Is it time for 5E?

[Chainsaw Mage]

It's a good thing 4e has skills and feats and backgrounds and rituals and utility powers then!

You know, like older editions had...

Had...

Um.

Huh.

Obviously you know little about older editions. Welcome! I am pleased to enlighten you. May I suggest you begin with the following reading:

AD&D 1e Player's Handbook
AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide
AD&D 1e Wilderness Survival Guide
AD&D 1e Oriental Adventures
AD&D 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide

These five will at least get you started in learning about the enormous range of options available to characters in first edition AD&D. Of course, both second edition and BECM (Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters--"BECM" is a widely used acronym) have an equal range of material.

I don't blame you for being confused. Older editions are indeed intimidating due to the sheer wealth of material available.

 

[GreyLord]

Well, they had skills. They were called non-weapons proficiencies.

They had backgrounds. Under "non-professional skills," labeled "secondary skills" which specified what PCs did before adventuring (but the benefits were more general in nature)--in the 1E DMG.

They had rituals. They were called "spells" back then.

And BECMI had the first powers. Anyone remember the "Smash"? (Companion set)

Ya got me on utilities. Don't recall any feature regarding small, temporary bonuses, etc. other than potions and spells.

Paladin Immunity to disease

Ability to lay on hands

I believe cure disease

Rangers bonus against giants

Cleric turn undead

Things like that...does that work?

Not that I actually agree with your premise...but going along with it...I guess that could work into that slot...

 

[Tallifer]

Obviously you know little about older editions. Welcome! I am pleased to enlighten you. May I suggest you begin with the following reading:

AD&D 1e Player's Handbook
AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters Guide
AD&D 1e Wilderness Survival Guide
AD&D 1e Oriental Adventures
AD&D 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide

These five will at least get you started in learning about the enormous range of options available to characters in first edition AD&D. Of course, both second edition and BECM (Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters--"BECM" is a widely used acronym) have an equal range of material.

I don't blame you for being confused. Older editions are indeed intimidating due to the sheer wealth of material available.

Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.

4e has elegant and interesting tactical rules. This does not mean players are somehow restricted from the usual non-combat roleplayed conversations, explorations and quests.

As for his "Had. Um. Huh." he will need to explain what those words meant. (I think he meant, "Why are people saying 4e is only about combat when other editions had no more stuff for non-combat options than 4e does?")

 

[Tallifer]

******** On topic: it would be a disaster if 5e came out in only a year or two from now. But on the other hand 4e is (quite suddenly) unraveling. I am a staunch fanatic of 4e, but all the recent announcemts (and chiefly lack thereof) and developments have been extremely disheartening for me.

No compiled magazines, no new miniatures, far fewer books of note, a confused mess with Essentials (despite all its options which I do like), no more off-line Character Builder (and the new one half-finished), a surfeit of evil classes and races, very little campaign world support, no epic level support, crappy modules, crappy new magic items and rarity... it is like the Wizards are in some strange panic, a nervous breakdown.

I truly do not understand the sudden panic of the Wizards. Fourth Edition was doing very well. More and more players were playing it, and it was becoming the standard game in many game shops, conventions and clubs because of Living Forgotten Realms and the Encounters games. Just keep improving it please... but then WHAM! change after change after change, and then cancellation after cancellation, and retrenchment after retrenchment. Hasbro has not changed the basic Monopoly in 80 years: why put pressure on WoTC to mess around with such a new edition as 4e?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Professor Cirno's point was NOT that older editions had no options for characters. His point was that 4e is about fun and imaginative things other than combat and supports those things as well as any other edition.

4e has elegant and interesting tactical rules. This does not mean players are somehow restricted from the usual non-combat roleplayed conversations, explorations and quests.

As for his "Had. Um. Huh." he will need to explain what those words meant. (I think he meant, "Why are people saying 4e is only about combat when other editions had no more stuff for non-combat options than 4e does?")

Naw, you more or less got it

No amount of character developmental options in older editions are missing in 4e. On the other hand, 4e has added more developmental options.

Yeah, older editions had their versions of skills, utilities, etc, etc. And 4e does too! But 4e has expanded them for the most part and added more support for them. Skills have expanded, contracted, back and forth, but are now a core part of the game rather then a supplement. Rituals belong to all classes rather then a select few. Class choice and attributes are decided by the player to fit a character concept, rather then the other way around. A less lethal game makes for more potential character depth, as the game isn't a meat grinder.

Now, if you like rules lite, then 4e is not the game for you, not by far. 4e is not rules lite.

At the same time, I find it kinda disingenious to claim that 4e is just nothing but combat. I mean, sure, they've polished the combat up a lot, but there's plenty of other stuff there to define your character - more, I'd say, then any other edition in the past. Now if you don't want a lot of mechanics for that, then man, this ain't a game you'll like. But it's a game you won't like because it has all those options, not because it lacks them.

 

[Bluenose]

Hmm.

3rd edition D&D. It's Diablo on paper!

4th edition D&D. It's WoW on paper!

5th edition D&D. It's Diablo 3 on paper? Except Diablo 3 isn't out yet, so no-one can start designing until it is.

Although there is another 'secret project' under way at Blizzard.

Mein gott! Blizzard are working on D&D 5th edition! It's got to be true! 5th edition next year!

 

[mrswing]

If Blizzard are working on D&D5e then we'll get that around 2020.

And all PCs will be tattooed, cigar smoking overly muscular good ol' boy Texan cowboys.

 

[pemerton]

4th doesnt let people pick special moves as each player could make the same or different classes and basically have the same mechanical effects.

It would be interesting to see some actualy play reports to illustrate this claim. Or even some example builds.

In my game there are 5 PCs: a polearm "controller" dwarf figther; a drow chaos sorcerer built around blazing starfall and a whole heap of interrupts; a defender paladin; an archer-ranger/cleric; and a jack-of-all-trades tome-of-readiness wizard. They have different mecanical effects: damage from the two strikers, but only one doing area damage; quite different control from the fighter and wizard; and straight-down-the-line defence from the paladin. Out of combat, the paladin is a diplomat, the sorcerer a trickster, the wizard a scholar and pastry chef, the dwarf an athete and the ranger a tracker/acrobat. Where is this alleged sameness?

 

[Bluenose]

If Blizzard are working on D&D5e then we'll get that around 2020.

And all PCs will be tattooed, cigar smoking overly muscular good ol' boy Texan cowboys.

Not all of them.

Edit: OK, that link didn't work. Gnome sabotage, it is.

 

[delericho]

No amount of character developmental options in older editions are missing in 4e. On the other hand, 4e has added more developmental options.

Yeah, older editions had their versions of skills, utilities, etc, etc. And 4e does too! But 4e has expanded them for the most part and added more support for them. Skills have expanded, contracted, back and forth, but are now a core part of the game rather then a supplement. Rituals belong to all classes rather then a select few. Class choice and attributes are decided by the player to fit a character concept, rather then the other way around. A less lethal game makes for more potential character depth, as the game isn't a meat grinder.

At the same time, I find it kinda disingenious to claim that 4e is just nothing but combat. I mean, sure, they've polished the combat up a lot, but there's plenty of other stuff there to define your character

Yeah, this is all true.

I have noticed a tendency amongst the people I play with (including myself) to limit themselves to the options that are on the sheet/cards in play. So, if I have a card the allows a "slide attack", then I may well play that; if I don't, I won't even consider it. (And, similarly, for "character development" options.)

But the truth is this: when we do this, we're choosing to limit ourselves. The game isn't doing it for us.

(In one of the recent interviews, Bob Salvatore made a comment along the lines of "in 3e, to have a great game, you really need a creative DM. In 4e, it only really works if you have creative players." I think that was really quite insightful. There's a lot of truth in it, IMO.)

But, ultimately, it comes down to personal preference. A 4e fan will never persuade a 1st Ed fan that his game is superior, no more than the 1st Ed fan will convince the 4e fan. People just like different things, and for different reasons.

But, hey, by all means let's continue with the edition wars. At least all our post counts get to climb!