Pathfinder and 4e's love child, what I want in 5e

[Guest 85555]

Actually, 3e fans still have 3e I started my current game in 2007 and did not want to end the game, as 4e suggested, to prepare for the new edition.

I understand. I still have my 3E books and was running 3E campaigns for a while (probably will run some more games if I can get a group together for it). But I was thinking actively supported editions where the core books are still in print (not that you can't order a 3E book off amazon, but eventually that will dry up).

 

[Plane Sailing]

THIS. To me this is the best, most important improvement in 4th edition. The ability to run even epic level monsters and have everything you need to do so in that monster's stat block is tremendous -- no need to look up or know what a dozen spells or feats do, just pull out the stat block, give it a once over, and off you go! Largely as a result, designing monsters, NPCs, foes, etc. is equally easy and quick.

For me it was the opposite way round - in 3.x edition I could see a list of spells and know what all of them would do (and it was easy to prepare high level wizards and clerics, as I'd got huge familiarity with the spell lists). I rarely bothered with prestige classes and such, because I still followed the original intent of campaign-specific groups, rather than as the class-configuration options they ended up being.

By contrast, when I was running 4e it was much more effort getting the stat blocks for everything I wanted to use, and everything was different. It was much more difficult for me to memorise everything because every creatures power was a power unto itself, with no carryover. Add to that the paucity of options that high level foes had (which of these 3-4 powers will I reuse this time?) and I found 4e to be more of a faff to prepare and more frustrating to DM during the game.

Clearly I'm a huge outlier here Lots of people I really respect as DMs have found it much easier to prep 4e. Just wanted to mention my experiences.

Cheers

 

[SSquirrel]

What I would like to see:

1) Eliminate the 4E innovations and go back to the old spell and class system

2) Go back to including the standard races/classes in the PHB.

3) No more of this PHB 1, PHB 2, etc. No more splat books either (like we had in 3E). Just give me three solid core books and supplements for the GM.

4)I like BaB from 3E, but I think some of the spells could be nerfed a bit.

5) Contain the numbers a bit more. There were too many crazy modifiers in d20.

6) Flavor first.

A lot of people would say you already have that, just not w/a WotC label on the spine. http://paizo.com/pathfinder

I think point 3 is probably right out tho, b/c selling splats is a large part of their planned revenue stream for pretty much every edition.

 

[NewJeffCT]

For me it was the opposite way round - in 3.x edition I could see a list of spells and know what all of them would do (and it was easy to prepare high level wizards and clerics, as I'd got huge familiarity with the spell lists). I rarely bothered with prestige classes and such, because I still followed the original intent of campaign-specific groups, rather than as the class-configuration options they ended up being.


Cheers

Interesting - it wasn't that I didn't know what the spells did in 3.5E, it was that I had so many options between spells, class/template/PrC abilities, magic items and also magic weapons, that it was inevitable that I would forget something important. For example: my lich archmage had a ring of protection +4, but also a ring of positive energy protection that I completely forgot about. When deciding which quickened and regular spells I could cast that round and where to move to minimize attacks against me, and which other spells I could use, and which buffing spells were left on my lich - I think it took the party 9 or 10 castings of various Dispel Magics to finally completely debuff the lich - it just completely slipped my mind.

A level 20 wizard has 40 regular spells, and then another 9 if they're specialized in a school of magic, and then a boatload more if they have a high enough intelligence. So, maybe 55-60 spells. On top of that are feats that affect how many spells work, a host of magic items (if you're a lich with 100s of years to kill, why not craft them?) , as well as potential Prestige Class and Template abilities, and it's maybe 100 choices per round. Not to mention long-term spells like Contingency that could have been cast days/weeks earlier and things like prepared scrolls and wands.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think point 3 is probably right out tho, b/c selling splats is a large part of their planned revenue stream for pretty much every edition.

i think it is part of their business plan, but I also think it is what forces them to release new editions and ".5's" so often. It also seems to be working against them now. I don't think the 4E people are that interested in a new edition, and I think the people who rejected 4E aren't interested in a new edition that will be supplanted by yet another edition or half edition. I really think most gamers want a certain amount of stability in their product. To me this is like changing the recipe for coke every 8 years.

One of the reasons I moved to savage worlds over D&D is seems to be pretty stable at this point. It is another reason I have gone back to playing more Cthulu (across several editions it is still a familiar system). But D&D has just gotten too chaotic for me. So I really don't play much of any edition of it any more.

 

[Greg K]

I don't mind splats. I just dont' like the 3e and 4e format for classes and races.
I prefer the formats 2e Complete Handbooks and Green Ronin's Master Class series.

 

[Lanefan]

I think point 3 is probably right out tho, b/c selling splats is a large part of their planned revenue stream for pretty much every edition.

Which raises a key point:

In discussions like this, should we stick to what we see as best for the *game*, or lob in consideration of what's best for the industry and-or company? It matters; as all too often the two are at odds, with splats being an obvious example (generally bad for the game, good for the industry).

Lanefan

 

[gamerprinter]

i think it is part of their business plan, but I also think it is what forces them to release new editions and ".5's" so often. It also seems to be working against them now. I don't think the 4E people are that interested in a new edition, and I think the people who rejected 4E aren't interested in a new edition that will be supplanted by yet another edition or half edition. I really think most gamers want a certain amount of stability in their product. To me this is like changing the recipe for coke every 8 years.

One of the reasons I moved to savage worlds over D&D is seems to be pretty stable at this point. It is another reason I have gone back to playing more Cthulu (across several editions it is still a familiar system). But D&D has just gotten too chaotic for me. So I really don't play much of any edition of it any more.

While I still like 3.5, this was my primary issue with it, was the endless splats - the heavy production schedule. And its one of the issues why I won't purchase WotC products, because I can't keep up/afford the endless purchasing to keep current with the game.

Lisa Stevens, CEO at Paizo has stated that when she was at WotC and Ryan Dancy leading things the initial business plan was to release only 3 to 4 books a year, and make the effort to create great adventures that best supplement the game. However, after initial planning the design staff was moved around, some left the company, changes were made. By the time 3.0 was rolling out a whole different business plan came into existence - the one we saw.

Had WotC stuck with a more limited splat production schedule and really made the effort to create good adventures - it might have been less profitable, as well as it might have allowed 3x to last longer on the market and not come to its defined end so quickly.

I'm not saying this was what WotC should have done, as it probably would have been less profitable (?)

However, this is Paizo's business plan, and hopefully something that can keep PF on the market longer without reaching saturation for a long time.

 

[prosfilaes]

In discussions like this, should we stick to what we see as best for the *game*, or lob in consideration of what's best for the industry and-or company? It matters; as all too often the two are at odds, with splats being an obvious example (generally bad for the game, good for the industry).

Somewhere between the three, no? A company shouldn't need someone to lobby for it, that's their job, but when arguing for what's best for the game or industry, it's not really productive to argue for anything that's just not going to happen.

 

[nedjer]

It's a bit hard to muster enthusiasm for 5E when all we got is two designers at its helm who are both past their prime and peak.

And if memory serves, no single designer in the whole history of D&D has ever delivered two convincing takes on it.

I'm more optimistic for 6E. Where I can sign up for the P500?

Can you pinpoint what puts someone past their peak, as I may have passed mine? Wouldn't want to be last in line for the world's dwindling supply of Zimmer frames