D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[JoeGKushner]

Other Things WoTC Could do to Make 5e more useful:

PDF and eBooks of your rules. DDI provides some access to this information in electronic format but not enough. In addition, these should be priced similiar to other companies to reduce piracy. If iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, and others can figure out ways to make billions from electronic music that's the same as CD music, WoTC should've got the 'soon' part down a long time ago.

Provide the Encounter adventurers online for free after its finished running in the store. Provide the game stores a window of exclusiveness, but then realize that some of your fan base doesn't have a FLSG around them but would still like the material to play with their friends.

Make boxed sets boxed sets. The last two rounds of boxed sets have been like cereal boxes amd have not been cheap.Opening up on the top? WTF?

Either provide more high level support or drop it from the core game. Ever edition will have a sweet spot. Either acknowledge this and focus the game on that in the core or support it throughout the whole edition.

Setting Support: Provide setting support. this doesn't have to be one sourcebook a month, but it should be more than one a year.

Printed Adventure Support Across the Levels that are not only callbacks to previous editions: I'm not going to lie. I love seeing what WoTC does with the older adventurers when taking them to an ew edition. However, I'd like to see some more focus on new things in the new edition. While fighting Orcus was solid in the original AP for 4th ed, whatabout a brand new demon lord/prince or something else completely different like a outer planar old one from the Far Realm or something or that nature? D&D is a big pond, start showcasing how big.

Full Sized Maps in Dungeon: Is this happening yet? I can't for the life of me figure out why WoTC, or Paizo for the mater, don't have full scale maps and rely on the people buying their product to do this. they already have the image files no?

 

[CroBob]

I've been saying that for years. When I saw Green Ronin do it with True 20, it made perfect sense.

Once you no longer go the route of pre 3rd ed where stats having the same score meant different things depending on the stat, the actual utility of having 3-18 is diminished vastly.

I'm not sure many people would be comfortable playing a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" which did not have a scale for stats along the "3-18" lines. While stats are effectively -5 though 5 and higher, I think it'd be wiser to maintain the stats, but come up with a way for the actual number that the stat is to also matter. Back in the day, a stat check consisted of rolling a D20, and it was successful if you rolled your stat or less, so the stat numbering made some sense.

You could say that the stat numbering of modern iterations of the game are like a description. A man with a 17 STR is stronger than a man with a 16 STR, but it's not important mechanically. It's only really important when stats are rolled with dice, which is hardly ever done any more. It would seem to lose it's "D&Dness" without that stat layout, though.

So lose players for taking away a piece of the soul of the game, or think of a way to make the numerical value of a stat actually important somehow... somehow that doesn't seem tacked on.

Which is preferable? How would you do it?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"False accusations"??
I distinctly remember being lied to by WotC around a year ago. That lie was the major reason I cancelled my DDI account and why I'm no longer a customer of said company.

I don't see what your problem is and why you post in such a toxic way.

Toxic was the claims of lying as soon as 4E was started. Joe was one of the ones that kept saying it. But don't worry. I won't be responding to him any longer.

If you don't like toxic responses, then jump on the people that insist on making toxic opening statements. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure many people would be comfortable playing a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" which did not have a scale for stats along the "3-18" lines. While stats are effectively -5 though 5 and higher, I think it'd be wiser to maintain the stats, but come up with a way for the actual number that the stat is to also matter. Back in the day, a stat check consisted of rolling a D20, and it was successful if you rolled your stat or less, so the stat numbering made some sense.

You could say that the stat numbering of modern iterations of the game are like a description. A man with a 17 STR is stronger than a man with a 16 STR, but it's not important mechanically. It's only really important when stats are rolled with dice, which is hardly ever done any more. It would seem to lose it's "D&Dness" without that stat layout, though.

So lose players for taking away a piece of the soul of the game, or think of a way to make the numerical value of a stat actually important somehow... somehow that doesn't seem tacked on.

Which is preferable? How would you do it?

I would just keep it the way it is. Everyone understands it, it is simple, it retains the ability to roll up a PC in the most old-fashioned manner imaginable too. It doesn't hurt anything. Would I put it in a game I was designing right now that wasn't dragging around a legacy? No. OTOH I'd probably still want some way to apply a bell curve to a linear set of numbers, so even then there'd be a chart lurking somewhere in some book equating a throw of 3d6 to index it to the 'new' number.

So, '5e' should still have 3-18 STR for instance, yes.

 

[CroBob]

How much can you change a game and call it a new edition instead of a new game, is the question. I have ideas for games, and I got a lot of ideas from other games, but even if I had the rights, I wouldn't call it a new edition of the games I got ideas from. They're simply not similar enough.

 

[Kzach]

I don't see what your problem is and why you post in such a toxic way.

And yet, you read and post in the 4e discussion forum and make contentious comments about how much you hate the company and how they lied to you and stole your candy.

And Joe, nothing about the quote you posted was a lie.

 

[Oldtimer]

Toxic was the claims of lying as soon as 4E was started. Joe was one of the ones that kept saying it. But don't worry. I won't be responding to him any longer.

If you don't like toxic responses, then jump on the people that insist on making toxic opening statements. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

Well, in this case Joe was merely pointing to the lying done by WotC about a year ago regarding the future of the DDI Character Builder. There is nothing toxic about pointing out that lie. Bitter, but not toxic.

I didn't jump on you and I'm not engaging in hypocrisy. But I'm still waiting for your explanation of those "false accusations". So far, you are the only one I'm seeing unfounded accusations from.

 

[Oldtimer]

And yet, you read and post in the 4e discussion forum and make contentious comments about how much you hate the company and how they lied to you and stole your candy.

I read and post in the 4e discussion forum because I play 4e on a regular basis. It's a great game. If you have a problem with my posts, you might want to take it up with the moderators instead of being insulting.

 

[Umbran]

Wow. Can't you people find something more constructive to do with your weekend hours than rehash old hurts and start getting personal with each other over it? I'd find it odd if any of you thought anything useful would come out of that.

This whole section of the discussion, on both sides, looks pretty toxic. So, please drop it. The next person to engage in it further can expect a vacation from the thread, possibly the boards.

If you've any questions or comments, please take them to e-mail or PM with a moderator. Thanks, all!

 

[Angrydad]

hmm, we had a long-running 3.5E campaign that went from 2007 to early 2010 and took the players from level 1-18. One player in the group maxed out his Cooking skill and it was a big role-playing element for him - meet the King of Kingdomia and offer to cook him a meal, then go to the royal kitchen, meet some of the cooking staff there and get some juicy gossip from them... then, meet the Queen of Queensylvania and, after a solid, but bland meal, offer to give the royal chef some of his exotic recipes.

And, this guy made it a point of cooking for the party every time they set up camp for the night (he even bought masterwork cooking utensils) - so, it's not like he had no time to improve his skills.

similarly - if you have a player skilled in Dance or Acting or similar, that could also be a role-playing opportunity (i.e., show off your Travolta-esque moves to the pretty princess, or dance like Patrick Swayze with the comely bard, etc)

You've hi on my own thoughts exactly. Sure, some skills get a lot more table time as they're used in combat or in social interactions a lot more often, but I've always encouraged players to feel free to keep Craft and Profession type skills at high ranks as it creates great flavor for the character and game. Maybe it's not the most "optimized" way to go, but it's darn fun, and that's all that matters.