Is it time for 5E?

[Lanefan]

I'd love to see a 5th edition of D&D that:
1] Went back to basics in terms of races: dwarf, elf, gnomes, halfling and human. 1/2 elves and 1/2 orcs would be available through a feat choice.
2] Went back to basics in terms of classes: cleric, fighter, magic-user and thief. Feat and/or talent trees would allow for differentiation of these classes so that your fighter could be a swashbuckler, ranger, paladin or cavalier.
3] Had 3 core books: The PHB, the DMG and an all-in-one Monster Manual.
4] Didn't rely of DDI for near constant game updates and content patches.
5] Had non-collectible supplements. Wants spell cards?.?.?. here's a deck with every wizard spell in it.
6] Returned the classic elements that were ditched with 4th edition: something like Vancian magic, classic races & classes (see 1+2 above), the full alignment spectrum, the classic Realms, Greyhawk, etc.

At the same time the game would need to run far faster than 3rd or 4th edition (which should be possible if Powers are ditched, and stacking effects, DR, and ability-boosting items are cleaned up). Cut back on the escalation of numerical modifiers in order to make D&D into a game of action, not accounting.

Basically... make 5th edition into a retroclone that employs cleaned up d20 mechanics and some modern design elements that have been shown to improve the game.

Agreed pretty much wholesale except for a few very minor quibbles; but I'd add one more thing:

Throw in a section - a very large section, as some seem to be equating importance with wordcount - that covers the following topics:
- worldbuilding and campaign design
- the game beyond combat and adventuring:
- - resting, recovery, and time spent in town
- - treasury division methods and ideas
- - giving personality and character to your character
- - in-character disputes, romances, etc. and how to handle such
- how to plan and run a long campaign
- how to handle character and-or player turnover during a campaign
- timekeeping
- DM record-keeping, both in-session and archival
- other similar thigns I can't think of right now

Lan-"if wordcount really does equal importance, I probably win"-efan

 

[Raven Crowking]

The word count is especially irrelevant considering that every edition has had more effort put into the mechanics of combat then with anything else.

All you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions. It is a simple matter to extract the combat info from any of the Complete books in 2e, and you will see the plethora of material that remains. In fact, I was looking at the Complete Ranger's book last night, and was amazed at how many pages are devoted to rangers getting together to party. Or how many pages are devoted to different instruments in Complete Bard's. Similarly, all aspects of theft, guilds, and illegal operations in Complete Thieve's.

In 2e, the amount of effort put into worldbuilding easily dwarfs that put into combat.

In 1e, the amount of effort put into realizing settings (WSG and DSG) exceeds that put into combat by a fair degree. Heck, just look at how much information is available about polearms!


RC

 

[Bluenose]

All you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions. It is a simple matter to extract the combat info from any of the Complete books in 2e, and you will see the plethora of material that remains. In fact, I was looking at the Complete Ranger's book last night, and was amazed at how many pages are devoted to rangers getting together to party. Or how many pages are devoted to different instruments in Complete Bard's. Similarly, all aspects of theft, guilds, and illegal operations in Complete Thieve's.

In 2e, the amount of effort put into worldbuilding easily dwarfs that put into combat.

In 1e, the amount of effort put into realizing settings (WSG and DSG) exceeds that put into combat by a fair degree. Heck, just look at how much information is available about polearms!


RC

Personally I suspect spell descriptions of being the largest percentage of rules material in previous editions, and power descriptions in 4e.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Personally I suspect spell descriptions of being the largest percentage of rules material in previous editions, and power descriptions in 4e.

Yeah, pretty much.

As someone with a character that uses a non-core kit in a 2e game, I'm well aware of whats in the respective PHBs. And whats been in them overwhelmingly were spells.

Combat and things related to combat came in second place.

Spells are by and large related to combat.

So there you go!

In fact, lets look at 2e, the PHB. Ignoring the seven different appendixes for spells, we have the combat chapter taking up the most room by far. Then we add in all the stuff on weapons, as well as the parts on various other chapters that involve combat.

And then we ignore all that even though it supports my statement, and look at mechanics.

What did 2e feel was most important to cover in mechanics? Remember, the big criticism for 4e is that it doesn't have enough non-combat stuff.

Well, we have several mechanics, because 2e is awful and thinks every single thing needs its own unique style of resolution. They fall into three catagories, however.

1) Spells. God, the long, long lists of spells. No more or less straining then the wall of powers, save that not everyone got to enjoy reading these long lists.

2) Non-combat. Your NWPs, your thief skills, your bending bars.

3) Combat.

Of the three, its very clearly spells, then combat, then non-combat. Except, in terms of variance, its combat first. See, the NWPs are basic - extremely basic - and all non-combat options are entirely binary. There are no choices. You have the skill and thus use it, or you don't and thus do not. Spells are more complex - you have the skill and maybe use it, or maybe don't. With combat however, each part of combat has a rule, as well as several choices - including spells! - that can be done. Again, in terms of variance, the combat chapter is the longest. The spells chapters are long but they're literally just giant walls of spells and nothing else - recipes in a cookbook.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

All you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions. It is a simple matter to extract the combat info from any of the Complete books in 2e, and you will see the plethora of material that remains. In fact, I was looking at the Complete Ranger's book last night, and was amazed at how many pages are devoted to rangers getting together to party. Or how many pages are devoted to different instruments in Complete Bard's. Similarly, all aspects of theft, guilds, and illegal operations in Complete Thieve's.

In 2e, the amount of effort put into worldbuilding easily dwarfs that put into combat.

In 1e, the amount of effort put into realizing settings (WSG and DSG) exceeds that put into combat by a fair degree. Heck, just look at how much information is available about polearms!


RC

I thought rangers spontaneously combusted if they socialized in groups greater than three.

 

[Stoat]

I thought rangers spontaneously combusted if they socialized in groups greater than three.

That's why they needed pages and pages to describe how Rangers party. (In essence, it involves a warren of little honeycombed rooms, each big enough for three rangers at a time, the details are where things get more complicated).

Also, are the huge number of polearms in 1E and 2E being touted as an example of noncombat rules?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, pretty much.

As someone with a character that uses a non-core kit in a 2e game, I'm well aware of whats in the respective PHBs. And whats been in them overwhelmingly were spells.

Combat and things related to combat came in second place.

Spells are by and large related to combat.

So there you go!

Whyever would you limit the system to the PHB? Wait a sec, I know the answer to that question -- it is the only way your point can carry.

If one looks at the system as a whole, not only is your non-standard kit not in the PHB, but no kit is. All of those kits? Not in the PHB.

"Spells are by and large related to combat" is perhaps true in 3e; less true of any pre-3e edition. In fact, the 1e DMG suggests that 50% of 1st level m-u spells are combat related, half offense and half defense, with the other 50% being split between utility and misc. spells. The two extra spells not accounted for, Tenser's Floating Disc and Nystul's Magic Aura, are utility and misc. spells respectively.

With 2e, when you add in each class' Complete book, each race's Complete book, the Historical References, the DM's references, and so on, it becomes clear that the predominant theme is setting creation, including making characters appropriate to the setting. Many kits were criticized, in fact, for failing to balance re: combat, simply because the balance sought had nothing to do with a game focused solely (or even predominantly) with combat.

In 1e and earlier, XP are primarily gained by gaining treasure. In 2e, a system was provided where XP are primarily gained by using class skills -- many of which are not combat oriented! -- or by meeting story goals. Only when we get to 3e does combat provide the majority of XP.

When one examines the number of pages devoted to spell descriptions, it should be extremely obvious that this is because each spell is an exception to the general rules, and those exceptions each need to be described. This is no different than the reason powers take up space in 4e.

Again, all you demonstrate here is your profound ignorance of earlier editions, non-standard kits notwithstanding. Or, to paraphrase another poster, "Your increasing show of ignorance of how earlier editions work do not paint your arguments in a favorable light."




RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I thought rangers spontaneously combusted if they socialized in groups greater than three.

That's 1e rangers; 2e rangers get together and party. Per RAW!

Also, are the huge number of polearms in 1E and 2E being touted as an example of noncombat rules?

I am referring specifically to the appendix in the 1e UA, which includes illustrations and descriptions not so that you know the mechanics of polearms (which are covered in the 1e PHB), but so that you can describe them properly. It is a reprint of an article Gary wrote for the Strategic Review.

And 2e is the game that allowed you to purchase period clothing piece by piece, including nearly any piece you might care to think off, from a ruff to slop.


RC

 

[shadzar]

Personally I suspect spell descriptions of being the largest percentage of rules material in previous editions, and power descriptions in 4e.

....in the PHB, and item descriptions in the DMG and monster description in the MM.

There fore look at what info if presented about those things. Do monsters have anything of value written about them other than combat stats? Are spell usable in in way outside of combat. AHA!

4th there are no such things as spells, no matter what you want to call them, then are just the wizards "powers", like all other classes have. Powers are a function solely of combat. Rituals in 4th however are where the "rest of the spells" are in 4th. Those are pretty much just an extension of and different way to perform a skill challenge.

Spells are by and large related to combat.

 

[DandD]

Yes, the truth can be quite shocking. Even although some spells could be used out-of-combat, most spells were still designed how to get the edge on opponents, and of the spells meant to be not used in combat, some clever and more smarter players than the gm found a way how to use it in combat anyway, so that the rules have to specify for create water to not be conjured inside somebody.