D&D 5th Edition!!! (WITH POLL!!!)

[MrMyth]

This was one of the first signs that James Wyatt and I were not on the same page about what we like out of D&D. For me, first and foremost, D&D is a game about those fairy tales, about legends, about myths, about stories, and storytelling, about the power of imagination, the fear of the unknown, and the magical world we wish was there.

To be fair, I don't think that's an accurate reading of the quote. I don't think he's saying, "We shouldn't have fairies in D&D." I think he's saying, "We should have darker, Brothers Grimm style fairies in the game, rather than Disney versions offairy tales."

Which is the direction that 4E went in, and I think is a good one.

 

[Balesir]

I should clarify: I was referring to the card-based SAGA Rules System used for the Dragonlance: Fifth Age game and Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game, from 1996-1999. I'm pretty certain we'll never see any hint of it again, but the one hope lies in the fact that Mike Mearls was a fan.

Oh, OK - nothing like SW, then. In which case I don't know enough to comment on it.

Feel free to give a pitch

 

[chaochou]

I like the design direction 4e took. I dislike the 'pump out new stuff each week' marketing direction it took - but then I'm happy playing with fewer books.

I guess what I'd most like in a 5e would be social and skill system to match the combat mechanics. I know, I know, there's a skill system and skill challenges. I know we can all find inventive non-combat uses for powers that do x damage to one target. It all feels bolted on as an afterthought to me.

I'd like more specifically social powers. At 8th level, my fighter ought to be able to choose 'Retinue of guards' and at 11th 'Small castle and holdings' and the bard could do with options like 'Scintillating oration' and 'Seduction' and so on and so on. Maybe also double edged powers to choose like 'Sworn enemy' or 'Jilted lover' or 'Unholy Grudge'. Stuff which reinforces the character's place in the world, their allegiances and responsibilities rather than their dps.

I don't see why my 1st level cleric should have to choose a shedload of radiance-based smiting powers, but get stuck with a d20 diplomacy roll to calm a baying mob in the market square. That's the moment for my 'Calm the unruly' power to define my character as a choice I made. In a game of cool powers, I'd like more directions for mine.

 

[Balesir]

I don't see why my 1st level cleric should have to choose a shedload of radiance-based smiting powers, but get stuck with a d20 diplomacy roll to calm a baying mob in the market square. That's the moment for my 'Calm the unruly' power to define my character as a choice I made. In a game of cool powers, I'd like more directions for mine.

Although I would love to see both a far more integrated non-combat challenge system and powers (or equivalent) that speak to it, I would definitely see several "radiant smiting powers" as being things I would give an auto-success for plausible use of during a "calm the mob" skill challenge (or even for a single skill roll).

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like more specifically social powers. At 8th level, my fighter ought to be able to choose 'Retinue of guards' and at 11th 'Small castle and holdings'

Though I absolutely agree things like this need to be in the game, they don't need to be hard-wired "powers" as such nor do they need to be tied to a level. Even in 1e where the RAW stated a Fighter of 9th level could establish a stronghold etc. there was nothing at all stopping a 6th-level Fighter from trying the same thing.

and the bard could do with options like 'Scintillating oration' and 'Seduction' and so on and so on. Maybe also double edged powers to choose like 'Sworn enemy' or 'Jilted lover' or 'Unholy Grudge'. Stuff which reinforces the character's place in the world, their allegiances and responsibilities rather than their dps.

Bard in particular - along with Monk - is highly suited to a build-by-abilities system, and what you suggest could easily go on an abilities-chooseable list.

Most other classes don't work nearly as well this way unless you really ramp up their power. For my 1e-based game I redesigned Monk and Bard from the ground up - they choose their abilities from a list and more become available each level; each level they can choose a couple more. I then tried doing the same for the other classes and found there's just not enough abilities to make a viable list unless one starts giving them access to extra abilities and thus potentially ramping up their power far too much; even for Thief and Ranger who in theory this should work for.

Lan-"but Fighters still rule"-efan

 

[steeldragons]

I can't say I disagree with any of what [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] said waaaay back on page 1 of this thread...and do NOT want any of the following to be taken as "snark"...

That said...everything you are looking for here IS "going back." It is all taken care of (maybe other than point #2 as far as "rituals" are concerned") in BECMI AND 1e...and 2e also.

Is it just me...or do the "earlier" (i.e. pre-3e) versions of the game handle all of the following?

Specifically:

PLAY STYLE: I'd like to see more options for styles of play and the power level of a campaign's starting point. I do not want to go back to 1E-style early levels, especially for magic users, but it would be nice to see some kind of variant system for Novice or Apprentice Tier that facilitates "off the farm" campaigns.

Done. "Early" (up to but not necessarily including 3e) versions of the game had this. You could be starting "off the farm" or you could be starting as someone with some experience (depending on the background generated by yourself or the DM).

"Options for style of play" can not nor should be imposed by any rule set/system. That is for you, your DM and your group to decide...and alter as you wish. There is no reason you cannot "break the mold" or "think outside the box"...other than your own limitations of creativity and imagination.

As for the 1e magic-users, I simply homeruled it that magic-users gained "extra" spells for their high Intelligence scores, the same as clerics gained them for high Wisdom. Made them significantly less useless though didn't make them all-out powerhouses either. A 1st level cleric got 3 1st level spells, a 1st level magic-user got 3 also...the addition of "cantrips" made the low level magic-user much less "cast a spell. I'm done for the day."

In a challenging adventure/scenario, an MU can burn threw 3 spells in a single day, no problem. Still requires/d resource management and smart usage on the player's part without leaving them saying "I cast my spell. I have a dagger...or let's rest."

RITUALS/SPELLS/POWERS: I'd like to see the re-integration of rituals into the flow of the 4E game session. In that regard, I'd like to see arcane powers become closer to pre-4E spells. I've grown to enjoy the power system but feel that it needs to be more "invisible" to the play environment so that there aren't just the four roles-as-classes wearing different "clothes," but many different classes with different sub-rules, all based around the power structure but without just being re-fluffings of the same old powers.

Done. BECMI, 1e, 2e, even 3e...spells are "spells" not "powers". Classes that have spells, use them. Those that don't...don't. They have other talents that are brought to bare without needing "powers."

With the exception of "rituals." Easy enough to introduce and use, as such, in game play. We need a "system" to tell use that this spell can, or worse "has to be", be a "ritual" versus a "spell"? That seems to be a DM rules thing...a cultural or "magical order" game world thing. Not something that needs to be dictated by "rules in an edition."

As for "refluffing" there are certain elements that are simply accepted within the genre. Certain spells or tricks or traits or skills or feats or whatever you would like to call them, that simply are of use to the genre. I agree that changing the name of X for the sake of changing the name is nonsense...but certain things, simply must be included...and they all are (or can be) in a pre-3e version.

MAGIC ITEMS: Magic items need work. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the problem seems to be with too many items having just a daily power; they just don't seem magical anymore. In previous editions you'd have magic items that had powers that couldn't be reproduced by player powers; I'd like see more unique powers in magic items (e.g. the old style vorpal weapon).

DONE! In every edition before the current one...or before 3e if you think having self-crafting is too easy.

As you say, the "old style vorpal weapon"...WHY bother with the "new" edition? It's been done...and very well...play older versions. As American society (in particular, but not exclusively) has completely forgotten, "New" does automatically equal "Better."

TIERS/MODULARITY: I love the tier system and would like to see its strengths exploited in greater modularity, perhaps with guidelines for starting campaigns at different tiers; this would work well with the so-called Novice or Apprentice Tier I mentioned above, but maybe also an Immortal tier beyond Epic.

DONE! "Back in the day" (gods I hate how often I have to use that term recently) we didn't have "tiers." We had "low levels", "mid levels" and "high levels" OR, for some, there was "Basic", "Expert", "Companion", "Master" and "Immortal." Either or all of which could (easily) be considered "tiers". You pass a certain level, you're in a new "Tier"...how hard is that?

Applying different terms to used concepts does not make something in a system "new"...nor would incorporating it into a "new edition" make it "new"...'revamped' is a convenient buzzword these days...or "innovating" or "re-inventing" (gods, do I hate 're-inventing'...there's NO 'inventing' involved!). It's all bollux...it's re-packaging the stuff we already have access to and enjoy!

BASIC/ADVANCED: More modularity in general. And this leads me to the biggest change I'd like to see, and it relates to delericho's starter set: I'd like to see a simpler core system, with most rules being optional and "Advanced." That means all classes would be akin to a pre-packaged build with a few choices, but no feats or powers or even skills; if a given campaign or player wants more detail and customization, they can "un-pack" an aspect of their character into feats, powers, skills, talents, etc. But Advanced and Basic characters could work in the same campaign, depending upon what the DM allows and the players want.

Again, DONE. Um...what was BECMI to 1e? I cannot tell you how many of my own (and others I played with) had "Basic" characters who were SEEMLESSLY transitioned into 1e (or even 2e) games...and vice versa.

I want to be clear here, I am not saying, Mercurius, that anything you are suggesting is badwrongfun! Quite the contrary...it is AWESOME! And it has been done...it exists...NOW. Yes, it is 20+ years old...and everything you are "looking for" is available to you! The dice roll as smoothly now as they did then.

I guess I'm trying to open some eyes that...if they tack a "5e" label on it, does that make it "better" or "ok" to play?

COMBAT: In a similar sense, I'd like to see combat that is easier to run without miniatures. As I've said before, I like using miniatures I just don't like having to use them (OK, I don't "have to" but the rules take miniatures for granted). Even more so, I'd like see quicker combat! This has improved, but still...

And...say it with me...Done. I can say, in 30 years of game play, we didn't use miniatures. Never. They were around. In fact, I recall one Christmas the DM gave us hand-painted figures as gifts (and the group was 8-10 strong on a weekly basis). They sat on our character sheets as visual reminders for the other players and tributes of appreciation to her for the time-consuming process of finding, getting and painting each of us. But we didn't need to use them for spatial perspective...and no, lengthy arguments of "but I'm over here" did not ensue.

HOUSE RULES/CUSTOMIZATION: Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I'd like to see more guidelines for creation of classes, magic items, feats, etc...more customization; a feature within Insider that allows the DM to create stuff and just plug it in. This is a huge problem right now - that the canonical tools, even the rule books, don't allow or at least facilitate house rules and DM creations, one of the hallmarks of the D&D experience. I'm sure it isn't easy to program, say, a template for creating magic items into Character Builder, but you've just got to make it happen, WotC.

Done...as you say, "one of the hallmarks of the D&D experience." No, we didn't have "Character Builders" back then...we didn't have umpteen online resources to draw material from...we didn't even have computers, fer cryin' out loud.

But yes, there ought to be online resources, ASOLUTELY in today's day and age...but "house rules" is "house rules"...You don't need the "online" to say it's "ok"...OR, hells, nowadays, create your own site or blog or wiki with your specific houserules.

You don't need "the system" to tell you that's ok...cuz you're going to change what the system says anyway!

It was a tenet of 1e (and as far as I know 2e and maybe even 3e) that "da rulez" were there as GUIDELINES...and allowed, nay, ENCOURAGED the DM to adjudicate as necessary where the rules fell short...or simply didn't exist! Now, some groups/people took the DMG and PH as "canon unbreakable written in stone" and some took them less...stringently. And that was/IS ok!

I cannot tell you the number of characters I saw, over the years, in play, that did not ascribe to any written/published class...and that's BEFORE "prestige classes" came en vogue.

In my humble opinion, the very concept of 5e is nonsense. It will (and, yes, should) entail various technological innovations to "make play easier". HOWEVER, everything you are asking for, Mercurius and others, has been done. Simply because it is a "former" or "old" edition, does not make it "unplayable" or a "bad" option.

It is there for the playing. All you have to do is incorporate it into your group...as you see fit and, perhaps MOST importantly, as generates FUN for all at the table.

C'est ca. That is all of my coppers on the subject.
As always, as I and some others assert in these threads, play what you like! (THAT's the golden rule of RPGs).

You don't need a manual with a logo on it to do that...though cool cover art is always nice and new ideas to incorporate are always good, but not necessary.

For me, a 5e will (most likely) not be a part of that. Even if it incorporates everything put forth above...as the saying goes, "Been there. Done [and am doing] that!"

--SD

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is a nice example of the mix of desires out of (older) D&D. I never found D&D good at this sort of thing;

Newer D&D, too. Whether or not D&D was or is good at it isn't nearly as relevant as the fact that D&D was and is used for it. There are plenty of amazing stories I'm sure 4e players all over the world are experiencing this very week, regardless of the fact that one of the designers of 4e D&D claims that the game was never about that.

You can't make a game steeped in the tropes used in novels, movies, and other narrative works and expect people not to add a narrative dimension, even if you personally don't think it's "The Right Way To Play."

You seem to dislike Gamist play in general - but that is exactly what I want out of 4E;

I think gamist play is an essential element for a great D&D experience, I just believe that it is only one element. Necessary, but not sufficient. Because, personally, if what I'm looking for is just a game, I have awesome multiplayer games at my fingertips with shiny graphics or interesting cardboard or plastic fobs that don't require 300 page rulebooks or coordinating 5-6 busy adults' schedules or even minor math or esoteric stylistic choices like pseudomedeival fantasy.

D&D needs to offer me something more robust than a game system, because those are done better, for me, with videogames or boardgames or cardgames than they could ever be done for a tabletop RPG.

This partially works into Mearls's philosophy of different types of people who play D&D in different ways. There are some folks who do not play D&D primarily for its game experience. There are some folks who even play D&D for the other stuff it offers despite its game experience. There are some folks who could take it or leave it. There are some folks who like a little, but really want to get on with something else (that's my camp!). There are some who heart it hard.

More like a retread of older editions, which I drifted away from decades ago.

Which D&D were you playing? I haven't seen a D&D yet that has actually embraced the storytelling heart of the inspiration from which it draws. It's always, so far, been a combat system with other bits laid on top of it. 4e just does more to take away those other bits than other editions did, for various reasons. Reasons like believing that D&D was only a monster combat game and not also a storytelling game, or an exploration game, or a simulation game, or a game of political intrigue, or a game of harsh desert survival, or....the list of ways people have played and continue to play D&D goes on.

Also, I'm explicitly interested in continuing on from 4e, not returning to the past. I've got precious little nostalgia, I mostly just want to play a game that meshes with how I would like my games to be. 4e doesn't currently meet those needs for me without a lot of finangling.

But what if you want to make the story, rather than simply "experience" it? There is a solid thread or Narrativist play that wants to drive the story, not be the audience (or even a scripted actor) for it. No version of D&D has really permitted this for anyone except the DM.

Making it is part of "experiencing" it, and any game that has players is going to involve them as part of making the story. But that doesn't have much to do with anything else in your post.

Except that experience shows that systems designed for exploration (both the above types you define) is susceptible to breakage by keen gamers. 4E fixed this, just barely, but the cost of this for "dreaming" play is pretty clear.

Ah. So because it hasn't been done before, clearly, it can never, ever be done? So I suppose all the work of game design is done forever and people can either play what already exists or be unhappy, since those are the only options?

I am skeptical of how well this point of view meshes with reality.

To be fair, I don't think that's an accurate reading of the quote. I don't think he's saying, "We shouldn't have fairies in D&D." I think he's saying, "We should have darker, Brothers Grimm style fairies in the game, rather than Disney versions offairy tales."

Which is the direction that 4E went in, and I think is a good one.

I don't think DARKER AND EDGIER or Grimmification are any kind of great solution to any kind of problem, let alone a nonexistent problem like "nobody fights pixies."

The reality is that James Wyatt, IMO, successfully demonstrated in that quote that he either didn't understand or didn't care how other groups played the game. He also fundamentally, IMO, misapprehended the role of the monster in D&D historically.

Monsters in D&D in the past were generally not simply combat threats. They were there to be interesting things to encounter. Pixies and Nymphs and Good creatures weren't in the MM because you were expected to fight them, necessarily. They were in there because, in some way, they'd be an interesting thing to encounter. Maybe as a fight, but maybe as an ally, or maybe as just window dressing, or maybe as rivals in some way, or maybe just as general DM harassment. The Rust Monster wasn't supposed to be there to offer a balanced, dynamic combat challenge, it was there to give DMs interesting ideas for possible encounters (and an encounter where your primary warrior is suddenly useless is an interesting challenge! It's just not a challenge you can solve by killing things, necessarily), an interesting bit of the world to use.

Pixies weren't there to kill PC's, they were there to be a fun thing to meet while traipsing through the woods, providing perhaps an interesting challenge as they played pranks on stuffy PC's. To offer up fun things to do.

Because, contrary to James Wyatt's position, D&D was not just a game about monster slaying to many of its players (perhaps even most, given the fact that 4e is still played as a game that is not about monster slaying by many current players, despite its designers' intent).

One of the biggest failings of the 4e Monster Manuals, which is one of the biggest philosophical failings of the edition, IMO, is this wrongheaded idea that the only thing other creatures are good for is to kill (and if they're not good for that, you don't need stats!).

It's essential that the game have great, interesting, dramatic, cinematic combat. It's also essential that the game have plenty of other stuff. Between screwing up Rituals, screwing up Skill Challenges, and screwing up Monsters, 4e doesn't have a lot of other stuff worth using. It's this failing, more than any other, that must be addressed in 5e, if not earlier.

At least, to keep me interested, that's the failing that must be addressed. Which is why I'd propose it for 5e.

I suppose the people who want an interesting combat system and who don't care about much else (maybe they just don't feel that they need much else!) will still be pretty satisfied with the game as it is. Which is great, but it leaves me playing Diablo instead, since it's got a much better combat system for me. One that doesn't require 5-6 adults in one room for four hours with 300 pages of rules and 100 little plastic toys. Since spending $60 on a game and clicking two buttons seems so much easier, really.

 

[Dannager]

Because, contrary to James Wyatt's position, D&D was not just a game about monster slaying to many of its players (perhaps even most, given the fact that 4e is still played as a game that is not about monster slaying by many current players, despite its designers' intent).

He wasn't saying D&D was just about anything.

He was saying that, if you boil it down, D&D is really about killing monsters, finding loot, and exploring dungeons. This isn't really up for discussion. This is what D&D is billed as, regularly advertised as, conceptualized as in popular culture, and designed to accommodate most readily. Sure, D&D is also about other stuff, but you can't boil D&D down to that other stuff and still have it be clear that you're talking about D&D.

You're deluded if you believe James Wyatt doesn't think people play D&D for other reasons. Of course he does. He's probably far more acutely aware of how the hobby works than you or I. What he's really saying is: "That's nice that people feel like they can do that with our game, but what we're setting out to facilitate is something slightly different because we feel that's what our game is really about at its core."

One of the biggest failings of the 4e Monster Manuals, which is one of the biggest philosophical failings of the edition, IMO, is this wrongheaded idea that the only thing other creatures are good for is to kill (and if they're not good for that, you don't need stats!).

So...your position is that if a creature isn't going to be in combat with the PCs, it still needs combat stats? Because we had that. In 3.X. It was awful and consumed way too much time and was way too hard to digest. 4e says "Okay, we know monsters are a pain to run. We're going to give them exactly what they need to function well in the fast-paced game environment of combat. Beyond that, the DM can easily decide what they do, but in combat they're going to need stats."

 

[I'm A Banana]

He wasn't saying D&D was just about anything.

He was saying that, if you boil it down, D&D is really about killing monsters, finding loot, and exploring dungeons.

And I'm saying that no, it isn't, and it never really was, and to not be aware of that is a problem, since, if you design a game completely around that one thing, you're going to exclude a huge portion of the player base who don't care that much about that one thing.

What he's really saying is: "That's nice that people feel like they can do that with our game, but what we're setting out to facilitate is something slightly different because we feel that's what our game is really about at its core.

Your powers of insight into the psyche of James Wyatt are truly astounding.

Which is to say: I'm going off the quote, and my subsequent experience playing the game, not what you think the quote might possibly mean.

So...your position is that if a creature isn't going to be in combat with the PCs, it still needs combat stats?

Nope.

My position is that if a creature is going to be some sort of conflict with the party we are going to need stats for the resolution of that conflict.

Which means that if we're going to go through the faerie ring and talk to the little folk, and that's meant to be some sort of conflict, we're going to need stats for straining the physical world to its breaking point at the faerie ring, and for charming or negotiating with the pernicious, crafty, and often weirdly alien little folk on the other side. Arguably, 4e does do this with skill challenges and rituals and the like, I just find that those rules tend to suck pretty awesomely hard (which certainly means there's room for improvement!).

Which is something that sounds like I would put in my game this Sunday, actually, if I had some good rules for it.

But I don't, so they're going to be beating the crap out of a Yuki-Onna instead.

Which is a roundabout way of saying, again, that James Wyatt and I were not on the same page about what D&D is, at all, and that I think it was a mistake to design a game that fulfilled those ideas better than it fulfilled mine.

Which is why I would disregard that quote were I to be given iron fisty control over 5e. I'm sure I ain't the only one.

 

[steeldragons]

He wasn't saying D&D was just about anything.

He was saying that, if you boil it down, D&D is really about killing monsters, finding loot, and exploring dungeons. This isn't really up for discussion.

Ok...you have my attention...(I know you don't care if you do or not, but jus'sayin' you have it thus far. )

This is what D&D is billed as, regularly advertised as, conceptualized as in popular culture, and designed to accommodate most readily. Sure, D&D is also about other stuff, but you can't boil D&D down to that other stuff and still have it be clear that you're talking about D&D.

Um...ok. Sure. Actually, in "popular culture" I'm pretty sure it's still perceived as a "nerd game" but that may be an overstatement on my part. I dunno.

You're deluded if you believe James Wyatt doesn't think people play D&D for other reasons.

Woah! Ok, I'm not a mod...but I'm prrrretty you can't call people "deluded." Else LOTS of people here would be having a field day.

Of course he does. He's probably far more acutely aware of how the hobby works than you or I. What he's really saying is: "That's nice that people feel like they can do that with our game, but what we're setting out to facilitate is something slightly different because we feel that's what our game is really about at its core."

mmm. Ok, here's where I'll take exception. "That's nice that people feel like they can do that with our game,..."

I hate to break it to you...or this James Wyatt guy...but it's not "our' game...the game I sit down to is MY game...my GROUP'S game...it is THE game that we sit down to. NOT anyone else's game. Jus'sayin'.

Let's chalk that up to a "mis-speaking" in your typing...it wasn't what you meant.

And given all of the "we"s in that statement...and what I've read in other threads, I think it safe to suppose that you, Dannager, work for WOTC. If you don't, then bad on me...but you seem...overly defensive (IMHO) about things 4e.

So...your position is that if a creature isn't going to be in combat with the PCs, it still needs combat stats?

I would wager a guess...that the reason they are stat'ed is the same as 1e, or even BECMI monsters were stat'ed...because there's no guarantee that one set of adventurers is going to handle them same as the next....if they rush into combat, then yeah, the monster needs stats!

Because we had that. In 3.X. It was awful and consumed way too much time and was way too hard to digest.

According to whom? I have heard and/or read about plenty of 3e groups that never complained about "time"...and what difference if they did? If a combat took a long time...what skin off whose back was that? That would be the individual group. So what? You need to adjudicate for them? I think not.

4e says "Okay, we know monsters are a pain to run.

And why would 4e even THINK that?! Monsters are a basic part of the game, as stated, by you, above.

He was saying that, if you boil it down, D&D is really about killing monsters,

...etc. etc...
So, huh?! Why would statting monsters be a pain?!

We're going to give them exactly what they need to function well in the fast-paced game environment of combat. Beyond that, the DM can easily decide what they do, but in combat they're going to need stats."

As DM's have been doing since the origin of the game...uh...yeah, they need stats...and if they don't have them, a knowledgeable DM is perfectly capable of making it up (assuming the stats of a similar monster) on the fly.

I'm sorry, it's late in my corner of the globe...but I am at a complete loss as to what the issue (or "point") is here...

--SD