D&D 4E 5E as a Rewritten 4E with Flavor Bits from Other Editions?

[MortonStromgal]

Yes but i dont think 4e players will think its much like 4e. From reading between the lines this is what I'm seeing.

1/2 level increase = gone
powers = optional
skills = optional
feats = [edit from 1/29 info] optional and will cover at-will powers
stat increases = gone
lots of magic items = gone
rituals = optional
minis = optional
[edit from 1/29 info] backgrounds = optional
[edit from 1/29 info] saving throws = core, some hybred of 3e/4e?

[edit from 1/29 info] also known = races will have +1, -1 AD&D style attributes, class will give a +1 bonus to an attribute


Did I miss anything?

 

[DMKastmaria]

I think the core will be even far lighter in design than C&C. We might get a book < 100 pages. Well, unless they add in some MM & the DMG too. Then it could still be a typical 256 page book.

I like where they are going, but I still wonder how much I could run it like I run my OD&D game, which is based on a significantly different philosophy. Whatever the case I think much of the materials will be very, very easy to port to earlier D&D and 4e, and a good deal of the supplements to 3.x too.

This is where the devilish details, lie. The philosophical divides, between the older editions, and new (and newer.)

I'm not expecting to find myself gushing over 5e, which is fine. I'd still rather see WotC continue to develop 4e, leave 3e to Paizo and Old School to the OSR. If everyone would just stop arguing, most of us already have what we want.

Except, that is, the WotC bean-counters.

Not that it wouldn't be nice if they could actually make a game that made everyone happy. It'd be good for the hobby.

People would still argue.

 

[Mark CMG]

If everyone would just stop arguing, most of us already have what we want.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[Dice4Hire]

5e will be a new game.

 

[lkj]

Yes but i dont think 4e players will think its much like 4e. From reading between the lines this is what I'm seeing.

1/2 level increase = gone
powers = optional
skills = optional
feats = TBD
stat increases = gone
lots of magic items = gone
rituals = optional
minis = optional

Did I miss anything?

What's interesting about this list, for me, is that while it describes a lot of characteristics of 4e, none of them really define what I like about it. I like 4e. For the record, I also liked basic, 1e, and 3e (meh on 2nd, but that's just me).

What brought me into 4e was that by and large they got the math right. Sure, there were some bumpy bits that required updating, but I really liked that I understood how things scaled and that I wasn't that concerned about power creep or radical disbalances between the classes. I also felt that I got a lot more control back as a DM. I had come from DM'ing a high level 3e game that was just wearing me out, as much as I loved the game.

The specific implementation of 4e wasn't so much the issue. It was pretty clear to me from the outset that once they had that underlying math worked out they could start playing with it in a way that would start bringing stronger differentiation among the classes-- as began to happen with subsequent books. It was also clear to me that they could start hiding that math better-- as started to happen with essentials-- and bury it a bit better in flavor.

I completely understand some folks problems with 4e implementation in terms of the 'feel' of the game. I didn't have a problem with it, as I sort of felt as DM that I had a lot of control over the feel that mattered to me. And I'll admit there were some things-- flat increasing skill bonuses and attack bonuses that were a little too mathy.

So my hope for 5e or next or whatever is that they can successfully bury the math and make it a servant to the flavor rather than the reverse (as I think 4e was). With smart implementation, you can have Vancian magic and 3e multiclassing and 1e style classes and pretty much anything else while still maintaining the underlying numerical balance and structure that allows the game to flow across tiers, gives the DMs the power to understand how encounters at various levels will play out and how to adjudicate random spontaneous occurrences (pg. 42, I loved it).

So, the more I think on it, the more encouraged I am that they really can bring the feel of every edition into the game (not of course the specific implementation-- that would be silly). It's simply a matter of understanding the math and mechanics well enough to see how those pieces interact.

I really like 4e. But no, I don't want a reflavored 4e. Not at all. I want 5e to carry the basic lessons and tools learned from 4e-- 'getting the math right'-- and use those tools and lessons to create the most inclusive D&D yet.

In short: Make the mechanics a slave to the flavor. But make those mechanics consistent enough that they hold together. I think 4e gave us the path toward that goal. It was an intermediate step. And from what I'm reading the designers get that. They aren't going to lose what was important from 4e. They're going to lose the parts of the implementation that pissed so many people off.

I think there is the potential here for an awesome and flexible game. Let's see if they pull it off.

I sure hope they do.

AD

PS: Sorry if I'm not totally coherent. You've all just inspired me to ramble.

 

[Oni]

*: If the source on dragonsfoot is any guide.

Link to thread?

 

[Nebulous]

Personally I would really like a rewritten 4th ed but it is not gonna happen!

But I think it is fair and reasonable that the new system will enable a player to emulate 4th edition.

Whether you can emulate your favored system is the test that all of us will be leveling at this system. If it fails the 4th ed, 3rd ed, or early editions crowds then it is not going to be a success.

I think that full (or close as possible) emulation of 4e would be bested suited to a book of mechanics designed specifically for the modular purpose of that. Given the complexity of 4e powers, i don't see how they could include this in the core PHB.

 

[pemerton]

I think 5E will be a rewritten AD&D with mechanics from other editions.

That's my impression also. I'm thinking of it as the reactionary edition - which probably shows my biases!

I'm afraid that glossing over 4th ed and simply bringing in elements from previous editions would be an abject failure, serving only the most blind of WotC fanboys.

The 5E design team's job is a tough one since the fans they're trying to bring back into the fold are already very happy playing other excellent fantasy RPGs (Pathfinder and the various editions of D&D/AD&D enjoyed by the OSR crowd).

<snip>

I think they're tilting at Windmills here, but I'm hoping that I'm wrong.

This is what I'm wondering about also.

My impression so far is that the game they are writing is not going to easily support 4e-style play - no skill challenges, classic rather than 4e combat mechanics, etc.

Now maybe they have market research telling them that most people who buy and play 4e like the easy prep and the (more-or-less) balanced maths but otherwise are indifferent to the actual play of the game. In which case losing that play won't cost very much.

But when they released 4e, I assumed that they had market research telling them that most people would like the play of 4e, and that turned out to be wrong! What reason is there for trusting their market reserach, or marketing intuitions, any more this time?

What brought me into 4e was that by and large they got the math right.

<snip>

The specific implementation of 4e wasn't so much the issue.

<snip>

So my hope for 5e or next or whatever is that they can successfully bury the math and make it a servant to the flavor rather than the reverse (as I think 4e was).

I like that 4e gets the maths right, but I like a lot of other stuff about 4e also. Like its upfront embrace of metagame mechanics (healing surges, warlords, martial encounter and daily powers, skill challenges, etc). And the way its action resolution mechanics don't lead to the game getting bogged down in operational play (simple example: no minute per level or 10 minute per level durations that oblige the GM to keep minute track of the passage of time during the transition from scene to scene).

For me, this was the real breakthrough in 4e - a version of D&D that preserves all the classic fantasy elements, but allows them to break free of the minutiae of Gygaxian dungeon crawling. It's the sort of system that Dragonlance and Planescape and Ravenloft and the like were looking for, but didn't have (so they got lumbered with crappy mechanics and railroading GMs instead). A system that, as WotC likes to say, let's groups tell their own story but that doesn't require GM fiat to make sure that story gets told.

At the moment, the vibe I'm getting is one of going back to mechanics that are oriented towards operational play. This is what I feel is being lost from 4e - or, at least, not acknowledged by the designers as one of 4e's major contributions to D&D.

 

[lkj]

I like that 4e gets the maths right, but I like a lot of other stuff about 4e also. Like its upfront embrace of metagame mechanics (healing surges, warlords, martial encounter and daily powers, skill challenges, etc). And the way its action resolution mechanics don't lead to the game getting bogged down in operational play (simple example: no minute per level or 10 minute per level durations that oblige the GM to keep minute track of the passage of time during the transition from scene to scene).

For me, this was the real breakthrough in 4e - a version of D&D that preserves all the classic fantasy elements, but allows them to break free of the minutiae of Gygaxian dungeon crawling. It's the sort of system that Dragonlance and Planescape and Ravenloft and the like were looking for, but didn't have (so they got lumbered with crappy mechanics and railroading GMs instead). A system that, as WotC likes to say, let's groups tell their own story but that doesn't require GM fiat to make sure that story gets told.

At the moment, the vibe I'm getting is one of going back to mechanics that are oriented towards operational play. This is what I feel is being lost from 4e - or, at least, not acknowledged by the designers as one of 4e's major contributions to D&D.

You might be right. I just can't tell from the information so far.

I also like, or at least don't mind the loss of verisimilitude, with some of the metagame mechanics. And I liked the ease of play and usually didn't have a problem with finding in game explanations.

But others in my group did. They just had a hard time with martial dailies and some implementations of the warlord class. Some really missed a wizard having a real spellbook. Didn't like the similar structure between classes. Didn't like the mention of roles.

Another guy in my group-- someone I sympathize with more-- had a problem with the 1/2 level progressions. He just didn't like that everyone got better at everything regardless of training. Sure, we made the 'adventurers are special' argument and I houseruled fairly often to make more aspects of skill use be trained only. But I did see where he was coming from.

We all like the ease of play and not having to worry as much about optimization and feeling like certain characters become useless in certain situations. But it had a tendency to feel a little forced at times.

It's an intangible and irrational thing. You want your game of fantasy-- with monsters and spells and all sorts of other absurd stuff-- to feel 'real'. Not really real, but certain folks don't want to be reminded that things are structured a certain way to make the mechanics work smoothly. They want something that feels like it has a certain internal consistency that isn't just about making the math work out.

In the end, everyone in my group came around and started enjoying the play. People got over the things that annoy them. But I can assure you there will be those in my group who really welcome losing the metagame mechanics you mention. (Not all-- we all appreciate healing surges and martial encounters and such. We like fighters being more interesting).

The thing is, I'm basically the 4e fanboi in my group who pointed out-- over and over again-- that some of the things that bothered them were perfectly present in earlier editions. It just wasn't as obvious. I fully believe a 4e style game can give that same verisimiliitude and feel internally consistent and not make the mechanical necessities obvious.

I think the 5e designers agree. They aren't giving up class balance. They are simply 'baking it in', where it won't seem obvious (or at least that's how I read it). They aren't getting rid of at wills or encounters, they are just baking them in in a way that seems less obvious.

They aren't discussing 'roles' or 'power sources' or powers-- But I get the feeling those things are there but will be meshed into the flavor better.

Shrug. We'll see. I have mixed feelings about some of the skill stuff that came out today. While I don't mind the idea of skills being modifiers around abilities, I worry about it getting to fiddly. While I don't mind the idea of ability based saves, I worry about adding an extra superfluous roll.

I'll make more judgments when they open up the playtest.

AD

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=18646]lkj[/MENTION], thanks for the reply. It will be interesting to see - particularly to see how "baking it in" works out.

Personally I'm happy for the mechanics to be trasnparent and for the fiction to be created at the table, but it's obvious - from your description of your fellow players, and from a million other posts too - that many, including even some 4e players, are not.