FireLance
Legend
To be frank, I think WotC would be better served by keeping the mechanics of 4e, but bringing back the feel of 3.5e. But then again, I'm biased.
(As an aside, "4e rules, 3e feel" would be a great tagline.
)
D&D 5E [Poll] Do You Like The Direction D&DN Is Heading In?
- Thread starter Bobbum Man
- Start date
(As an aside, "4e rules, 3e feel" would be a great tagline.
)
Yora
Legend
I do like the 5th edition character chasis better than then d20 SRD one. The endless growth of BAB and AC and the fiddly skill point system are about my biggest complaints with 3rd Edition Keeping BAB flat, skills down to trained/untrained, and siplefing saves is something I really like. However, I don't really like the racial features and class features, and combat expertise for everyone except fighters seems just bad.
If thins continue as they do and there will be some decend OGL-like thingy, I might whip up my own total conversion right from the start, like Conan d20 or Warcraft RPG.
If thins continue as they do and there will be some decend OGL-like thingy, I might whip up my own total conversion right from the start, like Conan d20 or Warcraft RPG.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Errata'd versions of 6 of the 8 PHB classes have been published for free by WotC. (I don't know why they didn't publish the two remaining classes).
Fighter
Warlord
Warlock
Cleric
Rogue (there may be a better link but I don't think so)
Wizard
And both Martial Power and Martial Power 2 rock. That said it would probably be easier to persuade players used to older editions of D&D to use Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the thief and fighter alternatives in there.
To be frank, I think WotC would be better served by keeping the mechanics of 4e, but bringing back the feel of 3.5e. But then again, I'm biased.
(As an aside, "4e rules, 3e feel" would be a great tagline.
I was going to say just this, so I guess there' something we can agree on. Bring back the wide-open feel of 3e with the mathematical tuning of 4e, and I'd pre-order 5e now.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
Cool! Thanks for the links! I think I'd rather just try to drum up a new 4e group. Love my grognardish friends and enjoy playing with them, but its an uphill battle that I'm not really interested in fighting.
The Human Target
Adventurer
I have checked in on 5e in a while by checked out the latest Playtest.
Eh, its still pretty much the same as I have felt.
While I like a lot of of the broad ideas, the actual implementation feels like cutting and pasting stuff from previous editions and really looking backwards too much for answers.
Monsters are especially disappointing, though I understand they aren't close to being done with them.
Eh, its still pretty much the same as I have felt.
While I like a lot of of the broad ideas, the actual implementation feels like cutting and pasting stuff from previous editions and really looking backwards too much for answers.
Monsters are especially disappointing, though I understand they aren't close to being done with them.
adembroski
First Post
To be frank, I think WotC would be better served by keeping the mechanics of 4e, but bringing back the feel of 3.5e. But then again, I'm biased.
(As an aside, "4e rules, 3e feel" would be a great tagline.
I agree, but don't believe it's possible. The mechanics of 4E just take me out of the game too much. Admittedly, I haven't played it much, but that's because it's so dissociated.
I'll be honest, I'm really not a fan of the new gaming mentality. I know the discussions been done to death because I've recently been googling this stuff, but I wasn't really part of it and I'm just kinda catching up now (I've been away from the game for a while), and I'm definitely one of the Pro-3.5 people.
Honestly, from what I've seen so far of 5th Edition, I have a feeling I'll be sticking with 3rd. That said, one thing that has me hopeful... the less built-in leveling bonuses might allow me to create a more gritty campaign beyond 5th level.
FireLance
Legend
IMO, there is nothing inherently disassociative about the 4e mechanics.
A group that finds a specific power to be disassociative (and since this is quite subjective, what is considered "disassociative" can vary from group to group) can simply decide not to use it, in much the same way that the group could decide not to use a class, spell or feat that they considered unbalanced or unsuited to the campaign in other editions of D&D.
Some other groups have problems with martial daily and encounter powers, and others just have problems with martial daily powers, and 4e itself provides a mitigation or solution in the form of the Essentials martial classes.
Groups that don't like non-magical healing (an issue which tends to be inaccurately described as a problem with "healing surges", although the two concepts are actually quite distinct) can simply decide not to use the second wind action, the ability to spend healing surges during an short rest, and any classes and powers that provide non-magical healing.
I'm not going to clutter this thread further, but if anyone wishes to continue this conversation, I'd be willing to discuss it in greater detail in another thread.
To be frank, I think WotC would be better served by keeping the mechanics of 4e, but bringing back the feel of 3.5e. But then again, I'm biased.
I don't think that's a reasonable thing to ask for. While mechanics do not fully determine "feel", they do strongly influence it. So, what you're saying is kind of like, "I want them to keep the strawberries in the ice cream, but have it taste like vanilla".
FireLance
Legend
My thought was that you could keep the subset of the 4e mechanics that are in line with the 3e "feel" (stuff line attack rolls, damage rolls and skill checks are pretty much the same, after all), and tweak the other mechanics as necessary to (say) bring in a more simulationist slant. We could discuss specifics, if you have any mechanics in mind which you think could be problematic.
