After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?

[SlyDoubt]

Well, if those mechanics are to be part of a base that can support classic, 3E and 4e-style play, they're going to have to be different, aren't they? Otherwise they would just support the play of the particular edition they were taken from.

But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?

It won't be enough if the game requires feat taxes. Maybe it can be done via feats, but the design won't work if they're taxes.

Ok well, 5E won't be 4E.

If you want to play 4E, you have 4E. 5E will be a step in a different direction because that's the entire point. It's not "how can I make this new edition into the edition I'd rather it be".

So maybe a 4E player wouldn't want to take feat taxes. I didn't want to have my saves treated like armor class. I didn't want 40+HP at first level. I didn't want powers! So I didn't play 4E much. I didn't want or expect it to just be 3E either. Instead of trying to make 4E into something 3E'ish I just didn't play much of it. When I did it was fine and I liked a number of things about it. That's good, I'm glad it's a very different kind of D&D.

So if you don't like 5E because you can't make it into 4E... Well then I think you miss the point of a new edition.

 

[Aldarc]

Ok well, 5E won't be 3E.

If you want to play 3E, you have 3E. 5E will be a step in a different direction because that's the entire point. It's not "how can I make this new edition into the edition I'd rather it be".
...
So if you don't like 5E because you can't make it into 3E... Well then I think you miss the point of a new edition.

Great advice, so I changed some things around for other people reading and participating in the thread.

Mod Note: You are a bit lucky that your target took this in good humor. Please allow me to warn folks that the "fixed it for you" mode of presenting an argument is usually taken around here to be kinda rude. In general, changing what others have said is something you probably should avoid. ~Umbran

 

[SlyDoubt]

Great advice, so I changed some things around for other people reading and participating in the thread.

HAhahaaha.

Leaving out some other things I said sort of warps what I said. But that is the point ultimately. I don't want 5E to look like 4E, 3E, 2E, AD&D, etc.

If 5E is going to be about the history of the game that's fine. As long as they also push into new territory design wise just like they did with 4E.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

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.

Since I wasn't in the playtest I don't quite follow. It seems to me like you're saying that they scaled back a lot of the rules for the core and left too much to the discretion of the DM. So in 3.5/4 you'd be able to configure your orc well enough and have enough rules to protect yourself from the discretion of the DM. In this edition you're subject to his whim, correct?

If a 3.5 modular addition fixed this would that satisfy you?

Do you have the same issues with 1E/C&C?

 

[Aldarc]

HAhahaaha.

Leaving out some other things I said sort of warps what I said. But that is the point ultimately. I don't want 5E to look like 4E, 3E, 2E, AD&D, etc.

If 5E is going to be about the history of the game that's fine. As long as they also push into new territory design wise just like they did with 4E.

Of course. The starting HP and powers comments were not that relevant, and I did not feel like replacing with more 3e-relevant tidbits.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Lots of comments, like references to rolling 3d6 being the default or bringing back the Great Wheel, almost gives the impression that the designers want everyone to play the game the designer's way, rather than actually embracing what other kinds of players want from the game.

How? D&D has always been intuitively flexible. In every edition of D&D, in chapter 1, the book states you can play and houserule the game however you like. As a DM I can take the 2E cosmology, ability score generating systems, and alignment system and just drop it into Pathfinder or 4E, no questions asked. I can't see any reason why they would get away from that, it seems so innate to what D&D and especially this edition is about (based on everything WOTC has claimed).

I remember a 3.5 partisan joined my 4E game and complained about how he couldn't choose any alignment he wanted and they took out the Great Wheel. I just told him to write whatever he wanted in the alignment box and told him we were going back to the Great Wheel cosmology (as the 4E MOTP suggests). I don't understand why these things are concerns at all.

The articulate intelligent player gets "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player doesn't.

I agree. It seemed like newer editions tried to overcome this by explicitly stating player abilities so players wouldn't have to argue they had them. Couldn't this be modulated into the game for those players?


My thoughts on 5E? Bring it weasel! I'm going to enjoy this

 

[paladinm]

I remember when the BECMI sets came out (Especially the C, M and I). I was waiting anxiously for each new release. I was already well familiar with AD&D 1e, but there was something about the "newness" of C, M and I, and seeing where they deviated from AD&D, that kept me intrigued. I'm feeling the same thing about 5e now.

If they are really wanting a modular system, perhaps they can follow the same model as BECMI, with each release expanding the range of "options". Otherwise they will need to do an Unearthed Arcana-type volume as one of the introductory releases.

Has anyone taken a look at AD&D 3 (Yes, I said AD&D 3). I forget who did it, but it takes 1e (and some of the original UA) and applies D20 mechanics to it. It's Really sweet, but lacks feats, etc. And it doesn't nerf the paladins (like C&C does).

 

[Reynard]

Of course. The starting HP and powers comments were not that relevant, and I did not feel like replacing with more 3e-relevant tidbits.

I haven't seen anyone say they wanted 5E to be 3E, probably because those people have a fully supported current version of 3E in Pathfinder. But I have seen some folks want 5E to be 4E (in the same way lots of us wanted 4E to be 3E) which is understandable: when your favored edition is getting mothballed, a negative reaction is both understandable and justified. Personally, I think WotC should release 4E under the OGL now that it is getting replaced and let 4E fans have a "Pathfinder" of their own.

 

[Rechan]

I haven't seen anyone say they wanted 5E to be 3E, probably because those people have a fully supported current version of 3E in Pathfinder. But I have seen some folks want 5E to be 4E (in the same way lots of us wanted 4E to be 3E) which is understandable: when your favored edition is getting mothballed, a negative reaction is both understandable and justified. Personally, I think WotC should release 4E under the OGL now that it is getting replaced and let 4E fans have a "Pathfinder" of their own.

At the same vein I've seen a lot of people implying they want 5e to be 1e-et al.

 

[DMKastmaria]

At the same vein I've seen a lot of people implying they want 5e to be 1e-et al.

That's because everyone is pretty much happy with their edition. WotC is the only party who isn't happy. They should really, really take note of that.