D&D 5E Would you consider 5th edition?

[Shazman]

I've played with various combinations of 4E characters at various levels, with varying degrees of optimization and tactical prowess, and one thing remains consistant. Without exception, combat takes way too long to resolve. I have played in exactly one LFR mod that took about 4 hours to play, and that was only possible because it ended up consisting almost completely of skill challenges (because of the chioces the PC's made) instead of combat encounters.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Sad to say I would be so Down for a 4.5e.. Though mainly because I really don't buy the books anymore, as all the crunch is in the DDI stuff, and I usually either run modules, or refluff everything for my home games.

Well, if handled correctly, a "4.5" edition would have little-to-no effect on people like you, since all the changes would appear transparently on D&Di

 

[Talysian]

The effect would obviously be there as the updates but yea I'd shell out for core books again but other then that. I'd really like some cleaning up of the system to get everything on a more similar page, without redoing how 85% of things work.

 

[Jhaelen]

The effect would obviously be there as the updates but yea I'd shell out for core books again but other then that. I'd really like some cleaning up of the system to get everything on a more similar page, without redoing how 85% of things work.

Won't we kinda get that via the D&D Essentials Rules Compendium?

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Won't we kinda get that via the D&D Essentials Rules Compendium?

As I understand it, the answer to that is Yes, for the updated rules (stealth, skill challenges, conditions, etc.)

But No, for some design errors in PHB1 that they later corrected in PHB2 (like classes depending on two abilities for attacks, or the alleged disparity between PC attack bonus and monster defense, etc.)

 

[pogre]

I'm in for the core books.

 

[Trainz]

(About 2nd edition...)

Yes. There wasn't much things to consider. You get dead levels almost all the time. The only thing left to do was to work on character concepts and roleplay the hell out of it. The extra rules were mostly optional anyway. Strip all of it to basics and you get BD&D.

Which is why I'd house rule in some 3.5/4th ed stuff. I love what they did with races in 4th ed (FINALLY a reason to pick race X over race Y), and of course feats. This way you'd get no dead levels but still work on a simple system.

 

[Ahglock]

It really depends on what the rules are like.

4E still has some glaring issues from my perspective:

All of those would be awesome. I also would like to get rid of dailies. I remember in 3e one of the complaints and reasons for 4es new system was the mage nova. Well when I was a DM for 4e, everyone went nova with dailies.

Nova and retreat became the standard, sure I could create ambushes from the remaining mobs etc. as a response to this But that just made the next nova more necessary than the last.

Maybe make encounter powers more impressive to compensate for it, have people constantly gain at wills that improve a bit or something.

But yeah overall I'd check out a 5e, and I'd give it a shot.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...with sub-par gear or feat/power choices...

That phrase and all of its close relatives always makes me cringe a bit.

 

[Zaran]

I agree with everything KD said in his first post.

Better expressed, I dislike magical effects in the Martial powers source. Rationals aside, having a dying PC suddenly jump up and be mostly whole and hearty because a Warlord ally across the room yelled "Get Up!" feels too much like magic to me.

I would love to see ALL of the Player's Handbook classes and races to get a rewrite. I can see the Warlord, for example, granting temporary hit points instead of real healing without using healing surges or using healing surges and then getting true healing for free during short rests.