satisfy everyone sounds like it will be a tough job.

I'd scream if I had to do it your way I have a group of players who are very good at both making friends with the monsters I expect them to fight and fighting the ones I expect them to make friends with. And seeing the outlines of what I had planned and heading off at rightangles. When I don't decide after we'd sat down at the table that what was planned for the night really doesn't match the mood they are in, to mentally tear up my plans and start from scratch. And the time I really need the monster manual is when the PCs are twenty five miles from where I thought they'd be, having followed a lead that I thought they'd ignore, are in an area of the world (or just city) I've only vaguely statted out, and have just got in over their heads and a fight's about to start.

Or worse yet (on several occasions) the other DM's called in sick so we're running my campaign not his this week. I know the setting well enough to be able to run a session that advances matters - even if my notes are currently spread all over my living room table rather than with me to take to the game that evening. I may know the setting, but I certainly don't know random monster stats.

At that point, the 4e monster manuals have my back - when just about nothing else for any edition does.

And if I'm designing monsters in detail (which for large named bad guys I do) I see utterly no benefit in making a dragon follow PC class rules. Let dragons be dragons! And the late 4e ones will tear you up with tooth and claw or bake you with their breath. Not "Cast as a 7th level sorceror" to provide most of their functionality - and thereby make them much blander.

But whatever works for you From my perspective, the 4e monster manuals are brilliant, the 3.X ones not fit for purpose, the 2e Monstrous Manual not too bad, and the 1e MM concise at the very least. At least we can agree that 5e is uninspiring.