D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Obryn]

It was interesting to look at and discuss, but I even emailed a few friends that were long-time gamers and they don't remember using weapons vs AC tables in 1E, either. I remember using weapon speed through 1E and 2E. I thought that should have been brought forward to 3E and 4E, though simplified to light weapons being a +2 to initiative and heavy ones being a -2 (and, maybe similar to certain spells being +2/-2)

The thing with weapon speed is that (for 1e anyway) it's often used wrong. It doesn't actually affect your initiative roll; it lets you make multiple attacks against someone with a slow weapon when your initiative is tied. Weird, I know, but...

When I ran near-RAW 1e a few years back, I used the Weapon vs. AC tables. The main thing to keep in mind is that they're only for armored creatures that are basically humanoids; you don't use them for dragons/owlbears/etc. It can be a cumbersome system if you've got a mixed-armor group of enemies, but by and large it's not really all that bad. It's certainly still easier than most of 3e or 4e combat.

Is main selling point is how it ensures there's a reason to use weapons other than the ones with the best damage dice. At least in theory. In practice, since it doesn't help with monsters, you're better off going with big numbers. And since two-handed swords are almost universally the best against anything...

-O

 

[knottyprof]

When I ran near-RAW 1e a few years back, I used the Weapon vs. AC tables. The main thing to keep in mind is that they're only for armored creatures that are basically humanoids; you don't use them for dragons/owlbears/etc. It can be a cumbersome system if you've got a mixed-armor group of enemies, but by and large it's not really all that bad. It's certainly still easier than most of 3e or 4e combat.

Is main selling point is how it ensures there's a reason to use weapons other than the ones with the best damage dice. At least in theory. In practice, since it doesn't help with monsters, you're better off going with big numbers. And since two-handed swords are almost universally the best against anything...

-O

The good old days! I remember the combat wheel that was in one of the Dragon magazines (don't remember the exact issue but probably in the 70's) That was actually a sweet and very usable DM tool.

Started reading the first couple pages of this thread and it was mentioned that a 3.x revamp for the D&D Next version might get back some of the PF crowd. I don't think that will happen but what I think might happen (and this is really what I think WoTC needs to focus on) is producing a product that may have its own flavor but be compatible with other products. Because at the end of the day as either a player or DM I am looking for materials I can add to my game, I am not necessarily looking to switch games. If they can produce something that can be easily brought into an existing game with minimal fuss then it would be a win-win for everyone. The biggest hurdles to deal with in this regard is the fact that the game of "D&D" has been drastically changed over time, growing as players grow and expand their understanding and desires of what they want out of the game. As a result it would be difficult to have a 5th edition Owlbear that scaled well with all previous editions and cloned products.
I started off with 1st edition back in the 80's, ran a D&D game primarily from the Cyclopedia from the 90's, dropped out for a while and came back to the hobby learning playing the 3.5 rules even though 4th was already out (I can honestly say I couldn't make heads or tails of 4th on my own with the rules I played with from a decade earlier). Currently playing 3.5 with some Pathfinder benefits as well as a full blown Pathfinder campaign and I have taken a look at some of the D&D Next rules. So if Wizards can produce something that gives me a nostalgic feeling from the past 20+ years yet is something I can use in my current games, they will probably get some of my money. If they cannot do that then I will probably just pass it up and stick to the PF branch of the gaming tree.

 

[Nagol]

The thing with weapon speed is that (for 1e anyway) it's often used wrong. It doesn't actually affect your initiative roll; it lets you make multiple attacks against someone with a slow weapon when your initiative is tied. Weird, I know, but...

When I ran near-RAW 1e a few years back, I used the Weapon vs. AC tables. The main thing to keep in mind is that they're only for armored creatures that are basically humanoids; you don't use them for dragons/owlbears/etc. It can be a cumbersome system if you've got a mixed-armor group of enemies, but by and large it's not really all that bad. It's certainly still easier than most of 3e or 4e combat.

Is main selling point is how it ensures there's a reason to use weapons other than the ones with the best damage dice. At least in theory. In practice, since it doesn't help with monsters, you're better off going with big numbers. And since two-handed swords are almost universally the best against anything...

-O

It also affects which segment of combat the actual blow takes place in case that's important -- e.g. against a spellcaster trying to cast and the equivalent except when initiative is simultaneous.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is main selling point is how it ensures there's a reason to use weapons other than the ones with the best damage dice. At least in theory. In practice, since it doesn't help with monsters, you're better off going with big numbers. And since two-handed swords are almost universally the best against anything...

-O

Well... that was true in 1e, but if you started using weapon specialization etc in 2e, and its dual-wielding rules, then actually the 2-hander was pretty marginal. Best was pretty much some combo of bastard-sword and usually a hand axe (to give you something to toss quickly). Or you could just go all munchkin on darts, at least until your DM dropped some rocks on your character, which was pretty much encouraged by the rules in those days....

There were even other more obtuse things if you used the complete books, like the dwarven dual-axe-wielding priest of Moradin that MCed as a fighter and was allowed to take some stupidly OP kit. I forget the details, but it was pretty ridiculous (and there were a bunch of others). The thing that sucked was they are mostly pretty good thematic ideas, its not like the DM can really criticize "I'm an axe dwarf!"...

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I tried the weapon vs armor rules in 1E but dropped them after a few games, it was too cumbersome. I think a better way to do it is to divide weapons into piercing, cutting, and blunt classes then provide bonuses for each weapon appropriately. This would give 90% of the utility with 10% of the work, and I'd like to see this option in 5E.

 

[ced1106]

Core books sell. Everything else doesn't.

We've had four core sets of books since 3rd edition: 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and Essentials. It's just as possible that the D&DN playtest is a *result* of this dictum, not to mention a PR stunt so that, when 5th edition comes along, Wizards won't have their customers flee to another company (although Pathfinder really *is* Wizards of the Coast pre-4e considering who its employees are!).

The right path is where the money is. And besides core books, Wizards is using the D&D brand to appeal to another group of gamers who have *more* money than RPG'ers: boardgamers. As cheap BoardGameGeekers seem to be, they spend *much* more money on boardgames than RPG'ers spend on RPGs. Castle Ravenloft was successful enough to have two boardgame sequels (that's $150 right there), and the Dungeon Command series has five releases (another $150). Not every boardgame was a hit, and who knows how long this boardgaming money will last.

 

[Obryn]

Core books sell. Everything else doesn't.

Yep, which is why the only way D&D Next will be D&D Last is if it fails horribly.

If there's another edition in 4-8 years, for another round of core books, it succeeded.

-O

 

[knottyprof]

Yep, which is why the only way D&D Next will be D&D Last is if it fails horribly.

If there's another edition in 4-8 years, for another round of core books, it succeeded.

-O

Would that be so bad if WotC decided to give up on it? I don't think that would kill Dungeons & Dragons, after all it has lasted over thirty years now despite the mishandling on the business side. The fact that WotC decided to start selling the older edition stuff on RPGNow.com as well as Premium hard covers should indicate that there is a marketing for this game in pretty much any edition. So even if D&D Next itself is a horrible dissappointment for Hasbro, I don't think it will impact the fan base behind it or discourage new players from discovering it for the first time (regardless of the edition they learn from it). Not to mention the clones out on the market that will continue to crank out materials more for the love of the game than anything else.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Don't forget, while D&D the roleplaying game may be the most important part of the brand, it does not have to be the most profitable arm of it. It sounds very much like they want the RPG to serve as the reference point for a wide range of board games, video games, and more.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Would that be so bad if WotC decided to give up on it? I don't think that would kill Dungeons & Dragons, after all it has lasted over thirty years now despite the mishandling on the business side. The fact that WotC decided to start selling the older edition stuff on RPGNow.com as well as Premium hard covers should indicate that there is a marketing for this game in pretty much any edition. So even if D&D Next itself is a horrible dissappointment for Hasbro, I don't think it will impact the fan base behind it or discourage new players from discovering it for the first time (regardless of the edition they learn from it). Not to mention the clones out on the market that will continue to crank out materials more for the love of the game than anything else.

Oh, yeah, D&D will remain a cult classic for another 20 years, before perhaps fading as even the most pervasive things do eventually into a historical footnote. We can fondly imagine that in 100 years it will be revived again in some new form.