D&D 5E What will 5E D&D be remembered for?

[Tony Vargas]

Another thing to consider is that 2e offered very little RP-customization-tools/system-mastery-rewards beyond choice of Race, Class (and of course, class options, like spell load-out), Kit and maybe a few NWPs and such. 3.5 offered PrCs that were comparably RP-customization-tools/system-mastery-rewards to 2e Kits, really, covering a lot more ground than kits. 3.5 also offered a skill system far more granular and customization/optimization supporting than NWPs. It also offered feats that were at least on par with 2e Kits, if not significantly more powerful as such tools. Then there was multiclassing, LA races, and so forth.

So, yes, 2e Kits were kinda like stuff in 3e in that they let you customize your character, whether for RP or Optimization (or, of course /both/ - something people forget is that an RP-customized character can also be optimal), 3e also had a /lot/ more such stuff.

 

[MostlyDm]

I'm not disputed that 3e had more.

I'm just disputing that 2e kits were entirely or primarily about Roleplaying.

In my 2e days, most of the people I saw begging for kits were absolutely optimizers.

Cleric kits often gave extra "domain" style powers for free on top of all cleric powers. Much like the 1e Kensai class, the 2e Kensai kit gave you a lot of crazy power in exchange for some steep restrictions, which could be gamed.

Yeah, they're also roleplaying tools. Many people I'm sure chose them for roleplaying reasons only. Just like prestige classes in 3e, many of which are only chosen because they had roleplaying value.

In general, it seems like your position is that PrCs are only a bundle of mechanics with no RP theme or something? I don't get it.

PrCs were so tied to roleplaying concerns that they were often only allowed in certain settings... Just like many kits.

 

[Arawn76]

A lack of interesting material, give me settings

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Probably one of designers' imagined attitudes. In the late TSR years, the folks running it, notoriously Lorraine Williams, were openly contemptuous of their own fan base. WotC took over, and, according to Cook in Ivory Tower Game Design, intentionally included 'rewards for system mastery,' a page taken from M:tG design. Very different attitudes. And, yes, the implication is that elements of 3.5 were specifically there for powergamers, that the chargen/level up meta-game was legitimatized in that era. Which may not be the most flattering way of expressing the player empowerment that marked modern D&D prior to 5e.

Whenever I read "ivory tower game design" i am directed to the Alexandrian where it is stated, that "intentionally adding rewards for system mastery" was not the point of monte cook.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Whenever I read "ivory tower game design" i am directed to the Alexandrian where it is stated, that "intentionally adding rewards for system mastery" was not the point of monte cook.

It wasn't the main thrust of the article, which was about the presentation of the game, but it was one of the other two M:tG design 'lessons' used in 3e, and was stated as a fact, just to preface and illustrate that 3e took some ideas from M:tG.

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

There's not a lot of room for equivocation there. Everyone was well aware that 3e was the delight of powergamers everywhere, Cook just stepped forward and said "yeah, we meant to do that," casually, just to lead into another point he maybe thought was less obvious...

Honestly, I thought that was what you were getting at in saying that the 'point' of PrCs was powergaming. The only difference being that I'm not aware of a 2e developer being on record the way Cook is.

I'm not disputed that 3e had more.

I'm just disputing that 2e kits were entirely or primarily about Roleplaying.

They're entirely about what you do with them. If you pick Frigid-Climate Anagokok because being an eskimo wizard sounds cool to you, RP wise, Kit's are 100% about RP. If you choose Mystic so you can abuse astral projection, kits are 100% about powergaming. If you choose something as broken as 2e bladesinger, but say it's just because a singing elf sounds cool to you, well...

In my 2e days, most of the people I saw begging for kits were absolutely optimizers.

Same with L&L specialty priests (as opposed to those in the CPH, they were fine). There were some broken player choices in 2e, people caught on.

Yeah, they're also roleplaying tools. Many people I'm sure chose them for roleplaying reasons only. Just like prestige classes in 3e, many of which are only chosen because they had roleplaying value.

But, in the latter case, the man in charge came right out and said that some choices were just intentionally better than others.

 

[Iosue]

Generally, the editions are remembered for what the company focused on. In 2e it was settings, in 3e it was options and splats, and OGL, in 4e it was tight game design, balance, and digital tools. For 5e it will be the stories, and the DM's Guild. While some of us may not care for the stories, for a lot of the new and casual players out there (and no small number of the old guard), they will remain common touchstones. And the DM's Guild is huge and historic. The first time TSR/WotC let the fans take a crack at making money off their setting IP. Now Ravenloft is in the mix, so I think it's only a matter of time before other settings are added.

I mean, people already complain that a thousand applications of Disadvantage can be completely counteracted by but a single application of Advantage. (It's one of the very rare places where fans of 5e actually admit a flaw of any kind, IME...)

Feature, not bug. I'm happy to list any number of flaws of 5e, but that's not one of them. It's part of what makes running the game so easy.

Also, you might want to back up on the mass generalizations of 5e fans as people who don't admit flaws, since I doubt you'd appreciate the same characterization of 4e fans. What one person finds a flaw another may find as a preferred feature, and vice versa. It should be no surprise that people who like the game may not consider aspects -- which you personally don't like -- as flaws.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I agree with those who have commented that trying to predict what an edition will be remembered for two years in is kinda tea-reading. But from the perspective of an outsider looking in, it looks like 'the compromise/inoffensive edition' is a distinct possibility. Possibly also the 'old-school-for-new-schoolers edition.' It will probably make my second-choice edition if I ever play it.

Obviously, mileage varies, and I'm not trying to convince you to like 4e (I gave that up quite a while ago, after Sisyphus loaned me his painkillers), but I found making custom monsters in 4e dirt simple. Of course, I find it pretty simple in any edition on D&D, as long as you ignore the formulas and just write down the numbers you need, which are attack modifiers, damage expressions, and saves.

Well there are formulas for every single stat not just those three. Hit points, ac values, skills, etc, all have several forumlas.

Regardless, I'm not sure it helps argue in favour of 4e if the way to make it work hinges on ignoring its prescribed rules/methods.

I too find 4e monster creation to be dirt simple, precisely because its guidelines are quite simply the numbers I need and nothing more. It's not for DMs who like to build monsters as players build PCs, or for those who have extensive and detailed feelings that 'bear-fur is worth +3 AC, rhino-hide is worth +4 AC, predatory instinct is worth +3 attack, dragons should have all high saves because whyever,' and everything else.

But for me, it's a cinch to plug-and-chug those formulas, add a power or two, use 4e's super-simple level/encounter guidelines to throw my monster into a memorable encounter, and BAM! Let the good times roll. And I don't even use the software.

 

[maxnmn80]

I think it will be remembered for being easy to start with, with relatively easy rules, free basic rules and a great Starter Set.

 

[RotGrub]

I too find 4e monster creation to be dirt simple, precisely because its guidelines are quite simply the numbers I need and nothing more. It's not for DMs who like to build monsters as players build PCs, or for those who have extensive and detailed feelings that 'bear-fur is worth +3 AC, rhino-hide is worth +4 AC, predatory instinct is worth +3 attack, dragons should have all high saves because whyever,' and everything else.

But for me, it's a cinch to plug-and-chug those formulas, add a power or two, use 4e's super-simple level/encounter guidelines to throw my monster into a memorable encounter, and BAM! Let the good times roll. And I don't even use the software.

Yeah, I guess that's how I feel about it. I simply want to compare a monsters hide / AC to a particular armor type and go with how I feel. IMO, a monster can have a huge hit point total and have a very bad AC or vice versa. For example, the Wilo-Wisp in 2e had a -8 AC with only 9 HD.

For me, I find it much quicker to design a monster for 5e, 2e, and 1e. Those systems empower the DM and they are not combat focused. You don't have to worry about a few modifiers causing an issue. Of course, if you use the default healing and resting rules in 5e you still have to worry about the adventuring day. X encounters per day is a restrictive concept that I don't enjoy worrying about.

In fact, it was one of the reasons I stopped playing 4e. I felt that everything you did as a DM was mathematical and some players kept an eye on your math being right. That isn't to say that all DMs did a good job of this either. I know many players who constantly complained about their DM's inability to follow the encounter rules.

 

[LetThronesBeware]

I'm going to remember the absolutely atrocious spell indexing system they used in my phb.