Arashi Ravenblade
First Post
I dont want a new edition. A revision at best.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Why do YOU want a new edition
- Thread starter Moggthegob
- Start date
HellHound
ENnies winner and NOT Scrappy Doo
Arashi Ravenblade said:
IMO, a revision will not provide the marketing leverage needed for Hasbro / WotC to be able to really push the game into the existing channels, create new ones, or the most important part, to create new audiences.
That's why I support new editions. We need new audiences and the best way to reach them is to leverage the marketing advantage of a new core rules release cycle.
But then again, I play old games with no product support most of the time, and work as a marketing professional. I'm watching this from the point of view of gaming as a whole, not primarily as a D&D player.
Odysseus
Explorer
Certainly I can understand why they need a new edition. Alot of the problems are rather core mechanics. So revising 3rd would be difficult. The 4E designers are certainly talking about the things that are wrong/need fixing with 3rd ed. Whether they can actually deliver the fixes, while keeping the stuff that works is my concern.
Mike Mearls BoIm was great if a bit crunchy. Then the Bo9S a good concept , but not implemented well. And we seem to be getting manuevers/stances along those lines. So even though the idea may be good. The implementation needs to be good as well.
And certainly the MI and resource manegment all need changing from the ground up.
The mechanics changes in Saga look reasonable. Although I'm not sure about the actions. Free, swift, immediate, move, standard. Seem alot But we'll have to see how it runs. I'm not sure how much simplier it actually is.
And core characters need reworking. Because they arn't core. DnD is some many things to some many people. Low/high magic, high fantasy/gritty, The core characters arn't core, and they need to be.
Mike Mearls BoIm was great if a bit crunchy. Then the Bo9S a good concept , but not implemented well. And we seem to be getting manuevers/stances along those lines. So even though the idea may be good. The implementation needs to be good as well.
And certainly the MI and resource manegment all need changing from the ground up.
The mechanics changes in Saga look reasonable. Although I'm not sure about the actions. Free, swift, immediate, move, standard. Seem alot But we'll have to see how it runs. I'm not sure how much simplier it actually is.
And core characters need reworking. Because they arn't core. DnD is some many things to some many people. Low/high magic, high fantasy/gritty, The core characters arn't core, and they need to be.
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I'm not sure I want the new edition, but I'm keeping an open mind about it. I'll decide whether or not I do want it based on more information as it comes out. If it sounds like a better overall game, I'll want it because it's a better overall game.
Because I want to give up on a system I've played and loved for quite some time in exchange for one they're making up on the fly without enough time to decently playtest. 
Seriously though, the one thing I am excited about is the fact that they mentioned alignment will be playing less of an active role. Alignment is a tricky concept and rarely can two players agree on where the lines should be drawn. I'm supposing they finally realized this and I'm hoping they're taking it out of the spell and item mechanics.
I also like what they've said about magic items being less essential to the characters (though the recent talk of such items being included in the players guide seems to contradict what they've already said).
I like the idea of releasing a PHB(x) and DMG(x) every year for a reasonably growing core, though only if they limit the number of side books they're adding stuff too.
That's about it. I'm gonna miss 3.5.
Seriously though, the one thing I am excited about is the fact that they mentioned alignment will be playing less of an active role. Alignment is a tricky concept and rarely can two players agree on where the lines should be drawn. I'm supposing they finally realized this and I'm hoping they're taking it out of the spell and item mechanics.
I also like what they've said about magic items being less essential to the characters (though the recent talk of such items being included in the players guide seems to contradict what they've already said).
I like the idea of releasing a PHB(x) and DMG(x) every year for a reasonably growing core, though only if they limit the number of side books they're adding stuff too.
That's about it. I'm gonna miss 3.5.
Last edited:
jollyninja
First Post
The reasons I want a new edition are as follows:
When third edition was released, all I saw was the inprovements over 2E, now all i can see are the flaws that have been mentionel by previous posters.
Because when I GM'd Iron Heroes, a d20 game that was written by Mike Mearls, I thought that it was what dnd should be. Hind quarter kicking heroes doing cool things constantly, each class able to "out-hero" the other classes in situations that favored their abilities with zero reliance on magic items, let alone needing aligned, magical weapons made of each special material to bypass dr. With low budget and little playtesting, it was broken as heck but the theme "My character is cool" is a step up from "my character has cool magic items" in my book. I ran Red hand of doom against the iron heroes system and while there were some balance issues that required tinkering, My players loved it and i had a good time as well.
I hate gnomes, they take up page space and in all the games I've been involved in over the last decade and a half, I have seen 2 gnomes played. I've seen more drow, more tieflings, more assimars, more goblins, more half dragons, more centaurs even more gith then i have seen gnomes. I'd be o.k. with halflings being gone too but I can't expect a single edition to trim all the fat. Gnome lacks archetype strength, unless the dragonlance tinker (which love or hate, brings an identity to mind at least) is brought in to the fold. In short, we don't need it, leave it out of the books i have to buy.
As for the playtesting, I consider it a good thing that there are going to be people who actually like the current edition involved. They will be a tempering factor that will hopefully prevent changes that add nothing to the game other then complexity in the name of innovation (Aoo's, graple rules ect). People like yourself who believed that DnD was fine prior to 3E are the reason we have armor that effects armor class in stead of reducing damage taken, vancian magic and magic missles with no saving throw, lawful good paladins and a few other "sacred cows" left over from 2E. Please just be honest in your appraisals of the new stuff, not just a hater because it's different. Just give it a chance.
When third edition was released, all I saw was the inprovements over 2E, now all i can see are the flaws that have been mentionel by previous posters.
Because when I GM'd Iron Heroes, a d20 game that was written by Mike Mearls, I thought that it was what dnd should be. Hind quarter kicking heroes doing cool things constantly, each class able to "out-hero" the other classes in situations that favored their abilities with zero reliance on magic items, let alone needing aligned, magical weapons made of each special material to bypass dr. With low budget and little playtesting, it was broken as heck but the theme "My character is cool" is a step up from "my character has cool magic items" in my book. I ran Red hand of doom against the iron heroes system and while there were some balance issues that required tinkering, My players loved it and i had a good time as well.
I hate gnomes, they take up page space and in all the games I've been involved in over the last decade and a half, I have seen 2 gnomes played. I've seen more drow, more tieflings, more assimars, more goblins, more half dragons, more centaurs even more gith then i have seen gnomes. I'd be o.k. with halflings being gone too but I can't expect a single edition to trim all the fat. Gnome lacks archetype strength, unless the dragonlance tinker (which love or hate, brings an identity to mind at least) is brought in to the fold. In short, we don't need it, leave it out of the books i have to buy.
As for the playtesting, I consider it a good thing that there are going to be people who actually like the current edition involved. They will be a tempering factor that will hopefully prevent changes that add nothing to the game other then complexity in the name of innovation (Aoo's, graple rules ect). People like yourself who believed that DnD was fine prior to 3E are the reason we have armor that effects armor class in stead of reducing damage taken, vancian magic and magic missles with no saving throw, lawful good paladins and a few other "sacred cows" left over from 2E. Please just be honest in your appraisals of the new stuff, not just a hater because it's different. Just give it a chance.
Moggthegob said:
<shrug> Probably the majority of the TRPG books on my shelf are out-of-print, but none of them are outdated. I can still play an out-of-print game, & I can still learn things from & be inspired by material no matter what system it was originally written for.
I'm not really pining for a new edition. But then, I don't really see 3e as a new edition of (A)D&D, but as a different game with some D&D veneer. I'm adapting that attitude towards 4e: I'm going to approach it as a new game, not a new edition of anything. & I'm nigh always excited about checking out a new TRPG.
Similar Threads
