D&D 5E How are you feeling about 5e?

[Shadeydm]

I feel like they just want us to buy new books every 3 to 5 years.

I think there is no getting around this however it doesn't preclude those books from being awesome does it?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Maybe this belongs in a new thread, but I'm curious what you want from BECMI and what to keep from 4E.

For BECMI:

Do you want treasure for XP? The phase combat system? Defensive movement system? Bonus XP for Prime Requisite? Hit Dice? Thief Skills? Saving Throw categories? Differing XP tables for each class? What exactly?

For 4E:

Healing surges? Powers? Rituals? Action economy? Static defenses? Armor system? 1/2 level bonuses? Save Ends effects? Conditions? Grid combat?

I'm just really not sure what a BECMI/4E mashup would look like. They are very different engines.

Yeah, probably does belong in a separate thread, as it is an involved discussion. I'll just say this here: In BECMI, the sum is much greater than the parts. That means that the parts can be improved. In 4E, sometimes it is the other way around. That means that there are parts that aren't realizing their full potential.

 

[The Red King]

I think there is no getting around this however it doesn't preclude those books from being awesome does it?

It neither precludes not guarantees.

 

[The Shadow]

I was excited and fired up about 5e - in January. Why they bothered to announce the game when all they were going to do is drop hints and teases for months is incomprehensible to me. I'm suffering Edition Fatigue at the moment.

I've played every edition of D&D except 4e. (Also one game of Pathfinder.) Spent the most time with 2e. While I've had a lot of fun, I've largely moved on to other game systems. But there's just something about D&D that doesn't quite let a gamer go - like first love. I'm hoping they will win me back, and I'm very cautiously optimistic, but I'm also tired of waiting for the dang playtest to start.

Put the rules in our hands, WotC! Why the wait?

 

[Viking Bastard]

Yeah, probably does belong in a separate thread, as it is an involved discussion. I'll just say this here: In BECMI, the sum is much greater than the parts. That means that the parts can be improved. In 4E, sometimes it is the other way around. That means that there are parts that aren't realizing their full potential.

I'm no Game Theorist, but for me it's more about feel rather than strict mechanical this or that. And when I say BECMI, it's the RC, since that is a) the first RPG I ever played and b) the second RPG I ever really studied.

4e captures that feel a lot better for me than 2e or 3e did, despite them being much closer to it mechanically.

 

[P1NBACK]

I'm no Game Theorist, but for me it's more about feel rather than strict mechanical this or that. And when I say BECMI, it's the RC, since that is a) the first RPG I ever played and b) the second RPG I ever really studied.

4e captures that feel a lot better for me than 2e or 3e did, despite them being much closer to it mechanically.

Man. That's weird to me, because 4E feels way different in playstyle than BECMI (RC) or B/X. I think on the surface, 4E looks like it could pull off a BECMI style game, but when you get down to brass tacks, the game plays and feels way differently.

But, maybe that's what you mean. You want the feel of BECMI with the rules cohesion of 4E?

Of course, YMMV, as with all versions of D&D. And, differing players, DMs, house rules, etc. can all play a role.

My hope is that 5E feels far more like BECMI than 4E. A big part of that I think will depend on rules that support that feel.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm no Game Theorist, but for me it's more about feel rather than strict mechanical this or that. And when I say BECMI, it's the RC, since that is a) the first RPG I ever played and b) the second RPG I ever really studied.

4e captures that feel a lot better for me than 2e or 3e did, despite them being much closer to it mechanically.

Feel is a big part for me, too. If I want to recreate the feel of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, the two best D&D options for me are BECMI and 4E. Both system will fall short in some ways (which has to be smoothed over or avoided), but both will do a far better job than AD&D or 3E.

I think a big part of the disputes here is that people assume that the feel they want is the feel I want. It's impossible to see the connection between BECMI and 4E until one sees the feel where the connection happens.

 

[Iosue]

Just riffing off the top of my head, from BECMI - fast chargen, fast combat, a bounded range instead of ever inflating bonuses, low-power Vancian magic, and modularity. From 4e, elegant mini and grid rules, at-will, encounter and ritual magic, page 42, and defender mechanics.

I like the way 4e expands the sweet spot; in BECMI, I never really needed B, M, or I. But I don't care for all the conditions, nor stunlock, and I feel the action economy and AEDU for all classes undermine the genius that is page 42.

In many ways, I think Mentzer anticipated a lot of 4e and 5e. You've got tiers, fantastic fighter options, a system for creating balanced (or unbalanced, if need be) encounters, and it seems to have much of the modularity that WotC is talking about now. If simple combat was your thing, you played by the Basic rules. If you wanted more options, you could bring in elements from the fighter combat options and/or weapon mastery, or you could go whole hog. You could play out the traditional dominion end game, or you could keep traveling, each having its advantages and disadvantages. And you could run it with a wide variety of styles.

 

[Mircoles]

For me, the return of vancian means that I won't be playing 5e. I'm tired of the crap that vancian is and I'm tired of house ruling around something so integrated into the system.
They should have gotten rid of vancian when they made 2e.

 

[Umbran]

Tidbits and speculation do not lead to me deciding to like or not like a thing. I'll wait to see 5e, and judge it on its actual merits, not on scuttlebutt.