More snippets of 5E information

Walking Dad

First Post
Looks like Monte Cook is saying people will be able to play with different character options AT THE SAME TABLE.

I'm really curious to see how my first-edition-style-fighter can play with your third-edition-style Wizard, but I really REALLY hope they can pull it off.
I can see this, but not yet them contributing the same to the "Game" part of RPG.
But I would more like to see a 3.5 and a 4e style Fighter in the same game and both feel like the same class, doing the same things in a class specific way.

Please no classes bound to specific edition styles.

BTW, there is this:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120116#78051

First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there.
BBM

Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide.
BBM

I hope there is also something for the 4e lovers...
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I assume most people are very surprised by this. I don't know how it would be possible... I can't see how this is possible. More power to them. They might strip down the overall complexity a little and well as make even less-optioned Essential-type characters. Not sure, but this is good news.

I for one am extremely excited about 5e.

Me too. I think one thing people may be missing is that they are talking about edition-STYLE characters, not "exactly like 1st ed, etc" so it's unlikely you'll be able to use THAC0 as your hit-progression as an option, for example (why anyone would want to is beyond me). Though I can see some kind of Vancian simultion in the mix.

I can see this, but not yet them contributing the same to the "Game" part of RPG.
But I would more like to see a 3.5 and a 4e style Fighter in the same game and both feel like the same class, doing the same things in a class specific way.

Please no classes bound to specific edition styles.

Why not? Or do you mean classes LIMITED to a single edition style? I have a feeling we're gonna see the classic classes presented as tentpoles, with various subclasses designed to suit different players' tastes. If you don't like a subclass, play a different one.

Can't wait to find out.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
...
Why not? Or do you mean classes LIMITED to a single edition style? I have a feeling we're gonna see the classic classes presented as tentpoles, with various subclasses designed to suit different players' tastes. If you don't like a subclass, play a different one.

...
That could work. But I hope they avoid the "simple" martial classes vs "complicated" arcane classes split they did with Essentials.
I don't see the reason why all Fighter subclasses has few options and all Wizard sub-classes were full of choices.
I would have really liked a "knight/slayer-style" wizard sub-class.
 

darjr

I crit!
That could work. But I hope they avoid the "simple" martial classes vs "complicated" arcane classes split they did with Essentials.
I don't see the reason why all Fighter subclasses has few options and all Wizard sub-classes were full of choices.
I would have really liked a "knight/slayer-style" wizard sub-class.

I'm concerned that no-one could pull off what they are planning on doing. But this split between the game style and character style makes sense.

I'm curious about what you mean for a simple caster? Would it be like a 3.5 sorcerer with pre chosen spells?
 


Walking Dad

First Post
...

I'm curious about what you mean for a simple caster? Would it be like a 3.5 sorcerer with pre chosen spells?

More like a 4e sorcerer with a generic magic ranged attack and stances that add different bonuses and effects on it. Maybe also an encounter or daily replacing "classpower" that you get to use more often than you level and get new features added (see Hexblade for an encounter and Protector for a daily sample).
I hope the sorcerer variant in the elemental heroes will be something like this.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
That could work. But I hope they avoid the "simple" martial classes vs "complicated" arcane classes split they did with Essentials.
I don't see the reason why all Fighter subclasses has few options and all Wizard sub-classes were full of choices.
I would have really liked a "knight/slayer-style" wizard sub-class.

I agree 110%. "Simple" versions of all classes would be very welcome, and thankfully looks like something they may be going for. Here's hoping.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top