D&D 5E The high-level play I'm hoping for.

[Dungeoneer]

When you take a pot shot at an edition, even if it's just a drive by, it is indeed edition warring, even if nobody fires back. Instead of defending those pot shots, it might be more constructive to figure out, in the future, how to make your point without taking such shots. It really is possible to have civil discussion without sniping at one game or another. We do it here all the time.

In XVoK's defense, he was doing this back when I was hanging out on the WotC community boards, like three years ago. He's had quite a long time to build up his edition warring habit. I'm sure that makes it hard to break!

 

[Halivar]

I have stated my bad experiences with 4th edition becuase that is the edition that gave me the most amd I don't want the current one to become anything like it.

The problem here is that the thing (in this thread) that you "disliked" has been a significant feature, and possibly the chief conceit, of D&D since 1974. I mean, you would have to be living under a rock to think that 4E introduced or expanded upon the concept of the ladder of enemies that ends in fighting The Tarrasque, because it was always thus. Always.

 

[Storminator]

The problem here is that the thing (in this thread) that you "disliked" has been a significant feature, and possibly the chief conceit, of D&D since 1974. I mean, you would have to be living under a rock to think that 4E introduced or expanded upon the concept of the ladder of enemies that ends in fighting The Tarrasque, because it was always thus. Always.

It is, in fact, the only reason D&D has a dozen humanoids to fight. Need one with less than a HD, one with exactly a HD, one with 1+1, one with 2 . . .

PS

 

[Jester David]

I'm hoping for something like Pathfinder's Mythic rules and expanded Epic rules, so you ca keep things simple, or make everyone badass, or level-up to optional god killer levels and abilities.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Because it's the truth! Everytime someone mentions what they don't like about a previous edition in relation to a current or future one is not edition warring. All that is is a lame ass excuse for people to get a discussion closed because it is talking about their preferred edition in a negative. All I can tell you is just get over it. It is only an edition war issue when the other side calls it one. Previous editions have to get mentioned when discussing these things whether it's in a positive or a negative. I have stated my bad experiences with 4th edition becuase that is the edition that gave me the most amd I don't want the current one to become anything like it. Now if you can't have a discussion without 'you' or anyone else turning it into an edition war issue then how about you just not contribute to the discussion.

Here's the question you haven't answered: why are you still trashing 4e in a 5e forum?

Nobody wants to hear why you hate 4e. Nothing you say is remotely new to any of us, and most of us (including me) really aren't even 4e fans.
This is a place to Discuss D&D Next, not the 'I hate 4e' soapbox.

The ironic thing is that each time you spout off something you despise about 4th edition, that same issue has been 'fixed' in 5e and does a better job implementing the rule than 3rd or any other edition. You began this thread complaining how you wanted low level monsters like orcs to remain a challenge longer, even at high level play. Guess what? D&D Next has made that very issue a design goal of the game, and implements it quite nicely.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Here's the question you haven't answered: why are you still trashing 4e in a 5e forum?

Nobody wants to hear why you hate 4e. Nothing you say is remotely new to any of us, and most of us (including me) really aren't even 4e fans.
This is a place to Discuss D&D Next, not the 'I hate 4e' soapbox.

The ironic thing is that each time you spout off something you despise about 4th edition, that same issue has been 'fixed' in 5e and does a better job implementing the rule than 3rd or any other edition. You began this thread complaining how you wanted low level monsters like orcs to remain a challenge longer, even at high level play. Guess what? D&D Next has made that very issue a design goal of the game, and implements it quite nicely.

If you don't know the answer then you shouldn't be asking the question. We are are discussing an edition in the works and of course things get discussed between the newest edition and the previous ones. Especially of it's things you don't want in the new that existed in the previous. At the end of the day, you cam hit the report button. Let the mods decide what is edition war and what is not. It's not up to you to make the call.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

When you take a pot shot at an edition, even if it's just a drive by, it is indeed edition warring, even if nobody fires back. Instead of defending those pot shots, it might be more constructive to figure out, in the future, how to make your point without taking such shots. It really is possible to have civil discussion without sniping at one game or another. We do it here all the time.

Back on topic, another thing I would really like to see as an option for high level play, either in the core rules or as a module, is a combination of domain management and mass combat rules- stuff that enables the old school "run a duchy" style of game. I'd love naval and siege warfare rules, too.

Jester, let's not go there because I've part of these forums for a long time. I know what's 'done' here and I wouldn't be making such claims because I know what's true and what isn't. It's like I told Wulfgar, click that report button and let the mods decide what is edition warring. I'm not going to cease mentioning previous editions in a negative way just because it might hurt your feelings. This is a discussion about high level play and what I want out of it. 4th edition had a style I don't want carried over. Some of you seem to forget, this edition is supposed to be a mixture of previous editions so the discussion about them is unavoidable.

 

[Halivar]

4th edition had a style I don't want carried over. Some of you seem to forget, this edition is supposed to be a mixture of previous editions so the discussion about them is unavoidable.

You keep avoiding the fact that this thread is about a playstyle you don't like (endless ladder of monsters) in Next that is a part of every single edition of D&D since 1974. It is​ D&D. At some point you need to come to grips with the fact that you just don't like D&D, and a flatter progression game like Fate is probably more your speed.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Here's the question you haven't answered: why are you still trashing 4e in a 5e forum?

This isn't a 5e forum though. If you go to the main forum page and click "D&D Next" it takes you to the generic D&D forum, it just filters for threads with the Next tag. But it's still a forum for all D&D and this thread is mixed in with all other editions if you go there.

 

[Wyckedemus]

You can do the exact same thing in 4e as well. Take a normal orc, apply a class template, and increase its level to whatever level is suitable. All of this is in the DMG. You can face a level 20 orc Fighter in 3e... and you can face a level 20 orc Fighter in 4e. Besides some minor differences in how the mechanics work they're essentially the same.

And I know that you started this thread but can we just stop slamming 4e for a change? This is about what we hope to see in Next, not to endlessly repeat (ill-conceived) critiques about past editions.

XunVanDorl and Sage Genesis, the way 3E and 4E did it is exactly what I don't want in 5E. I don't want to have to scale orcs to Level 25 in order to challenge the heroes.

I want Level 18 heroes in D&D Next to be able to fight wars against normal orc hordes alongside the towns, militias, and armies they are helping. The flatter math/Bounded Accuracy of 5E lets the orcs be low level monsters that still challenge the heroes, without having to justify why hordes of Level 18 orcs exist and why they haven't conquered the world beforehand. This still allows for orc champions/kings to scale a little closer to the heroes if the DM wants.

In my epic 4E (FR) and 3E (Eberron) games, the heroes scaled way beyond the people of the world, which helped in causing a disconnect from said world. They had little respect for authority or appreciation of danger in the world because nothing could challenge them. And the game mechanics/rules of the universe supported that way of thinking as logical. When it really wasn't.

... in my opinion.