D&D 5E Would you consider 5th edition?

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, I will buy 5e when it comes out.

After all... I bought AD&D following my purchase of the Red Box, Blue Box and Cyan Box of D&D... I bought AD&D 2e following my purchase of AD&D... I bought 3e... I bought 3.5e... and I bought 4e.

I like the D&D brand in all its permutations... and it doesn't matter what kind of game it is, or whether I'm still playing any particular previous version when the new one come out. I enjoy supporting the brand. Same reason why I purchased M&M first and second editions, Paranoia and Paranoia XP, and Warhammer 40K 3rd, 4th & 5th editions.

I like reading new games, even if I'm still playing old ones.

 

[Ferghis]

Only the CURRENT edition is good. Past and future editions are bad.

Serious, I'd certainly check out 5e. At a minimum, it'll be of interest.

4) Limited balance of power sources. I really dislike the concept that "if the Wizard can do an area attack, the Fighter must be able to do an area attack". And not just with his sword. He can do things like Come and Get It where he somehow mystically forces his foes to move, even if they don't want to, from 15 feet away. I think the distinction between the power sources should be better defined. Sorry, but your Fighter just isn't going to heal himself and your Rogue isn't going to Teleport due to class powers.
[...]
5) More focus on non-attack powers. The vast majority of powers in the game system do damage. It would be nice if each player had more than just a few utility powers at his disposal. The ability to cast rituals with scrolls would help with this.

I like a lot of the things that KarinsDad posted, but I wanted to isolate these two. First, the latter. Non-combat abilities in general need some attention. I know we have to keep things vague so that DMs can play the game they want to play, but the number of non-combat flavored paragon paths that don't have a single non-combat piece of crunch in them is ridiculous.

Second, power sources, as KarinsDad correctly points out, are in this grey area between fluff, crunch, and neither. They're fluff because they deal with in-game forces (primal vs divine, for example), they're crunch because the are part of feat and power crunchblocks, and they're neither because they have no limiting definition. There's nothing that one power source can do that another can't do as well, at least not by definition.

 

[Amaroq]

Nifft isn't a troll, silly. Can't you see the cute, lovable penguin?

Nope. I turned off avatars.

On-topic, I've played Basic D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e.

Each time a new release has come out, I've been "disappointed" with it, much as Kzach described, but given it a chance, and found things that I loved in it plus things that I dislike, and I've house-ruled things to find a balance between the cool parts of the new version, and the things I liked from previous versions that I wind up missing.

That said, 4e felt like the biggest "jump" from previous versions, and I'm still not quite certain I like the "powers" concept. I find it pretty workable at 5th level or so, but by 15th, with all my powers, paragon path powers, and powers from magic items, I've seriously got three pages of power cards plus a part of a fourth - which makes picking a move challenging, and "remembering" something even harder. I've actually wound up building a "conditional" sheet, so I can see the powers I might want to use when .. e.g., when I miss, when I get hit, when an enemy misses me with a ranged attack, etc.

So, sure, I'm going to try 5e. I'm going to hate it. At first. And eventually, I may find myself playing and enjoying it and missing some parts of 4e and missing some parts of 3e and missing some of the wonder I felt the first time I played AD&D and ..

 

[Herschel]

I'll look at it and either a: grow to detest it like I did with 3E or b: grow to love it like I did with 4E. Part of that may have to do with teh players I grew in to each system with.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Naw that's just a disguise to lull you into a false sense of security, then the real Nifft comes out.

Cute and cuddly. Cute and cuddly. Cute and cuddly. Make the bad bird go away. Cute and cuddly. Cute and cuddly.

 

[Phaezen]

Just like any other game, I would have a look at it and if it suits my needs I will get it.

If it doesn't I will carry on playing 4e.

Also renau1g awesome pic.

 

[KarinsDad]

That said, 4e felt like the biggest "jump" from previous versions, and I'm still not quite certain I like the "powers" concept. I find it pretty workable at 5th level or so, but by 15th, with all my powers, paragon path powers, and powers from magic items, I've seriously got three pages of power cards plus a part of a fourth - which makes picking a move challenging, and "remembering" something even harder. I've actually wound up building a "conditional" sheet, so I can see the powers I might want to use when .. e.g., when I miss, when I get hit, when an enemy misses me with a ranged attack, etc.

Our PCs are 15th level and it is a pain to run someone else's PC (which is something that we have done for decades when a player is missing from the table).

Our Swordmage player has a sheet of paper with about 50 different possibilities for his elemental powers. He has to go down the sheet to see what his bonuses are to hit and his damage and such depending on what other powers are in play. It's fairly ridiculous.

 

[avin]

Yes.

4E, as any other edition, has flaws.

 

[renau1g]

Our DM has a policy (I'm not crazy about it) that if a player is missing one of the others will take him/her over, but not have access to their daily powers/items so it cuts down on the "which power should I use" problem, but even then it can be overwhelming when running a more complex conditional modifier PC.

 

[Nifft]

I like new things.

I'd try it, at the very least.

"BRAAAAAAAAAINS", -- N