Do you want anything new in D&DN?

[Raith5]

OK so this talk about D&D next is being driven (understandably) about unifying past editions and bringing in modularity. One of the things I liked about 4th edition was that it tried new things. It tried new classes, races, mechanics, etc. While many of these proved controversial, went against D&D traditions, or were not strongly supported, at least they tried new things and a result we players did new things.

But with D&D next it feels very much like we are driving the car by looking in review mirror. So my simple question is there anything new you would like to see in D&D? Are there new or missing classes (or archetypes) or races? New mechanics? New anything?

 

[Number48]

If 5E doesn't present us with a true new edition, I won't be buying it. I can play the previous edition of my choice without shelling out a couple hundred bucks. I expect and insist that 5E feel like as big a leap forward as 3E was over 2E. I expect to be surprised and delighted by entirely new concepts and new ways of handling old concepts.

 

[Incenjucar]

A handful of true, unique, interesting elemental classes with their own place in the overarching story of the game along with paladins and wizards and rangers.

 

[harlokin]

I agree 100%.

I don't understand the need some people seem to have to have 5e as some sort of retro clone.

If 5e is noting new, and does not embrace some of the developments in RPGs the last 4 or 5 years, I won't be buying it.

If I wanted to play a RPG museum piece I still have my DnD Cyclopedia, and ADnD 1, 2, and 3.

 

[Raith5]

I agree 100%.

I don't understand the need some people seem to have to have 5e as some sort of retro clone.

If 5e is noting new, and does not embrace some of the developments in RPGs the last 4 or 5 years, I won't be buying it.

If I wanted to play a RPG museum piece I still have my DnD Cyclopedia, and ADnD 1, 2, and 3.

I agree. This is a problem that faced - and ultimately undermined - 4th ed: new versions of D and D compete with preexisting editions. These systems do not waste away - you can still play them if you want to!

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not entirely sure if people want anything new. Pardon the offensive broad generalization:
When talking about what they want out of D&D Next, 3e fans basically want it to be just like 3e.
When talking about what they want out of D&D Next, 4e fans want it to be just like 4e.

I am honestly perplexed sometimes when reading some of these discussions as to what these diehard fans of particular editions hope to get out of D&D Next that they could not get out of their particular past edition of choice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But with D&D next it feels very much like we are driving the car by looking in review mirror. So my simple question is there anything new you would like to see in D&D? Are there new or missing classes (or archetypes) or races? New mechanics? New anything?

The thing about really good inovations is they take you by surprise. When 3.5 was winding down, was anyone demanding fighters be given daily powers? No. Did anyone think D&D /could/ be balanced much better than 3.5 was (ie, very badly)? Not really, maybe there were some inveterate optimists out there. Did 4e give fighters dailies and balance D&D far better than ever before? Why, yes, yes it did.

Was anyone more surprised than me? I doubt it.


If WotC is just going to desperately dredge for nostalgic feel in 5e, I'll pass.

If 5e is an evolution of 4e, I'll grumble that it's years too early and a blatant ploy to sell us all Players' Handbooks again, but I'll probably adopt it.

If 5e is an evolution of 3.5, who cares, we already have Pathfinder. Why would anyone re-buy the 3e player's handbook a /fourth/ time?

If they try something genuinely new, great, I'll give it a fair shot. But, I can't tell them what it should be. If I were that brilliant, I'd be running a tech startup.

 

[trancejeremy]

I'm not entirely sure if people want anything new. Pardon the offensive broad generalization:
When talking about what they want out of D&D Next, 3e fans basically want it to be just like 3e.
When talking about what they want out of D&D Next, 4e fans want it to be just like 4e.

I am honestly perplexed sometimes when reading some of these discussions as to what these diehard fans of particular editions hope to get out of D&D Next that they could not get out of their particular past edition of choice.

Ongoing product support for one.

While sure, you could buy a third party OSR module, you can't really find them at mass market stores or even most gaming stores. It's either order direct or even print on demand and you never really know what you are getting.

Pathfinder is a pretty good alternative for 3e fans, apparently widely available, and I guess that's actually what caused WOTC to go to 5e.

And there is ease of finding players/games. It's probably easiest to find them for the current version of D&D than anything else. And I have no idea of 4e had them, but tournaments at cons and such were a big part of D&D in the old days.

 

[Tallifer]

I'm not entirely sure if people want anything new. Pardon the offensive broad generalization:
When talking about what they want out of D&D Next, 3e fans basically want it to be just like 3e.
When talking about what they want out of D&D Next, 4e fans want it to be just like 4e.

I am honestly perplexed sometimes when reading some of these discussions as to what these diehard fans of particular editions hope to get out of D&D Next that they could not get out of their particular past edition of choice.

Since I cannot give you any more experience at present, I will merely quote your post for its truth.

I am one of those whom you mention. I am too contented with the Fourth Edition to desire much more. My greatest desire is that the Wizards will continue the on-line support for the Fourth Edition even after the Fifth Edition has emerged from the womb.

 

[billd91]

There's nothing wrong with things that are new. But they have to fit in with the things that make D&D D&D and not some other fantasy RPG. This may mean that change also needs to be evolutionary, optional, or bear enough of the same basic structure that the new element will be accepted.

Taking a look at 2nd edition, a surprising number of new things in 2e were listed as optional in the books. Non-weapon proficiencies - optional. You could use them, thus integrating new ideas developed in Oriental Adventures and the survival guides, or leave them out in 1e style.

Now shift to 3rd edition. The directional switch of AC was new. But the way armor and shield bonuses worked, you ended up with about an equivalent value with the same armors in both games, fighter types had the same relative bonus against the armor. The change didn't really feel much like a change, just a simplification of a concept already in place.