D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[Andor]

But 3.5 level 6 characters beat level 6 4E characters.
But both can beat a level 6 2E or 1E (HP alone).
I'd love to see the fight though (trouble will be seeing what magic items those 1E or 2E gets because that is 100% DM dependent since no WBL).

So they can't truly be balanced vs each other.
Now a 5E might be inbetween them all so it can work in their modules.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. 5e will not let you play 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e characters in a Thunderdome style deathbrawl. While that would be epic, you can do it right now. "Make a save vs paralyzation/poison!" "I don't have one, can I make a fort save?" "No! Mua ha ha ha ha."

5e is intended to let you play characters in the style of earlier editions.

So you can pick a class and theme to let you play in a style similar to a 1/2e fighter with just hp, ac and an attack.

You can pick a class and theme to let you play in a style similar to a 3e fighter with some situaltional abilities akin to 3e feats.

And you can pick a class and theme to allow you to play in a style similar to a 4e ... everything ... with Daily powers, encounter powers and at-wills.

This is not the same as trying to bring all 5.5 existing editions into one giant incoherant mess where my 3e henchman has more hit points than your 1e God.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. 5e will not let you play 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e characters in a Thunderdome style deathbrawl. While that would be epic, you can do it right now. "Make a save vs paralyzation/poison!" "I don't have one, can I make a fort save?" "No! Mua ha ha ha ha."

No, here I think they would use Fort. Since Fort covers all poison/paralyzation.

This is not the same as trying to bring all 5.5 existing editions into one giant incoherant mess where my 3e henchman has more hit points than your 1e God.

Why not?
I think a Thunderdome style would be fun.
I remember hearing a tale about a DM in a PBP game on some forum allowed it in a adventure. I don't know how it would out though.
(I bet the 4E fighter felt stronger compared to his 1E or 2E comparison though. Although, the 4E Wizard's spells are weaker than 2E/3E's at med-high levels.)

I chose 6th level because 10th would complicate matters by Paragon choices for 4E. 6th still gets extra Con boosts for 1/2E. It boosts 3rd with extra attack though from BAB.
After I finish Way of the Wicked PBP game I'm thinking if 5E isn't out yet (or even if it is) I'm running a PBP thunderdome game of all editions. Just to see the chaos.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wow. Really? 4e is the secret light of truth that must be kept hidden beneath a public observance of the corrupt 'old school' D&D? So that the true disciples can continue to follow the actual messiah while the rest of us are led off to false paths by the dark ways of non-vancian martial powers?

Dude, it's just a game.

More to the point, if the 4e style characters and the non 4e styled charaters are not balanced against each other, then they will have flubbed a primary design goal. I think they can meet that goal without having to foster a secret cult who worship the lost, dark god of balance and wait for their messiah to return bearing the tablets of AEDU.

Don't be hyperbolic.

We're talking about a quality of 4E, which can and should be ported to 5E: Balance. This thread has been going on about ignoring balance in order to bring back some older quality that cannot be balanced. It's a cliche at this point, but it's easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance an unbalanced game.

If you build a balanced game, then add in the unbalanced features on top of it, clearly indicated, then people who want to bring back quadratic wizards and whatnot can do so without making the game a pass for balance fans.

 

[Tovec]

3 more pages since my last post at 3 am? And they aren't short either. Would it kill you to do a +1 post every once in a while

Personally, I have not seen any 4e bashing from the designers and I read pretty much everything they are putting out. However, they have not exactly been gushing with 4e praise and some of their preliminary design decisions would seem to be reversing some of the "advancements" 4e made. This really should not be equated as 4e hate though.

I've seen a lot of angst from a section of RPG.Net posters and occasionally it spills over here too. Most of this centres around Monte and his supposed lack of understanding of 4e. To such posters I would suggest waiting until the Alpha rules are out. One thing I DO know about Monte is his love and knowledge of Dungeons & Dragons, his knowledge of the design processes that go into making a new edition as well as his amazing capacity as a DM. I figure as long as he and his team get the core right, the optional add-ons should cater to those players who really wish to focus on a particular style of play from their favourite edition. I certainly don't see any point in death-riding the designers and every perceived mistake or error that they appear to be making.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Are you surprised you don't see the designers bashing their previous attempts? I'm not.

Let me explain, as someone said upthread: they DID bash 3e when 4e was coming out, saying how 4e was all amazing while 3e was a festering pile.

What happened? People who didn't like 4e went on to dislike WotC for telling them their edition sucked.

Now, they are trying to make a new edition, one edition to rule them all. In achieving this goal they don't want to alienate anyone or call anything crap. They can identify why something worked or why it didn't and then move on. They can say "X in 4e didn't work" or "Y in 3rd edition didn't work" and say "we have solution Z to solve both problems".

It isn't a matter of them NOT calling a foul on previous edition when they have in the past. It is a matter of them realizing they made a mistake and not making it again. Personally I feel that it shows growth that they aren't antagonizing anyone for any reason while going through this process. They are just trying to say that the new edition is being developed in order to suit everyone's tastes, assuming they give it a chance.

It's not the only thing I care about, but the math not working and/or the game not being balanced is the one, absolute deal breaker. I don't think I'm alone in that.

As for 5E failing if it fails at being 4E, or more accurately being the D&D 4E players want, it will fail at its own stated goals(5E being D&D for everybody which includes 4E people) if it does that.



Balance, the math working, and elegance in mechanics is FUNDAMENTAL to the 4E feel, more important than anything else. You can't make the game "feel" like 4E without them

Wow, there is really nothing more I can say that KM didn't. The fact you missed everything he meant only goes to show why I can't convince you. I'm not even trying to convince you 4e bad, I'm just trying to say that balance in 4e isn't the only thing there.

But if this is how you truly feel, that balance is the only thing that makes 4e feel like 4e then I feel sorry for you. That is like saying the only thing that makes DnD feel like DnD is the d20, not the dragons or orcs or elves or magic, nope the d20.

Oh not bad, just an observation.

I think the game was originally designed around team play. 1-on-1 is something (mostly) lost in the last twenty years. It would be interesting if this was something they were going to support again.

I heard, or read, that the game Should be able to support groups as small as 1 on 1 or as big as you need it. Mind you they claimed that was true before and it wasn't (at least not without significant effort).

My guess is that it doesn't. In the last years, the entertainment industry was full of great promises that sounded really good, but didn't had anything to do with the product they were actually making.
It's like politicians before an election. They don't care about informing people what they offer, they only tell what people want to hear.

The difference is that the game designers CAN do what they say they want to, and that we don't get a real vote to decide if they keep their jobs.

That has two real implications. A it means that if they are lying to us that it is counter productive as we will figure it out and burn them for it. B. It means that they can make utter crap and there is nothing we can do about it, so why lie to us in the first place?

If someone has fighter encounter and daily exploits as a deal breaker, then his group has the choice of including them and having their buddy leave. Or iif they decide he's a great friend and a good player, they can decide those parts of the game aren't worth losing him from the group. The options should be there for all of us, leaving each group to decide how their game will play.

This.

 

[Andor]

Don't be hyperbolic.

We're talking about a quality of 4E, which can and should be ported to 5E: Balance. This thread has been going on about ignoring balance in order to bring back some older quality that cannot be balanced. It's a cliche at this point, but it's easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance an unbalanced game.

If you build a balanced game, then add in the unbalanced features on top of it, clearly indicated, then people who want to bring back quadratic wizards and whatnot can do so without making the game a pass for balance fans.

I'm sorry but the tone of your post really suggested a secret playable game hidden under the drek and played by the hidden elite while the degenerate hoi polloi amused themselves dropping handfulls of dice in caves.

As a side note, I don't recall a single post that called for the return of the Quadratic wizard. Everyone knows the quadratic wizard has issues. Higher spells X more slots = trouble.

Personally I expect to see the 5e wizard with some small number of spell slots and a selection of practical but not terribly powerful at-will abilities. I personally really want to see the ritual magic space carved out by 4e exploited to the fullest with a lot of the more troublesome spells moved into that mechanic so they stop being trouble in combat and become plot devices for DMs and tools for groups that plan ahead.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Don't be hyperbolic.

We're talking about a quality of 4E, which can and should be ported to 5E: Balance. This thread has been going on about ignoring balance in order to bring back some older quality that cannot be balanced. It's a cliche at this point, but it's easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance an unbalanced game.

If you build a balanced game, then add in the unbalanced features on top of it, clearly indicated, then people who want to bring back quadratic wizards and whatnot can do so without making the game a pass for balance fans.

I dont think the issue is balance itself. Most gamers want balance, but they dont all want the 4E brand of balance. So i dont think the question is will 5E have game balance, but what kind of balance will it go for in the core game. 4E was balanced around the encounter and classes all had some kind of combat parity. By the looks of it the new edition will be balanced around the adventure (i would prefer the campaign, but that is just my preference) and balance will be spread across different aspects of the game (or so it appears). So i think you can expect a very different from either 3E or 4E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm sorry but the tone of your post really suggested a secret playable game hidden under the drek and played by the hidden elite while the degenerate hoi polloi amused themselves dropping handfulls of dice in caves.

As a side note, I don't recall a single post that called for the return of the Quadratic wizard. Everyone knows the quadratic wizard has issues. Higher spells X more slots = trouble.

I have see lots of calls for quadratic wizards (myself included).

One thing I dont want to see are wizards with a small number of spells per level. By all means balance spells out with casting times and risk factors but the charm of wizards in the first three editions is they can have an ecclectic collection of spells. Also not a huge fan of rituals.

 

[Libramarian]

What is the definition of 4e-style balance?

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is the definition of 4e-style balance?

Off the top of head it would be balance based on combat parity with the encounter as the focus of balance (instead of balancing things over the adventure or campaign). Along with other features like gamist conisderations taking precedence (making sure characters canheal fast andget back in the game, that sort of thing).

 

[Tovec]

What is the definition of 4e-style balance?

That definition is going to vary depending on who gives it to you.

But, for me it means balance to the exclusion of anything else. It means that something can only exist in the game if it is balanced. It means balance comes before innovation, style, or creativity.

I'm sure it means something else to 4e people. Hopefully they will explain.