D&D 5E Is Monte Cook working on D&D 5th Edition?

denzoner

Explorer
I hope Monte's working on something incredibly new and/or different. Otherwise, who's going to buy it? If you like 4e, you'll stick with it. If you like 3.x, you'll probably stick with Pathfinder. If you don't like either, you're not likely to like anything that resembles either.

The best we can hope for, and it's TOTALLY POSSIBLE, is a much more modular game that "can" have some of the innovations of 4e if you want them, and "can" have some of the crunch of "3x", if you're so inclined, and still be compatible (within reason) with previous editions. One of the greatest things about the OSR is that everything is so compatible with minimal effort. i.e. To make B2 The Keep on the Borderlands work with OSRIC, S&W and/or 2e is so minimal, it's amazing. To make it work with 3x is only a little bit harder, while 4e is such a different beast it's almost not worth the work... which is why Pathfinder is so popular.

Monte Cook "got" D&D, which is why 3x and its derivatives are so useful even to Old-school gamers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Erdrick Dragin

Banned
Banned
My main reasons for not buying the 5E rumours have been (a) it's too soon, and (b) gearing up for a major new release is a time when you hire people, not when you let core team members go; those who saw a portent in the loss of Bill Slavisek, in particular, had things exactly backwards IMO.

With this announcement, reason (b) goes away, or at least becomes much less compelling.

Hmm indeed.

It's never too soon for WotC. They were immediately working on 3.5e (as stated by Monte Cook himself) right after 3.0 was released. In just 3 years it was out, pointlessly wasting money and time and book releases on something already obsolete the moment of their release.

In just 2 years after 3.5e (5 years total), 4e was being worked on. Two years later, 4e is out. From 2000 to 2007, only 7 years of 3.0/3.5 and many of us believe that was too short (considering the decade stretch between 1e and 2e and 2e and 3e).
 

Ron

Explorer
Curious move in regard to the previous columns of Legends and Lore. After all, Mearls went a long way to propose a modular design in order to allow a style of play that was removed from D&D by the third edition crafted by Cook, among others.

I don't like Cook writing style but he is a competent designer. Let see what he can do under Mearls' design goals. I guess one of the reason to bring him back was to attract the public that went with Pathfinder. Good luck with that.
 

Gaming Tonic

Explorer
Assuming that this does in some way herald in the 5E and Monte Cook is involved in that what does it mean for 4E? Will somebody pick up the torch and run with it like Pathfinder did with 3.5? What will this mean for the future of Pathfinder? If Monte Cook is involved with a 5E will it resemble a throwback to a previous edition of D&D or something new? It will probably resemble less of a card game than some feared. There is already enough support for 4E, especially if you think about what is being produced between now and a release of a rumored 5th Edition that gamers could play a long time without ever repeating the same character or game twice.
 

In my opinion it is never too early to start something new. If you don´t innovate, you die. Comparing live spanns of editions before 2000 is not fair. Different times...

Also, 3.x and 4e are both good editions. As ADnD 2nd editon once was. I highly doubt, that going back to ADnD would work. Just as you can´t say: I had so much fun with my commodore c64, i throw away the PC with that windows 7...
 

Retreater

Legend
While it may be too early to speculate on Monte Cook's role in the future development of 4E (or 5th edition), I hope that this doesn't signal a backpedaling away from the design goals of 4th edition in favor of becoming more like 3.5/Pathfinder.

There's no need in creating two 3.5 retro clones. The Pathfinder fans have their game. Let 4E stay 4E.

For those who do not like the complexity of 3rd edition, remember that Cook is one of the chief architects of that system.

While I like Cook's work, I would prefer to see him not involved in 4E, especially considering his statements to the effect of that 4E is not really D&D and that Pathfinder is the true heir to D&D (as evidenced in the preface to the Pathfinder Core Rules).

Retreater
 

thzero

First Post
Too bad 4E is more complex than 3.XE, heck even than 1E and 2E (yes, I've played them all and tons of other systems, no I don't want to argue with you about it).

And yes, Pathfinder is heir to D&D because of the iconic D&D feel that it has, not to mention say magic system, that 4E. That is not to say whether 4E is bad or not, that is solely up to personal preference.

Hopefully if they are doing 5E, which may or may not be the case, it isn't necessarily a retread of something in the past, but takes design cues from all editions and moves the game, and the feel of D&D, forward.

There's no need in creating two 3.5 retro clones. The Pathfinder fans have their game. Let 4E stay 4E.

For those who do not like the complexity of 3rd edition, remember that Cook is one of the chief architects of that system.

While I like Cook's work, I would prefer to see him not involved in 4E, especially considering his statements to the effect of that 4E is not really D&D and that Pathfinder is the true heir to D&D (as evidenced in the preface to the Pathfinder Core Rules).
 

kitsune9

Adventurer
I think it's 5E

I think it will be a 5E coming with Monte's return. I can't imagine doing anything with less fanfare. I think they will try to create a version that will appeal to old and new gamers alike.

Whether that will be well-received, who knows. Marketing to us is like herding cats.

Regardless, I will definitely buy the set when it comes out just for collecting at least. Not sure if I'll jump in since I ended up making my choice with Pathfinder.
 



Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top