D&D 5E I Hope I Hate 5e

[M.L. Martin]

What don't you like about Paizo's monster choices? I've never seen one of their monster books.

I was actually thinking more of their run on DRAGON and what I heard about the DUNGEON APs--I was getting tired of "Demons! Demons! Demons!" by the end there.

 

[Jawsh]

It's not the circle; the circle is the veneer. It creates an illusion of planar symmetry that looks great, but breaks down once you start thinking about it.

For example, the elemental planes aren't opposites of each other. Earth opposing air makes a certain amount of sense, but fire and water? One's a chemical reaction, the other's a state of matter. Wtf? And the para- and quasi-planes; don't get me started!

For examples from the outer planes, take a look at the exemplars. Demons are a random assortment of bizarre mongrel creatures, which makes sense for the exemplars of a chaotic plane. Now take a look at the archons; they're prettier but no less bizarre and varied. What are they doing as the exemplars of LG? And what about those eladrins, the CG exemplars: every one of them can be described as a super elf who can turn into a ball of light. Wth?

I won't get you started on the para- and quasi-planes. They are silly indeed. But the classical elements have some grounding in historical views on alchemy. Of course fire isn't an element. Everybody knows that. Except the ancient Greeks, but we all know how dumb they were.

I will take a quick look at the LG exemplars: hound, lantern, trumpet, throne, warden, owl; they might be varied, but they all have a connection to human ideas of heraldry and officialdom and regalness and kingliness. If you want a truly Lawful order of planar beings, you've got modrons right next door, which follow much more specific patterns.

And what about the eladrins? So they're kind of elf-like. So what?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's mention has brought up a flood of memories of this and other little things similar. Either way, I like that an elf is able to find secret doors, but I think it should be represented in a fixed way (bonus to Perception checks, etc...)

Not to be a buzzkill, but I don't imagine that working out very well in play either:

Player: I'm searching this room for anything interesting.
DM: Okay, roll Perception and add your elf bonus for secret doors...
Player: *Giggles*
DM: ...but you don't know what's there. Er, I mean, what may be there...
Other Players: Hey, let's help the elf find the secret door!
DM: Dammit, that was out of character!

Either that, or the DM has to mentally tack on the bonus every time an elf rolls against a secret door...which brings me back to an old issue with this: Why are elves so good at noticing secret doors? There can't be many of 'em in elvish forests. Are they an integral part of the elvish feng shui tradition?

I will take a quick look at the LG exemplars: hound, lantern, trumpet, throne, warden, owl; they might be varied, but they all have a connection to human ideas of heraldry and officialdom and regalness and kingliness. If you want a truly Lawful order of planar beings, you've got modrons right next door, which follow much more specific patterns.

Modrons are awesome. My last 4e adventure involved rescuing a rogue modron from one of the Lady's mazes.

I suppose the varied archon forms might make sense if some planar king wrote the blueprints, but I don't recall mention of such a creator.

And what about the eladrins? So they're kind of elf-like. So what?

The problem is that they're all elf-like, in the same way. I'd expect chaotic exemplars to vary widely in appearance and function. Like one kind shooting lightning from its blue arse, or something.

 

[Jawsh]

The problem is that they're all elf-like, in the same way. I'd expect chaotic exemplars to vary widely in appearance and function. Like one kind shooting lightning from its blue arse, or something.

That would be Aweeeeesommmmme!!!!!

So if I follow your logic, we're hoping that WotC doesn't make such a cool eladrin, because we don't want to like 5E, because we want to keep on playing our current favourite edition/iteration...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

AC should be partially realism based... giving monster appropriate equippment to achieve this... better... you should be able to guess from sight, which one is the tougher opponent maybe.

I think, that 4e did a little bit too much to balance monsters. You can use the roles... but if you look at newer books, not all artillery share the low AC anymore, but some lurkers do.

Monster roles may also be changed a bit in 5e. I hope, 5e has assigning monster roles just the other way around (actually I do design them that way):
IMHO you should assign:
AC, HP, Defenses, Attack bonus, Damage expression ranged, damage expression melee, consult a chart with appropriate level for the monster. Dress it up with PC advancement rules, and you get a certain number of hp, armor etc., look at the chart and know how much xp it is worth.
Guidelines should help:
Just say: here are 5 possible combinations that result in balanced monsters that can fullfill a cetain combat role very well: brute, lurker, skirmisher...
i hope you get the point.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Here's hoping for the Weapon vs. Armour Type table, with the armour type of cause give as AC instead of name.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

That would be Aweeeeesommmmme!!!!!

So if I follow your logic, we're hoping that WotC doesn't make such a cool eladrin, because we don't want to like 5E, because we want to keep on playing our current favourite edition/iteration...

Exactly. Let 5e be for the traditionalists who want the ol' homogenous eladrins from PS. I'm sure players like Shemeska would be ecstatic!

AC should be partially realism based... giving monster appropriate equippment to achieve this... better... you should be able to guess from sight, which one is the tougher opponent maybe.

I think, that 4e did a little bit too much to balance monsters. You can use the roles... but if you look at newer books, not all artillery share the low AC anymore, but some lurkers do.

Yeah, I write most of the monsters I use and I don't always follow the guidelines. NPC enchanters (controller) have low HP, because PC controllers do. I often give brutes average AC because it often doesn't make sense to make a monster clumsy just because it's a brute.

That said, I don't think 4e's guidelines are too balanced. Better to have a solid set of guidelines that can be freely ignored than half-arsed guidelines that don't help anyone.

Monster roles may also be changed a bit in 5e. I hope, 5e has assigning monster roles just the other way around (actually I do design them that way):
IMHO you should assign:
AC, HP, Defenses, Attack bonus, Damage expression ranged, damage expression melee, consult a chart with appropriate level for the monster. Dress it up with PC advancement rules, and you get a certain number of hp, armor etc., look at the chart and know how much xp it is worth.
Guidelines should help:
Just say: here are 5 possible combinations that result in balanced monsters that can fullfill a cetain combat role very well: brute, lurker, skirmisher...
i hope you get the point.

I don't think I do. I know you're a foreign speaker, so here's one word of advice: ellipses (...) are annoying and confusing when used often. Use them less, and your posts will become more readable.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Here's hoping for the Weapon vs. Armour Type table, with the armour type of cause give as AC instead of name.

Only if there are Weapon Speed adjustments, too.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I was very tired when i wrote my last post, so here I try again.

In 4th edition, you assign a level and a role to the monster. As a result, monsters have a certain number of HP, AC, attack bonus and damage numbers and so on.
You can have monsters with rather high hp and low AC and vice versa. So you get nice and well balanced monsters, without having to deal with feats.

The main concern is: how do you assign equippment, that those stats are plausible.

In my opinion you should reverse the process:
First, chose Armor and Weapon. Then assign a some stats and a level. Assign attack, defenses, damage and hp.
Then you need to consider how much magical gear your players have.

And then you look up in a chart, what the encounter level of the monster is, which may be higher or lower as the monster level.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In my opinion you should reverse the process:
First, chose Armor and Weapon. Then assign a some stats and a level. Assign attack, defenses, damage and hp.
Then you need to consider how much magical gear your players have.

And then you look up in a chart, what the encounter level of the monster is, which may be higher or lower as the monster level.

Ah, so you'd like 5e to go back to challenge ratings. Well here's hoping you get your wish, because it'll make 5e that much less appealing to me!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmmh, maybe. A little bit modified please.
Challenge rating always worked for me...

 

[avin]

The Great Wheel cosmology*

FLAYED!

Heretic!

 

[Nebulous]

i want to love 5e 1st, 3rd, 5th, odd numbers have been good for the game. i liked 2e too though. 4e was okay. JUST ok.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

FLAYED!

Heretic!

I know, I'm a horrible pathetic excuse of a PS fan and I deserve to be mazed!

 

[Shemeska]

Exactly. Let 5e be for the traditionalists who want the ol' homogenous eladrins from PS. I'm sure players like Shemeska would be ecstatic!

I want the eladrin back (though I'm perfectly happy with Pathfinder's azatas - thus I'll be greedy and ask for both). But IMO they were never homogenous outside of being CG and originating in Arborea - I tend to associate "homogenous" with what 4e did too a lot of creatures when it used their names for different 4e creatures.

I want the archons back too. And yugoloths. *greedy grin*

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I want the eladrin back (though I'm perfectly happy with Pathfinder's azatas - thus I'll be greedy and ask for both). But IMO they were never homogenous outside of being CG and originating in Arborea.

Homogenous is certainly a relative term. I'm sure there are creature families more homogenous than the eladrin; I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

I tend to associate "homogenous" with what 4e did too a lot of creatures when it used their names for different 4e creatures.

Can you give an example? Or explain a bit more?

 

[Shemeska]

Homogenous is certainly a relative term. I'm sure there are creature families more homogenous than the eladrin; I just can't think of any off the top of my head.


Can you give an example? Or explain a bit more?

The 2e/3e eladrins had multiple types (novierre, tulani, bralani, etc), while the 4e "eladrins" were a race of mortal elves who (until recently AFAIK) in 4e didn't have any subtypes.

The 2e/3e tieflings were the epitome of variety since they didn't have any set appearance and could be descended from literally any type of fiend. The 2e chart of alternate tiefling traits and the PF version of the same is a thing of beauty IMO. But the 4e tieflings all have the same default appearance, the same racial origin.

2e/3e genasi (like tieflings) had pretty much any appearance in line with their particular elemental theme, with no specific assumed traits. The 4e version of genasi on the other hand all had the whole glowing lines thing which was default.

 

[Zaran]

According to what I have read, we will not have anything to argue about because everything that ever was D&D will be pluggable into 5e. I find that hard to believe but will be optimistic.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The 2e/3e eladrins had multiple types (novierre, tulani, bralani, etc), while the 4e "eladrins" were a race of mortal elves who (until recently AFAIK) in 4e didn't have any subtypes.

Ah I see. Granted, the 4e eladrin has no subraces. Personally I see this as a feature in a PC race rather than a flaw. I never appreciated the dozen-subrace syndrome.

I actually think of the 4e eladrin as an elven subraces, and as a different race from the traditional eladrin despite sharing a name and a similar habitat.

The 2e/3e tieflings were the epitome of variety since they didn't have any set appearance and could be descended from literally any type of fiend. The 2e chart of alternate tiefling traits and the PF version of the same is a thing of beauty IMO. But the 4e tieflings all have the same default appearance, the same racial origin.

4e tieflings are lame, agreed. My 4e tieflings are just as varied as traditional tieflings, and I don't use 4e's Bel Turath history. And what I wouldn't give for some of Tony's art in 4e!

(I recently did a bit of Tony gushing.)

2e/3e genasi (like tieflings) had pretty much any appearance in line with their particular elemental theme, with no specific assumed traits. The 4e version of genasi on the other hand all had the whole glowing lines thing which was default.

Yeah, I'm not such a fan of the tron theme that the 4e genasi has going on. If anyone in my group ever wants to play one, I'll probably carry on their traditional varied appearance.

According to what I have read, we will not have anything to argue about because everything that ever was D&D will be pluggable into 5e. I find that hard to believe but will be optimistic.

Agreed. I find it very hard to believe. If I were a betting man, I think I'd make a lot of money off of all the hopefuls' disappointment.

 

[Tallifer]

I hope the following things are the default or sole options in the next iteration:

Arbitrary (rather than level-based) AC
Descending AC
Thac0
Random Stats
Random HP
Percentile rolls, and pervasive system disunification
"Fighters can't have nice things," and a generalized "Balance doesn't really matter" attitude
Different XP tables
Traditional [read: arbitrary] race, class and alignment restrictions
Race level limits
Many and sundry save-or-lose effects
3.x style multiclassing combined with the usual front-loaded classes
Static attack and defenses for more "realism"
A full return to pure +X items
The assumption that "nobody needs magic items" just because nobody considered what PCs need, or just because nobody bothered to write it down
Level drain and XP costs
Skill proficiencies or ranks
The Great Wheel cosmology

I hope 5e defaults to all the things that irritate me about previous versions. Not because I have a grudge, but because I already have an edition that's awesome. If I hate 5e, my decision will be that much easier!

I first read your post purely for its humour. But I have since been made to realize by Frothsof in the Wizards' forum, that if the Fifth Edition is truly a throwback to previous editions and only a passing acknowledgement of the Fourth, then the Fourth Edition will remain a unique experience for gamers.

There is no other edition of Dungeons & Dragons quite like the Fourth. That will be its attraction in the coming years, if the Fifth Edition becomes basically a mix of Pathfinder and AD&D. It will have its own special and unassailable niche.