Dungeons And Dragons 5th Edition Announced!

Heh. Well, that WOULD be a throwback to AD&D, wouldn't it? Ranger, Paladin, and I think Barbarian were all "sub-classes" of Fighter back then. *

I could see that working - you have four base classes (Magic-User, Rogue, Priest, and Fighting-Man that are basically just a framework to hang class features on, and then you pick a package of features that corresponds to one of the classic classes. (IE, you decide to be a Fighting-Man, and then you take the class features for the "Paladin" archetype, meaning you get Smite Evil, Aura of Justice, and whatever.)

If nothing else, it probably saves space in the rulebook...

edited 14th Jan '12 10:11:52 AM by Aldheim

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

I had a vision of a system that would be similar in practise. You've got your power sources (for instance, arcane magic) and your function archetype (ranged damage, melee damage, tank, support, debuff, battlefield manipulation, etc)

From one source, you could get wizards (control), sorcerers (ranged damage), bards (support), swordmages (melee damage or tank) et cetera, all operating under the same mechanic system (say, prepared spells), differentiated by power/technique sets and unique features. Multiclassing would be made very simple by this, and each "class" more versatile.

edited 14th Jan '12 11:23:13 AM by Exelixi

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

Damn, you guys have better idea then me if the goal is 'avoid homogenization' since homogenization was exactly what I was going to shoot for.

On the subject of trimming the character class fat while keeping lots of options, what if they used a Saga Edition-esque "talent tree" system? One fighter might focus on taking talents from the barbarian talent tree almost exclusively, while another fighter might prefer to mix and match a few talents from paladin and ranger talent trees to create a roaming vampire hunter.

Add me on Skype: Al Cook (darnpenguin)

I never picked up Saga edition, but it sounds (roughly) like what they did in d20Modern, which I would be fine with.

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

ICV 2 surveys are worthless, they cover a tiny fraction of the total book sales.

No, it says that they've been content to not release any new major content. While Pazio has no problem releasing terrible books.

No.

No No No No No No No No No.

First off, each class plays completely differently. The only "homogenization" was that you could now switch to another class without learning a whole new set of rules. Fighters play differently then Wizards which played differently then Paladins which played differently then Monks.

Every class should have the same design backbone It not only makes the game easier to play, but easier to balance. Otherwise you're not just balancing one game, but multiple

In your example, how exactly would you balance three different ways of handing resources. Also, that "move card" list is the most terrible idea ever. You're basically saying that the fighting classes should have no tactical input at all, since you're drawing random cards.

Except that the point of classes is easy archtypes. Making the archetypes overly broad removes the point of a class based system. Which is part of what made 3.5 so terrible. (Wizards could literally fulfill any role and replace any class)

edited 14th Jan '12 7:46:55 PM by PataHikari

It doesn't make any sense that they would quit selling books for a product line that was doing well. Even if 5E were in the early design stages for the past year (unlikely, as Monte Cook, the lead designer, has only been back in Seattle working for Wot C for a few months), I don't think they would back off of their release schedule until they were about to announce 5E unless the line was doing poorly. It makes sense to taper off the releases once everyone knows 5E is coming, but prior to that, they would still want people buying new 4E books.

ICV 2 may be a fairly small part of the book sales, but it's literally the only thing we have to go off of, since neither Wizards nor Paizo release sales figures. It still is a pretty accurate reflection of the "core gamer" demographic (since those are the people most likely to shop in hobby stores.) And Amazon sales ranking seems like the closest thing we can get to an "overall picture" of the market. In both of those listings, Pathfinder is just doing a lot better than one would expect it to if D&D were currently a healthy product line.

(Again, none of this is championing one system over another. You may think Pathfinder is terrible and I may like Pathfinder a lot, but that's inconsequential to this situation - I'm talking about sales, and everything Wizards has done recently indicates that 4E just isn't performing as well as it needed to in order to justify itself as a core brand of Wizards/Hasbro. And everything available shows that Pathfinder is currently leading the market.)

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

I like the idea of 'move cards' myself.

hashtagsarestupid

No. Bad idea. Bad, bad idea. That would mean the fighter has literally no input on the game. Making the fighters feel relevant is something that needs improved upon, not fucked up even worse.

Also, martial arts aren't random. You train every day for years upon years so that you know exactly what to do in a situation, not so that you can flail about wildly.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

Considering what I read from other D&D forums, Wot C's stated goal of uniting all players under 5e seems so damn hopeless. The only way they're gonna make everybody happy is if they stapled every single edition together into one giant book, sell that as 5e and tell people to play what they want.

Oh god. Just when I could finally play 4e in peace without hearing people whinning.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

The cards don't have to be draw a random gees...

Any way we are getting a head of ourselves. 5 won't be on the market until at least 2013

Hey another 4e player *bro fist*

edited 14th Jan '12 9:14:44 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Yeah, it's going to be really difficult. Especially because there's the question of what "going back to AD&D" means, too... Like, is it a purely spiritual thing (getting back to the "feel" of early D&D?) Does it involve bringing back some of the old idiosyncrasies of the system (negative armor class? THAC 0?) I personally hope not, but then again, I'm a 3rd Edition boy and I wasn't raised on that stuff. Lots of people aren't. What parts count?

I should look into some of the retro-clones and see how they handle these things...

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

To be honest, I just hope 5th Ed is as DM friendly as 4e was. As a DM that's been at it for decades, I never had as much fun D Ming as I did in 4e. Designing monsters who were (somewhat) balanced was intuitive, for the first time. I could do more, with less prep time. That's something that 5e has better keep. A happy DM makes for happy players.

*bro fist*

edited 14th Jan '12 9:12:02 PM by Ghilz

How hot is everyone on maps and miniatures? Do you want them in 5e? Why/why not?

hashtagsarestupid

I do. They help you keep track of the scene of a battle.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

I do. It's a time saver. No need to have this exchange

• Player A: What do I see?
• DM Explains
• Player A does his turn
• Player B: What do I see?
• DM Explains
• Player B does his turn

Repeat constantly. When I jumped to 3e, I wasn't sure about mats and minis, but they won me over. Heck, I use them in systems without mats, because it such a life saver in the end.

I like using minis, though I also like the option not to use them if I so choose, since without a ton of work, it's really, really hard to use minis for non-2D fighting. I also like it better when distances are expressed in feet or meters than squares, just because "square" is inherently metagame thinking. (Your dwarf has no clue how big a "square" is, y'know?)

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

Agreed.

Gaming sessions are long enough. Anything that helps keep things simple and fast without taking away from the experience should be included.

Plus, it's fun to pick out a little miniature that looks like your charrie. <_<

Also agreed on that. But it would be pretty simple to say "a square on this grid is 5x5, your dwarf moves at 25 feet a (length of time a turn takes)."

edited 14th Jan '12 9:24:35 PM by Exelixi

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

I also wish there were more female miniatures that weren't sporting a Chainmail Bikini aesthetic, but I guess that's another topic.

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

Honestly, looking back, I am not surprised 5e is coming so soon. But I don't think the "controversy" or the edition war has that much to do with it. Wizard's been accumulating missteps and fiasco. The promised online tools and D&D Insider have had less than stellar results. I think it's more an attempt to "wipe the slate clean" so to speak.

Still, things I got out of 4E I hope make it to 5E:

• The party balance. It's nice to have an edition where everyone feels needed in the party. No one ends up becoming the sole power house or left by the road side. Yeah, I get that some people felt the classes were too samey. But still, I hope they strive to keep that balanced feel.
• The DM Friendliness. Again. 4E was the first edition to actually put effort on making the DM's life easier. The previous edition, the DM stuff always felt like almost an afterthought "Well we gotta pad out the DMG somehow" kind of deal. 4E gave me concrete rules to make balanced*
  Kinda. NPC crafting rules were completely broken
  monsters with my imagination as the limit. Rather than the vague rules of previous editions of "Figure out some numbers and try to balance it on your own. You are alone DM!"
  • The various monster types. Minions, Elites, Solos. Those were a stroke of genius, made encounters so much more varied. These things have to stay.

Things 4E lacked I'd kinda like to see return:

• The Customizability. I'll admit, 3/3.5's appeal what the ability to make anything you wanted. The sheer flexibility and customization. The ability to stat out any vision you had. 4E was way more rigid in comparison.

edited 14th Jan '12 9:35:15 PM by Ghilz

I can get behind most of this. The only thing I don't particularly care for are minions, but that's mainly just because I didn't care for the specific way those rules were implemented in 4E. The "mook" role is a good one to have.

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!

I'll just say that D&D female characters are way, way, way less... I guess the word would be "objectified" since D&D left TSR and went to Wizards of the Coast.

I still have 2nd ed books, you should see some of the chainmail bikinis in there. It's like one step removed from a Luis Royo or Boris Vallejo painting.

I also do not like how women are portrayed. It perpetuates the stereotype that tabletop gamers are lonely, perverted nerds who can't get laid.

That, and the swordsman in me screams "THAT IS NOT HOW THE FUCK ARMOUR WORKS GORRAMMIT" every time I see failuriffic armour.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-