D&D 5E Have you moved on yet? Has Wizard's handled this properly?

[Kobold Boots]

There's more to pre-4e D&D than "wizards with only daily spells." The main problem that the old-schoolers (myself, anyway) had with 4e was that it was designed around the combat encounter as the basic unit of gameplay, which does not support an old-school playstyle (e.g., in my experience, you can't really do a proper dungeon crawl in 4e). For 4e to appeal to old-school gamers, it would need to have quicker combats with fewer and simpler decisions (which would require a redesign of all the content), and core rules that emphasize combat-as-war (which would require a redesign of the core rules) -- basically, a different game.

Or, you could just half all of the hit points, double the damage output, and reduce healing to one half to three quarters capable. Problem solved.

Have you tried this? I think this would break the game (since all the XP targets are based around the PCs starting every fight at full).

See above.

On another thread: I understand your point about decision making in combat. That can be a chore at times, but to be honest, I'd rather have choices than spend the same amount of time processing the description of the DM; just to roll a D20 a bazillion times with no real change in what it does. (1D8+modifier)

 

[DaveMage]

Did you read the article? Because he specifically mentions people "leaving" the playtest. While you are certainly right in your statement, I think he just means that the number of people providing feedback is increasing. YMMV OFC.

No, I did not read the article.

It's certainly good news for WotC if more people are becoming interested.

 

[FireLance]

Sounds interesting, but I question how much it would actually change the game as played. This elaborate set of house rules looks promising, but again, if you have to go that far, you might as well make a new game altogether.

Call it a "module" instead, and it's all good.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Call it a "module" instead, and it's all good.

LOL, exactly. Again, what is this weird 4e prejudice where nobody DARES to tinker with 4e because hey it might not be PERFECT whereas with any previous edition the level of working well you'll get with a random guess in 4e is unattainable because the general quality of the PUBLISHED rules isn't even that high.

 

[DEFCON 1]

However, I am bothered. I wouldn't really care except that I perceive there is a large scope for 4e design to carried forward into an even better execution based on the same basic design. DDN has aborted that development in favor of something infinitely less interesting.

But do you really think any "forward-moving" design of 4E would actually sell? In greater numbers than a new game would? Isn't the fact that they designed and released Essentials (the first "forward-moving" design of 4E) but apparently did not sell enough to continue down that design road... tell us that small steps in 4E "evolution" would just be catering to a smaller and smaller pool of players?

I was and still am a 4E player. Still love the game. But I didn't need Essentials and didn't buy it, because base 4E was fine. I bought the Manual of the Planes. Didn't buy the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, Feywild or Shadowfell books... because Manual of the Planes was also fine. So where were WotC going to be getting money out of me from? Not many places remaining that I could see.

But when Next gets released, will I buy the three core books? Absolutely! Because I love new games. Different games. I owned one of the older editions of Champions and never bought a later edition... but I damn sure picked up the first Mutants & Masterminds when that got released. Both were superhero games... but M&M was a NEW superhero game.

Game 'evolution' is oftentimes unnecessary, especially if the older version still works. But game changing? I'll take a new game with new concepts every time. And THAT'S how they'll get me to open my wallet for them.

And I suspect I'm not alone in this way of thinking.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But do you really think any "forward-moving" design of 4E would actually sell? In greater numbers than a new game would? Isn't the fact that they designed and released Essentials (the first "forward-moving" design of 4E) but apparently did not sell enough to continue down that design road... tell us that small steps in 4E "evolution" would just be catering to a smaller and smaller pool of players?

I might quibble over Essentials player-side materials being "forward-thinking," but I agree that any edition, no matter how well-designed and well-loved, has a point of diminishing profits. After that point, a new edition is just going to net WotC more money than a system tune-up, period.

Mind you, I'm not going to buy 5e barring some radical design changes...but I think most gamers are like you; they'll buy the next edition just because it's new.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Call it a "module" instead, and it's all good.

It's the 5e solution to everyone's desires, right? Wish I could XP you!

LOL, exactly. Again, what is this weird 4e prejudice where nobody DARES to tinker with 4e because hey it might not be PERFECT whereas with any previous edition the level of working well you'll get with a random guess in 4e is unattainable because the general quality of the PUBLISHED rules isn't even that high.

I guess it's like buying a ring; if it's got a cubic zirconium, you wear it often and probably take risks with it. (Leaving in your pool bag at the beach, etc.) But if it's got a real diamond, no way! Wear that thing on special occasions, and keep it locked up the other 364 days of the year!

...Or something. Yeah, I don't really get the attitude either. I've never played the game that couldn't use a few well-placed house rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But do you really think any "forward-moving" design of 4E would actually sell? In greater numbers than a new game would? Isn't the fact that they designed and released Essentials (the first "forward-moving" design of 4E) but apparently did not sell enough to continue down that design road... tell us that small steps in 4E "evolution" would just be catering to a smaller and smaller pool of players?

I was and still am a 4E player. Still love the game. But I didn't need Essentials and didn't buy it, because base 4E was fine. I bought the Manual of the Planes. Didn't buy the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, Feywild or Shadowfell books... because Manual of the Planes was also fine. So where were WotC going to be getting money out of me from? Not many places remaining that I could see.

But when Next gets released, will I buy the three core books? Absolutely! Because I love new games. Different games. I owned one of the older editions of Champions and never bought a later edition... but I damn sure picked up the first Mutants & Masterminds when that got released. Both were superhero games... but M&M was a NEW superhero game.

Game 'evolution' is oftentimes unnecessary, especially if the older version still works. But game changing? I'll take a new game with new concepts every time. And THAT'S how they'll get me to open my wallet for them.

And I suspect I'm not alone in this way of thinking.

Absolutely. I think we can distinguish two different scenarios here (plus Essentials, which is just a splat book with a different style). First would be a true 'half-edition', which I think with 4e wouldn't fly, even though it would probably be a nice thing for a lot of 4e players to have. Such a half-edition would simply clean up the material. It might make a few fairly cosmetic mechanical fixes and apply further refinements, but it would be at heart 4e with more polish. I think it would probably not particularly sell (and is certainly not possible now that DDN is out there).

A 5e built around the concepts and core design of 4e? I think that is absolutely viable and would be an awesome option. It could be quite different in some details. For instance I'd do a number of things that DDN IS doing, like cut back to a 20 level scheme and cut out some elements of the combat system in order to allow for a simpler more streamlined type of combat if you want it. I'd also be much more careful about matching a lot of the 4e fluff to AD&D fluff (for instance names of powers could correspond more closely to older spells and just in general presentation can be a LOT more like the older games without sacrificing the 4e rules architecture).

I'd do some other things. I'd certainly consolidate a lot of powers in source-wide lists for instance, and broaden the definition of 'boons'. The whole way feats work could be somewhat reexamined. OTOH I'm perfectly happy with backgrounds and skills as 4e used them, though the various add-ons to skills could be better organized. I mean we could go on, there's a VAST amount of deep tweaking that you could do. Such a game would NOT be 4e, but it would be the logical descendent of 4e and built around the same concept of quality rules design around how they play and a fast easy experience for the DM. Numbers would change, details would change, the structure would not change much.

THAT is the game that DDN is killing, and that is a very great shame. I think that game would make some people grumble more, but in the long run it would serve D&D better than "return to Mom's Basement" edition. I mean DDN may be a wonderful variant of AD&D, but I think the current market is going to chew that up and spit it out in 2 years flat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean we could go on, there's a VAST amount of deep tweaking that you could do. Such a game would NOT be 4e, but it would be the logical descendent of 4e and built around the same concept of quality rules design around how they play and a fast easy experience for the DM. Numbers would change, details would change, the structure would not change much.

I dunno... I read through everything you mentioned you'd do, and I thought to myself "that's not a new game... that'd just editing the old one."

Renaming powers... culling the feat list... removing the Epic tier... reorganizing skills. That's just editing. Anyone could do that right now themselves if they wanted.

But that doesn't change any fundamental gameplay. And that gameplay is what we already own. And what a large number of the population have said they don't want to play. And on top of that... everything you mentioned was Player's Handbook specific. So are you not going to release a new DMG? Or a new Monster Manual? Because the Essentials Monster Vault already did an editing pass on all the original 4E monsters, so I don't think you'd get away with doing that again for your version of '5E'.

I'm sorry... but what you suggested just sounds to me like an edit of the current game... one I don't think would not actually generate the same revenue for WotC that a new edition of the game actually would. Your 5E would just cater to the 4E player who wanted a 'clean' 4E Player's Handbook... rather than sifting through the several PHs the player probably already has.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I keep waiting for the "large number of people who don't want to play stuff" to be quantified in some real way. Most people who I know that play Pathfinder also have copies of 4th edition laying around. If they're not playing it, but buying it, then I'd have to argue that the number doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

If they're not playing it or buying it then that's another story, in my own group (granted not of a high enough population to be statistically relevant) we had 1 person who was vocally, vehemently against 4th edition and 7 people at the time who were cool with it and the vocal vehement played regardless bitching the whole way through.

There's nothing wrong with 4th edition. There will be nothing wrong with 5th edition either; but there will be tons of people looking to change it to their tastes, and I think that's the whole point of tabletop gaming as a DM; to find his or her taste and tweak the game to suit it and his or her players.

This has probably been asked before, but I'll ask it again.. why do we all approach a game that's meant to be changed as a game that has to be exactly what someone wants without change?