Where do you see (or want) 5.0 to go?

[theRogueRooster]

Do you want to fork this, and brainstorm ways to get your desired style of system? I'm sure there are plenty of indie games we could mine for ideas. Heck, maybe there's potential for a game product, Unearthed Arcana style, that could take 4e and give it a friendly shove in this direction.

I know that I would enjoy the opportunity to read and perhaps participate in this discussion.

-tRR

 

[Greg K]

• I'm not sure about going with a 4e style 1/2 level advancement (with an initial bonus to a specific defense based on stats) or the 3.5 chart advancement for BAB/Saves. 1/2 level slows it down, and cuts down on some of the extremes of 3.5

I actually like the 1/2 level adjustment plus the initial bonus for Defenses. It is the one thing for which I like it. I don't like it for BAB, skills (I like skill points), or ability checks

 

[AllisterH]

Nicely said. I've been trying to figure out why some of the balancing act bugs me, and this is a major factor. I don't care that rogues/thieves kinda suck in combat -- so long as they have some weight to pull through the rest of the dungeon. Etc. etc. etc.

Why is it ok for the MU (both arcane and divine) to have abilities that function both inside and outside of combat....

But the mundane classes got to choose?

 

[Krensky]

Why is it ok for the MU (both arcane and divine) to have abilities that function both inside and outside of combat....

But the mundane classes got to choose?

Why is it people always think the caster isn't choosing?

 

[AllisterH]

Why is it people always think the caster isn't choosing?

REally?

So when , one day I as a magic user chose the noncombat spells that help prepare us for the "encounter/dungeon" and then the next day, I choose the combat spells to actually

Or what about days when I do BOTH (who said you actually have to use ALL of your slots/scrolls for one or the other)?

You're equating that to the choice of selecting either a fighter (sucks at noncombat/great in combat) or a rogue (sucks at combat/great in noncombat).

If magic was built using the 4e method where combat magic was basically separate from ritual magic and to do either you had to choose between say the warmage class (casts only combat magic) and the ritualist (casts ritual non-combat focused magic)...

Then yea, I would equate it with being a choice between thief and fighter

(Personally, I'm not actually against that idea...either that, or simply eliminate the thief and have it so that the fighter can do BOTH combat and noncombat effectively but the idea of regressing back to the previous model? Not interested in the least)

 

[I'm A Banana]

FORK YOU.

And:

Why is it ok for the MU (both arcane and divine) to have abilities that function both inside and outside of combat....

But the mundane classes got to choose?

No one said that either of these things were OK. Mercule was pointing out the general idea that, when dungeons are the basis for balance, being weak in one area (like combat) and strong in another area (like overcoming traps) means that you are balanced, overall.

Which is fairly true, though I think I'd prefer to keep 4e's "everyone can contribute in every challenge" motif, so that the thief can add something unique to combat, and the fighter can add something unique to overcoming traps...though that's part of what the forked thread is brainstorming about.

 

[Krensky]

REally?

So when , one day I as a magic user chose the noncombat spells that help prepare us for the "encounter/dungeon" and then the next day, I choose the combat spells to actually

Or what about days when I do BOTH (who said you actually have to use ALL of your slots/scrolls for one or the other)?

You're equating that to the choice of selecting either a fighter (sucks at noncombat/great in combat) or a rogue (sucks at combat/great in noncombat).

If magic was built using the 4e method where combat magic was basically separate from ritual magic and to do either you had to choose between say the warmage class (casts only combat magic) and the ritualist (casts ritual non-combat focused magic)...

Then yea, I would equate it with being a choice between thief and fighter

(Personally, I'm not actually against that idea...either that, or simply eliminate the thief and have it so that the fighter can do BOTH combat and noncombat effectively but the idea of regressing back to the previous model? Not interested in the least)

All of which calls for fixing the magic system, and probably giving the fighter some more skill points, rather then make everyone be equally good at all things all the time.

 

[bagger245]

For 5e, the monster and npc building rules from 4e is almost perfect to me. Just tidy up some maths prob and its all good. Customizing monsters is so fun..

 

[Lanefan]

No one said that either of these things were OK. Mercule was pointing out the general idea that, when dungeons are the basis for balance, being weak in one area (like combat) and strong in another area (like overcoming traps) means that you are balanced, overall.

Which is fairly true, though I think I'd prefer to keep 4e's "everyone can contribute in every challenge" motif, so that the thief can add something unique to combat, and the fighter can add something unique to overcoming traps...though that's part of what the forked thread is brainstorming about.

Put me on the macro-balance side of the fence, rather than micro-balance.

I don't even mind a system where a character might find itself consigned to a support role for an entire adventure provided there's opportunities given for it to shine at other times. A good example is the 1e Illusionist: just about useless when the adventure is all about undead, but rocks right out when you're facing down a village of tiny-brained Ogres!

Lanefan

 

[thecasualoblivion]

It'll be an evolution of the game and not a revolution. Believe it or not, 4E was an evolution of 3E. A lot of what 4E is 3E tried to be with varying levels of success. 4E wasn't a revolution so much as it wasn't afraid to dump or entirely change things.

5E will make changes based on the complaints of people actually playing 4E. First and foremost, I expect the game to be faster. Of all complaints I here from people actually playing enjoying and playing the game, people complain that the game runs too slow.

I can make some predictions on what 5E will not be:

1. It will not be OGL.
2. It will not be point buy. D&D is at its heart a class based system and always will be.
3. It will still be a combat focused game, as it always has been.
4. I don't expect it to be simulationist to a great degree. It might not be quite as hostile to simulationism as 4E is, but any change in this direction will be minor if at all.
5. The aesthetics won't be tied to classic fantasy. If anything, it will go down the videogame/anime/comic book path further.


Last of all, I expect 5E to continue the tradition of being hated by fans of earlier editions more than the previous edition. If you as a fan of older versions of D&D dislike 4E, I fully expect 5E to be worse in that regard.