I'd say it's closer to 1e than 3e, but sure, it's (5E) definitely backing away from anything and everything 4e did, including the above...
Completely, entirely, and absolutely Not True.
They don't even have the base math of the game done yet, which is most certainly a prerequisite when it comes to system balance and being able to modify it. And there are definitely design concepts in 5E that come straight from experiences and successes with 4E's design.
You keep stating this stuff from thread to thread to thread with absolutely no evidence.
Once and for all, I'm asking that you either show us the evidence supporting your declarations; or please, Please, PLEASE...stop exclaiming personal supposition and opinion as fact.
So how robust would 5th edition rules be with my groups play habits?
It's way too early to know. They have been talking about this, but until the base game and base math are nailed down, it's all still just conceptual for the designers. Also, things like Healing are still very much in development and currently being revamped (unfortunately though, they're saying this won't be available for the next playtest packet, so it will still include the original Healing mechanics, unchanged, as a place holder).
Class design is still being nailed down also. They're still very much just working on the base game, and trying to get that balanced. And the amount of resources characters have are still in flux (maneuvers, powers, spells, etc. - whatever they end up calling them).
My opinion though, is that they likely will not ignore the advances of 4E in this regard. And from the beginning of 5E's design process, the development team has been stating that 4E concepts, and this idea specifically (scaling encounters), are one's they want to carry forward into 5E. Also, with the Bounded Accuracy concept, rather than scaling attack bonuses, they're focusing on scaling Hit Points and Damage. With set expectations of Hit Points and Expected Damage based on level, and encounter building based on these numbers (using an XP budget); I expect that 5E will include how to do this, and how to scale it based on party size and level. Is this 3E'ish: Yes. But it's also 4E'ish in the goal and expectation of quick and easy encounter building. One point of optimism in this is the Beastiary in the playtest packet; although very simple, it had a 4E type layout and 4E type monster stat blocks (though I won't copy/past a sample here as that is against the agreement we all signed for the playtest, and against ENWorld's rules).
But don't just take it from me. Even though I haven't extolled my opinions as fact (as some here are wont to do), I am including evidence of what I'm posting...evidence straight from the mouth of WotC:
Rodney Thompson, Rule of Three 02/21/12
here
If there's something that 4E got really right, I think it's the organization and simplicity of the monster stat blocks. Is that something you'd like to continue in the next iteration of D&D?
This is a great question because it allows me to touch on a bigger picture concept as well. Certainly the 4th Edition presentation for monsters has a lot of advantages, and makes the game pretty straightforward to run. Whatever twists and turns the game's development takes, one of our goals is going to continue to be making the game easy for the DM to prep for and run, and the 4E monster stat block goes a long way to making that possible. That's not to say that I think it can't be improved upon; one of the things we will continue to do going forward is make sure that everything, from mechanics to formats, are serving our goals.
Of course, if we're going to create a game that helps unite the players of many editions, we're going to need to broaden our view of monster creation and modification. While many DMs want to build monsters using the target numbers-based system that 4th edition uses, some DMs may want to build their monsters like PCs, adding levels of cleric onto orcs to create enemies that also have many class features. Some DMs may want to use templates to create everything from a fiendish hobgoblin to a vampiric half-celestial animated chair. So we'll need to find ways to support those needs, without mandating them. That way, DMs who want to spend a great deal of time painstakingly crafting their monsters can do so, and DMs who just want to put the monster together quickly can do so as well, with both DMs finding support for their efforts in the same system.
Rodney Thompson, Rule of Three 03/20/12
here
Another awesome 4E innovation—minions. How are these one hit wonders influencing monster design for the next iteration of D&D?
One of the things we're exploring in the game is what we refer to as a
bounded accuracy system.
Effectively, we're looking into whether or not we can strip out the assumption of accuracy and defense scaling by level, and let progression rest largely within the scaling damage, hit points, and capabilities of both characters and monsters.
When you have this, any monster whose hit points are less than the damage you deal is, effectively, a minion. Thus, we might not need a specific minion rule, because we would simply design monsters with hit points that rest below average damage for certain levels and let that take care of it (in other words, we do want monsters in the game that do what minions do for us). At the same time, since as the player characters gain levels their damage numbers are going up, monsters that previously were not "minions" become "minions" by virtue of player damage outstripping their hit points. Since AC and attack bonuses aren't automatically scaling up, the orc that you fight at 1st level that took three hits to kill may only take 1 hit to kill at 6th level, making it a "minion" for heroes of that level.
Although the following quote came from an article more concerned with how to build a 5E Monster from the ground up, the part I excerpted does talk about how this applies to encounter design:
Mike Mearls Legends & Lore 7/23/2012
here
When it comes to combat, the math that our system uses assumes an adventuring day that lasts a number of rounds and involves a total experience point value for monsters based on the party’s level. Higher-level parties fight more and face tougher creatures.
The adventure design guidelines give an XP budget for an entire day, a range of XP values for easy, average, and tough fights, and a suggested maximum XP value for a single monster. In other words, you have a daily budget you can spend, guidelines for how much of that budget to spend on a given fight (i.e. an
encounter - added by me [El Mahdi]), and a limit of how much XP you can spend on a single monster. As with everything that focuses on the DM, this is all advice to use as you see fit.
In this system, a monster’s experience point value is the basic measure of its power. Tougher monsters are worth more XP. That’s the only number you have to worry about when building encounters and adventures.
The monster design process boils down to creating a monster’s stats and abilities, and then using the system math to determine its XP value.
All of this tells me that they're too far away from a finished product for any of us to know for certain how your concerns might be addressed in the system. However, they are definitely addressing those issues, and incorporating elements and concepts of both 3E and 4E in the design. I'm expecting really cool things from 5E based on what I've seen so far.
My advice: read the articles at WotC (archives
here, and especially the design blogs, Legends & Lore, and the Rule of Three articles); be a part of the playtest by downloading the next packet and trying it out; then add your voice to the discussions both here and at WotC (and definitely on the WotC's surveys that go out to those who've signed up for the playtest) and be a part of shaping the final form of the game. It's going to be an exciting ride over the next year or so. And who knows, 5E might end up being exactly what you want. But if it doesn't, 4E isn't going anywhere as long as there are people who want to DM and play it.
).
