-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
I voted ugh. I was initially pretty positive, but it seems like a lot of what they're discussing seems to be a return to ideas that were changed in 4E for a real reason.
I think this is a good reason for people who didn't like 4E to be excited: it seems like the things I'm really positive about in 4E are going away, and we're going back to the way things used to be.
I'm still very excited about the modularity concept, and I hope that I can make 5E the game I want to play. But, the concepts of greater lethality, the return of spellslots, the removal of the AEDU system, the return of saving throws, and the likely return of less interesting combat environments are nothing I'm looking for.
It's still too early to see, but I heard nothing about the game that sounds anything like 4E. (Did you like any of the changes you made? Anything?) That may make a lot of people happy, but it leaves me as a sad panda.
I'd like to invite Monte Cook to play in one of my game sessions of 4E. I could explain a few of the rules he has a problem with if he ever gets back to Wisconsin. And I'd love to talk about the good old days of Rolemaster...
I think this is a good reason for people who didn't like 4E to be excited: it seems like the things I'm really positive about in 4E are going away, and we're going back to the way things used to be.
I'm still very excited about the modularity concept, and I hope that I can make 5E the game I want to play. But, the concepts of greater lethality, the return of spellslots, the removal of the AEDU system, the return of saving throws, and the likely return of less interesting combat environments are nothing I'm looking for.
It's still too early to see, but I heard nothing about the game that sounds anything like 4E. (Did you like any of the changes you made? Anything?) That may make a lot of people happy, but it leaves me as a sad panda.
I'd like to invite Monte Cook to play in one of my game sessions of 4E. I could explain a few of the rules he has a problem with if he ever gets back to Wisconsin. And I'd love to talk about the good old days of Rolemaster...
Incenjucar
Legend
Please do not encourage people to violate contracts made in good faith.
I read that D&D 5e is switching to the silver standard.
I've been waiting for that for... 17 years now.
Oh yeah, I'm all in now. I don't care if there is a rule that I have to fly down to Seattle and kiss the 5e design team on the mouth to level up.
We got the silver standard! WOOT!
(Maybe we need a thread for Deal-makers).
I've been waiting for that for... 17 years now.
Oh yeah, I'm all in now. I don't care if there is a rule that I have to fly down to Seattle and kiss the 5e design team on the mouth to level up.
We got the silver standard! WOOT!
(Maybe we need a thread for Deal-makers).
I think 4e did some things right and introduced some interesting takes on how to do things. Loved durations, liked AEDU (sort of)
In hindsight however, I just cant call the system an overall success. Our group is 7 people : 2 hardcore and 5 casual. 4e looked great on paper, but once played
it kinda left the casual gamer in the cold. Well, it did for us anyway. Maybe I could have done things differently, but 4e just didnt seem to suite the simple play my group was looking for.
Most of the time the game stayed afloat because I, as DM, put so much effort into breaching the gap for the players.
In hindsight however, I just cant call the system an overall success. Our group is 7 people : 2 hardcore and 5 casual. 4e looked great on paper, but once played
it kinda left the casual gamer in the cold. Well, it did for us anyway. Maybe I could have done things differently, but 4e just didnt seem to suite the simple play my group was looking for.
Most of the time the game stayed afloat because I, as DM, put so much effort into breaching the gap for the players.
WarlockLord
First Post
I thought the mechanics from the last seminar were terrible and stupid. So you spend 5 minutes arguing with the DM that you should be able to use your Intelligence on every saving throw ever because you're a wizard, and unnamed 
wizard magic has your back, while he's in the corner explaining the to the PCs that the orc strongmen use strength because they bathed in the Great Strength Fire...just like all his other high strength monsters. You still get punished for playing an orc wizard. You can seriously trade damage out for "I win" effects which bolster your social abilities too. There is both an attack roll and defense roll, so if you hate long combats, go cry in the corner. And the fact that you need to pick combat OR social skills OR exploration is terrible. And I suspect the fighter is still the useless gimp he was in every non 4e edition.
I hope to be proven wrong.
wizard magic has your back, while he's in the corner explaining the to the PCs that the orc strongmen use strength because they bathed in the Great Strength Fire...just like all his other high strength monsters. You still get punished for playing an orc wizard. You can seriously trade damage out for "I win" effects which bolster your social abilities too. There is both an attack roll and defense roll, so if you hate long combats, go cry in the corner. And the fact that you need to pick combat OR social skills OR exploration is terrible. And I suspect the fighter is still the useless gimp he was in every non 4e edition. I hope to be proven wrong.
Raith5
Adventurer
This is pretty much my view.
Admittedly it is based upon the rather vague information that was presented (Or is it just me? I was expecting a slightly clearer picture)
But yes this looks to be 3rd mechanics with some 4th ed options. But If I have use feats to have at will or second wind, then I am not sure that is edition is going to work me.
Sure 4th ed races and classes are going to be there. But For me the big issues for me will be about whether there is a high level of mobility in fights (something I like about 4th ed), whether alignment will be core, whether the cosmology of 4th ed will be supported.
Too early to tell really, but it looks much more like a regression than a synthesis.
Last edited:
trancejeremy
Adventurer
I like it so far.
Whether fair or not, bear in mind that 4e was the first time D&D lost significant market share to a game that was literally its predecessor with a new name. So obviously they are going to walk back from that. And from what I read, the 4e-ness will be likely restored in the "tactical module" they've referred to.
I don't like the silver standard, though. Yes, historically most coins were based around silver, not gold, but most editions have used it.
I mean, when you find a treasure chest, it's much exciting to find it full of golden doubloons, rather than silver reales.
Whether fair or not, bear in mind that 4e was the first time D&D lost significant market share to a game that was literally its predecessor with a new name. So obviously they are going to walk back from that. And from what I read, the 4e-ness will be likely restored in the "tactical module" they've referred to.
I don't like the silver standard, though. Yes, historically most coins were based around silver, not gold, but most editions have used it.
I mean, when you find a treasure chest, it's much exciting to find it full of golden doubloons, rather than silver reales.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Hard Moves (in D&D)
