D&D 5E If it fails, this is one reason why...

[wedgeski]

It's not hard to do, and people are doing it right now, and pretty much universally reporting it's simple to do. I think that's one of the beauties of the 5e design, it's very simple and also mailable, with only a few tweaks here and there.

Cool, I hope you're right! That kind of product support will be awesome.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I've seen people here say that they're currently using Next to run 1E modules with minor adjustments. For myself, I'm currently preparing a Forge of Fury (one of my favorite modules of 3E) run with minimal adjustments as well, most of them related to the number of players, not the overall adventure. I don't know, but I believe it's hard to ask for more compatibility than that. Am I going to be able to take my 2E kits out of Complete Fighter's and use them straight as subclasses? Probably not, but I never expected that when we started discussing a compatible game.

Cheers,

Now in all fairness, I can take Palladium rules and run a D&D module or Pathfinder module with ease. D&D Next doesn't provide anything special or new with regards to this.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

- 1E has a table of static saving throws groups into weird categories based strictly on the level of the person rolling.
- 3E has three saving throws based off of three ability scores, each of which grant a bonus to a roll trying to reach a number that is based off of the attacking person/thing.
- 4E changed those saving throws into three defenses that you must roll higher than to hit.

How anyone could actually believe you could create any one set of rules that would be compatible with all three of these completely different mechanical methodologies is beyond me.

We call that "wishful thinking".

 

[billd91]

It's just a "reversing" (and level-based), like attack rolls.

But with major conceptual implications. Reversing can really change the way the process is conceived. The saving throw morphs from being a last ditch attempt at salvation when facing a certain fate to being a target for the attacker to hit, potentially the point of inflicting a critical hit. I would submit that the two approaches are significantly different.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Yes. I do. Do you?

Yes, I think I do.

The conversions are very simple, given the parameters of 5e. They already issued conversions for many 1e adventures, and it was very simple. Others are converting 3e adventures, and finding it very simple to do as well.

Your are talking about conversion of adventures originating from different editions to the current, basic version of 5e. TThis means conversion into a well-defined, single target. What you wish is the other way round: converting something into a whole set of differing versions with differing parameters and focuses.

They will give you the various versions, and DMs can pick and choose what they want to use. Combinations is not one of the goals of Next. They never claimed "I am going to give you a tactical wargame version of 1e", and that is not the topic we're discussing, and it seems like a strawman.

As far as I recall adaptability and being able to mix different components was one of the goals of 5e. So if we're talking about the way adventures are designed for 5e, and how this might work for different set-ups, the topic of combinations belongs here, IMHO.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, I think I do.



Your are talking about conversion of adventures originating from different editions to the current, basic version of 5e. TThis means conversion into a well-defined, single target. What you wish is the other way round: converting something into a whole set of differing versions with differing parameters and focuses.

We're not talking about a literal translation into another version of the game - we're talking about variations within 5e. A 5e tactical combat version of a module, and a 5e story version of a module. It's not that far too drift, given it's all based on core 5e.

As far as I recall adaptability and being able to mix different components was one of the goals of 5e. So if we're talking about the way adventures are designed for 5e, and how this might work for different set-ups, the topic of combinations belongs here, IMHO.

I recall being able to play different types being the goal. Does anyone ever recall them mentioning being able to play a storygame version of a tactical combat game with high level of customization but also high level of simplicity? I don't, and some of those are contradictory. You can't play the customization module with the ultra-basic module for example, they are opposites.

 

[Burninator]

No point in rhetorical edition warring, the battle's already over (Pathfinder won). Vote with your gaming dollars.

Personally, if they can't get a clue that Reaping Strike should remain in the dustbin of history, I'm not giving them my dollars again. I naturally avoided using such exploits, but now I have a much, much lower tolerance for them than I did back in 2008, when I gave it a fair shot and decided I value a rational game where words mean things and everything isn't keyword/jargoned-into-arbitrary-meaninglessness.

 

[Mistwell]

No point in rhetorical edition warring, the battle's already over (Pathfinder won). Vote with your gaming dollars.

What the heck are you talking about? Apparently, not what the rest of us are talking about in this thread.

Personally, if they can't get a clue that Reaping Strike should remain in the dustbin of history, I'm not giving them my dollars again. I naturally avoided using such exploits, but now I have a much, much lower tolerance for them than I did back in 2008, when I gave it a fair shot and decided I value a rational game where words mean things and everything isn't keyword/jargoned-into-arbitrary-meaninglessness.

No. You have three dedicated threads to that topic. Do not pollute a fourth with it - particularly since you do not appear to know what we're talking about in this thread to begin with.

 

[Burninator]

...

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

They could have regular columns in the Daily D&D website focused on specific playing styles, and those would discuss how to better use a published adventure with the playing style of your choice, including some suggestions on how to adapt and enhance the module. Daily D&D has three regular features already, they would need a total of five columnists to cover every weekday. In their regular features, columnists would discuss various things related to their respective themes, but would always let some space to discuss recently released products and how they could be used to improve your game.

One could say: that would never work. Well, it already works in daily mtg.com. Wizards generally separates mtg players using three generic profiles, which relate to the competitive player, the creative combo player and the casual "for fun" player. Each of those three gets at least one column directed to him, exploring the themes that are within the interest of that player profile and discussing new products when they're released (and even before that, with some nice exclusive previews). While D&D and MtG are very different products I believe this model would be a nice one to follow.

On Mondays, Mike Mearls would have a feature focused in old-school play with a focus on exploration; on Wednesdays, James Wyatt's column would discuss story-focused games, with a lot of interaction; on Fridays, Rodney Thompson would discuss tactical play and combat-heavy games. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying the structure to make it clear, but I believe this would be a good way to give product support that appeals to various playing styles.

Cheers,