D&D 5E Reality Check: What 5E Will NOT Be

[ferratus]

Yes, but from what I know that Module is a floorplan with notes that say "4 goblins" and "2 bugbears". Maybe there are some traps that need actual rules, but those are converted in 10 minutes.

Though I don't think it will be like the 4e conversion of "G1, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief" where there had to be a slight conversion to the actual floorplan of the original adventure. Or hopefully, a need to swap out monsters or set it to a different level. Converting Temple of Elemental Evil to 4e would probably require characters of level 12+ to handle everything in it.

 

[Yora]

Though I wouldn't regard that as being compatible. Compatibility would be using creatures, classes, spells, and equipment right out of the book.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What is resurrection survival?

To add to the above, it was a percentage chance, based on your Con, which didn't make much sense and seemed rather capricious. Not that resurrection should be easy necessarily, but this wasn't the way.

 

[Reynard]

It's informative, I think, that the OP is a dig at OSR gamers (plus some psionic-y sounding thing). See, that the idea of an inclusive 5E has drummed up so much interest among people that have otherwise abandoned the current, official version of D&D is really, really important. I gather from the seminar transcripts that the design team knows this, even if there's this really dismissive, combative segment of the fan base.

 

[Sammael]

Just to chime in, the resurrection survival was a sort of a "death spiral" implanted to insure that your character couldn't be resurrected ad infinitum. Every time you got resurrected, you lost a point of Con, which in turn reduced your resurrection survival chance.

 

[nedjer]

Though I wouldn't regard that as being compatible. Compatibility would be using creatures, classes, spells, and equipment right out of the book.

That'd be asking them to reproduce and support each edition, which would involve an endless process of translation to arrive right back where they started. It would also lock the design into the mechanical difficulties in each edition.

So far as I've seen they're not claiming to exactly reproduce editions and bolt a few bridges between them. What they seem to be offering is a modern, parallel design, which is capable of delivering the gameplay experience of each edition, (using a language-based engine with sufficient connectivity to allow edition-focused gameplay styles or strands to merge at the table). So, if all goes well, we get the gameplay of whatever version we like, but it runs faster, it isn't hobbled by a legacy of mechanical glitches and is very quick to learn.

Guess my glass is half full on this Gets filled right up in another EN thread.

 

[Mercurius]

Not that I expect it to reappear, but what's unwieldy about resurrection survival?

It is an unnecessary sub-system that adds nothing to the game that couldn't be accomplished with some kind of CON check. This, I think, was the main innovation with d20/3E - it cut out a lot of necessary systems by focusing more on the core mechanic.

Not to derail the thread, but it seems that 4E took this too far with the power system by making all characters run by the same system, which ended up homogenizing it. It I get the 5E design goals right, they're keeping the core mechanic, simplifying the basic ("required") game around it, and thereby leaving room for greater differentiation with sub-systems so that, for instance, different types of spellcasters can use different systems of magic without the whole thing becoming unwieldy.

I dunno about that....

"We hope to create a system that allows players to use much of their existing content, regardless of the edition." - Mike Mearls.

It's not for nothing that the first open playtest was Caves of Chaos.

To play Asmodeus' Advocate for a moment, the operate word there is "much." Using "much" of the existing content of previous editions could simply be about the fluff, although that would seem a tad disingenuous. I'm thinking, thought, that what it means is that they hope to allow easy conversion of material from other editions into 5E, even to the point that one could, for instance, run a Pathfinder Adventure Path with 5E without a ton of preliminary prep time.

Perhaps 5E should be called the Rosetta Stone Edition?

It's informative, I think, that the OP is a dig at OSR gamers (plus some psionic-y sounding thing). See, that the idea of an inclusive 5E has drummed up so much interest among people that have otherwise abandoned the current, official version of D&D is really, really important. I gather from the seminar transcripts that the design team knows this, even if there's this really dismissive, combative segment of the fan base.

Relax, Reynard. I'm not digging at OSR gamers as a group; what I'm digging at is the attitude that 5E is somehow going to re-create any specific edition, and it isn't just pre-WotC D&D I'm talking about. And I'm not really "digging" at it as much as saying that it is erroneous and even a tad misguided.

I'm just saying that 5E inclusiveness shouldn't be taken as literally as some people are taking it to be, that M&M have been really clear about using the phrase in the style of. My guess is that there is going to be a segment of folks, hopefully a minority, that are disappointed by the fact that 5E isn't a retro-clone of their edition of choice.

By the way, I'm currently in the process of abandoning--or at least shelving for a time--the current, official version of D&D in favor of Pathfinder, at least until 5E comes out.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=83796]nedjer[/MENTION], well said. I guess I must have XPed you too recently, so have some virtual kudos.

 

[Reynard]

Relax, Reynard. I'm not digging at OSR gamers as a group; what I'm digging at is the attitude that 5E is somehow going to re-create any specific edition, and it isn't just pre-WotC D&D I'm talking about. And I'm not really "digging" at it as much as saying that it is erroneous and even a tad misguided.

I don't think most people think that; I think most people have their interest piqued by this concept of inclusive ness. Granted, I don't think 5E (or any game, for that matter) can pull it off, but that we want it to is the important thing. D&D means something, it *is* something, even if that thing is nebulous and subjective and hard to pin down, and I think, above all other aspects, 4E "failed" in that it didn't understand that. A 5E that understands that, even if it doesn't bring back THAC0 or keeps healing surges, is a lot more likely to reinvigorate and possible un-fracture the fanbase.

By the way, I'm currently in the process of abandoning--or at least shelving for a time--the current, official version of D&D in favor of Pathfinder, at least until 5E comes out.

Good luck to you. Pathfinder "feels like" D&D to me in most of the traditional ways, as well as coming up with some really innovative solutions to certain problems (clerics' channeling being one of my favorites). It still suffers from being hard to run on the fly and the stat blocks for bad guys are too damn big, but the Beginner Box showed potential for fixing the latter, at least. In any case, it is certainly worth exploring in the interim and I can't recommend the Kingmaker Adventure Path enough if exploration and player-centered setting development are things you enjoy (otherwise, find yourself copies of Rise of the Runelords; it's an instant classic).

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think most people think that; I think most people have their interest piqued by this concept of inclusive ness. Granted, I don't think 5E (or any game, for that matter) can pull it off, but that we want it to is the important thing. D&D means something, it *is* something, even if that thing is nebulous and subjective and hard to pin down, and I think, above all other aspects, 4E "failed" in that it didn't understand that. A 5E that understands that, even if it doesn't bring back THAC0 or keeps healing surges, is a lot more likely to reinvigorate and possible un-fracture the fanbase.

Yeah, I hear you - and I'm excited about the inclusiveness as well. I just keep on seeing comments here and there that are something to the effect of what I'm talking about. It isn't overwhelming but it is there.

Good luck to you. Pathfinder "feels like" D&D to me in most of the traditional ways, as well as coming up with some really innovative solutions to certain problems (clerics' channeling being one of my favorites). It still suffers from being hard to run on the fly and the stat blocks for bad guys are too damn big, but the Beginner Box showed potential for fixing the latter, at least. In any case, it is certainly worth exploring in the interim and I can't recommend the Kingmaker Adventure Path enough if exploration and player-centered setting development are things you enjoy (otherwise, find yourself copies of Rise of the Runelords; it's an instant classic).

Kingmaker is one of the ones I'm considering, along with Legacy of Fire, Serpent's Skull and Runelords. But given that the first volume of Runelords is OOP and going for $50, I'm going to wait for [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Adventure-Path-Runelords-Anniversary/dp/1601254369/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1327814690&sr=8-5"]this baby[/ame] coming out in July.