Jump to content

Another new edition for Dungeons and Dragons


Recommended Posts

As I stopped getting 4e books awhile back & went with Pathfinder & S/W, I'll probably not even look at 5e. I didn't mind 4e but in the end my small dollar said Pathfinder. Mostly due to familiarity & as one poster said the setting & quality of the products that Paizo has put out swayed me.


I have no ills toward Wizard, they needed to compete not only vs other rpg companies but vs the mmo companies as well. (hold no ill to them either, as I too am a MMO player)


D&D as a name will always live on something I did to have a great time back in high school & such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Such a contentious topic, this probably should have been posted in Beekeepers. It may end up moved there yet…I’ll try not to be offensive, but this has been an open wound with me for quite some time and now it has been irritated again.



Of course, as a business they are free to do what they want and their priority is to make money, as are all businesses. However, Reaperbryan, your comparison between WotC and Reaper is apples/oranges and I’ll tell you why. Reaper didn't buy an iconic (even that word is ruined for me now) IP with a long history and then start releasing sub-standard crap under its name – just to cash in on that name. However, WotC DID buy a well-loved classic IP with a devout and vociferous following. The D&D franchise being what it is, like it or not, I believe they had an extra obligation to the legions of fans that they acquired along with the name. They failed miserably. I would include the caveat that this is of course just my opinion, but I am apparently not alone. Look at the fracturing of the fanbase. Yes, there are still many D&D fans that embraced 3/3.5 and even some that swallowed 4th (which still baffles the **** out of me), but they also alienated a large number of loyal fans as well. Witness the recent groundswell of people going back to OD&D, 1st Edition and the many classic clones that have cropped up. And that’s not just about business, the directions they took our (yes ‘our’) game only showed many of us that they didn’t really understand the property (or the players) they had acquired. They talk about the fracturing of the fanbase, but it is their own doing.



For what it's worth, my view of the various editions: When AD&D 2nd came out, I wasn’t happy with the kits, but it still had the D&D feel (which I still can’t define with words). 3/3.5 turned it into a comic book (with feats and prestige classes, not to mention the style of artwork they used in the books – big anime swords and all). Dare I even mention Eberron, with its non-tech robot player character race? Fourth edition was just a tabletop skirmish game trying to compete with video games. And now, if what Spike heard is correct (5th being more like Descent or Hero Quest), it’ll just be going back to a board game.



I’m sure they don’t want my input, but I’ll give it anyway. You want to make the ultimate D&D? Take Chaosium’s BRP and give it the 1st AD&D flavor. Oh wait, Chaosium has a Classic Fantasy supplement that does just that. WotC, I guess I don’t need you or 5th Edition. I think I would have preferred it if the IP had died when TSR did. At least the mourning would have been over by now.



Confession time; I was a D&D/AD&D purist (read snob) for decades, not that I’m proud of that. It caused me to miss many a fine game. Runequest intrigued me but it wasn’t D&D so I ignored it. There were plenty of others that I snubbed my nose at too. Note that this only extended to the fantasy genre, thank the fates. I was an early adopter of Call of Cthulhu as well as many games by GDW and others. In fact, the old CoC boxed set came with a thin booklet detailing Basic RolePlaying. However, at the time, their presentation seemed ‘cheap’, and I was already firmly in the D&D camp, so I didn’t give it more than a cursory examination, to my eternal regret.



It has taken me decades to admit that even the OD&D/1st Ed. AD&D rules weren’t very good (armor that makes you harder to hit instead of soaking damage, THAC0, Vancian magic, etc.). I now realize the ultimate edition of D&D (for me, anyway) never really existed. BRP rules with the 1st Edition flavor is what I wish it had been all along. And if it had been that from the beginning, I bet most of us would still be playing the same version, too…



I hope this made some semblance of reason, and not too offensive to anyone. This is a still a really sore subject for me and it’s hard to herd all my thoughts and opinions on this subject into a coherent whole.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I would say Mouseguard is a waste of money over a new edition of D&D.


I think the new edition has promise. If it really does fix problems of both 3 and 4, I know I will get it. I hated 3 and pathfinder.


Dr. Bedlam - have you followed the 4E releases? The last 2 years have not released spam books like the previous years. And they books are much more affordable than the Pathfinder ones - the new Essentials player books, that have all the rules, are $20. Releases have slowed down so they can get decent material in them. And the last few years of releases have been really good, IMO, since the new team over there took over (the guys who did 4E originally have been replaced by the guys who did the Essentails products). Essentials for 4E really feels like 1E or 2E to me. There is not piles of powers - you get a limited selection. Things like fighters get bonuses to actually fight, and not a ton of different things.


And, unlike Pathfinder / 3E, classes in 4E are actually balanced towards one another. 3E/2E/1E all have the problem where a 1st level fighter will always kill a 1st level mage. But a 15th level mage will always kill the fighter. And, I like having options in combat. If I play the fighter - grunt - I hit. Grunt - I hit. 4E actually penalized groups who do not work together, also. You have to play as a team, and actually know what other players can do to enjoy 4E.


If 5E can fix the charater building spam of 3E / Pathfinder, and keep balance like 4E, foster a group cooperation as 4E, and speed up combat more like 3E, I will buy it and play it for sure.


Edit - Everyone knows that Vampire the Masquerade is the best RPG ever, anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of anger in what you say, well expressed and thankfully not in flame war form. I applaud you for the restraint that I admittedly do not see on other forums. Now, let me rebut. And if my Rebuttal is too long, skip to the bolded part below.


So I have to ask - why anger? Why words like "open wound" and "sore"? Why is it Personal?

You talk about their "obligation" to their fans. What contract did you sign when you bought your books? What forces any company to have any "obligation" to you? For the price of the purchased book, the company is obligated ONLY to provide you with value for the dollars paid. No Purchase, be it one $20 rulebook made in 1976, or $10,000 worth of supplements rulebooks, magazines, minis, maps, tiles, modules, worlds, dice etc. made over 30+ years "obligates" a company any farther than that the product you buy at time of purchase be a good value for the money.


For that matter, what "obligation" does Reaper have, other than to provide a quality product for the money paid, and good customer service to back that product up? If we produce a mini you hate, did we "betray" you? If we make a product line you despise, like LE, Reich, CAV, Warlord, or whatever, does that make you angry? If you never play Sci-Fi games, was Star*Drive or Alternity a "Betrayal"? What about Traveller - did they betray you? Then why is it, when TSR comes out with 2e, WotC followed it up with 3e and 4e? Do they Owe You anything? No. As a corollary, TSR/WotC/Hasbro did not BETRAY you when they changed rules, because the ink still works. You can and do still use your old 1e/2e/3e etc. products. Ergo, their obligation is fulfilled - you have continuing value for money paid.


What they did was try to reinvigorate the brand. TSR made a decision to make 2e, because they felt, and many (though not all) in the community agreed that there were weaknesses and other ways to do it. By 2000, 24 years of hobby development and the death of TSR meant that new things could be done, and 3e was made. WotC wasn't trying to destroy a brand they thought they could scrape money out of and gut, they were trying to revive a brand they loved. And you don't like their approach, fine. But did you like every supplement for 1e or 2e? I think the answer is probably "no". So answer me this - 3e and 4e were a betrayal, in as much as they are perceived by you as a failure of the company to follow through on a perceived (and I maintain nonexistent) obligation to You directly, because they were products you do not like. SO why was each individual product that you didn't buy for 2e not a betrayal? If you played Ravenloft, but not Birthright, was Birthright a betrayal? Does Al Qadim make you angry because you played on Forgotten Realms? Is Dark Sun anathema because your group chose PLansecape? No? They're just "stuff that wasn't for me, so I didn't get them, saved my money for the stuff I did want", right? By that logic, how do you get to the idea that 3e and 4e are betrayals?



The way I see it, there's only 3 things to do with a brand. Let it die, such as has happened with thousands of oddball RPGs in the past, or TV brands like Evening Shade, or toys like The Visionaries™. Keep pushing out the product, like with Simpsons, GURPS, and even Monopoly, with minor tweaks and changes, but ultimately it's the same thing, changed only a tiny bit. Or evolve it, like 1e->2e->3e->4e->5e*. This evolution is what keeps a game from dying - and now that I've written a huge wall of text already, let me write another one explaining why!


I'm going to use Chaosium as the example, although GURPS or Palladium or HERO would work just as well. Let's say Chaosium comes out with a backwards compatible but still new edition of CoC again. 7th Ed. Let's assume that their fanbase for 1e was X. 2e doubled X, because it was flashier and, frankly, better. 3e may have added a small audience, but eventully the new audience is cancelled out by people leaving the hobby ("hanging up their dice", as they say). so let's say 3e has a fanbase of 2X+Y. 4e comes out, and we go to maybe 2X+2Y. Small growth, yay! 5e, enough old schoolers have left to cancel gains, so 5e nets 2X+2Y again. A new edition that isn't super innovative doesn't attract new players in droves. The old guard maintain, and for them, it's worth making 6e and 7e. But eventually it isn't, as you can see with HERO, which has ceased paper production. Failure to innovate has stagnated, and caused fading.


Now to 2e/3e. 2e was a commercial success, but by the end of it's dev. cycle, TSR was dying. WotC bought it, and revived it with 3e, which increased the fanbase, not by "Y" but by multiples of X. Hasbro acquired it later. But what they got was a game that had been reinvigorated by a new, only marginally backwards compatible (with a lot of work) version of the game that was both revolutionary and evolutionary. The fanbase swelled under the 3.x helm to a greater size than it ever had been. Then it began to suffer from market forces, bloat, etc. (that's a whole 'nother diatribe)


The line wasn't as far down the path of stagnation and death as 2e had become, but it was heading there, and WotC could see it. They had choices - let it die, then rebirth it, or try a radical approach - rebirth it first.


Obviously, the market tells us, the "rebirth it first" approach failed. 4e was not an overwhelming commercial success. A large part of it's apparent initial success was people buying a book or two to test the new engine, and then nothing more, providing a temporary illusion of success to the shareholders, but ultimately, as all illusions do, it failed to hold up to scrutiny, and when the shareholders and directors of the brand made their will saves this time, they saw through the bubble. So now, they have the Devil's Dilemma again. Let it die first, or try to rebirth it. Given the state of 4e now, I beleive they are doing the right thing - it may be after only 3 years as dead as 2e was after 10. So rebirthing now is not as risky as it was in 2007/8, when 3e was healthy, but fading. 4e is not healthy but fading, it's fading and fading fast.


By Trying to give you new and innovative things for 12 years, WotC has tried to give you value for the money. Sometimes things work (Overall, despite your personal dislike of 3e, it has been a commercial success for many companies, not just WotC). Sometimes they don't (4e, Book of Vile Darkness, etc.) . But they are trying. Hasbro might overall be a huge eeeevil corporation trying to squeeze money out of every brand they own, but I know many of the employees at WotC, and many of the former employees that are now Paizonians, and these are people that DO love the game, are passionate about the game and it's legacy, and want only to innovate, create, and dream. Lisa, Monte, Sean, Mike, Andrew, Skip, they're all good people, trying to keep the hobby from stagnating and dying. They make mistakes on small levels and large levels, and they get spit upon(metaphorically) for it.


I will agree that the fracturing of the fanbase was their doing, that it started when the "purists" refused to adopt 3e and maintaniend that 1 or 2 were the only "true" editions, and came to it's current deeply fractious state with the advent of 4e. They launched all the editions, and the fans fractured. But they didn't betray anybody.





That's a lot of stuff. TL/DR? Maybe. But here's the bottom line: Nobody should be ANGRY about a new edition, backwards compatible or no.


In the words of the great and wise Yoda**, "Play or Play Not. There is no reason to get your knickers twisted about a book you don't like. The old one's worked the day the new book came out, I bet work now they still do. Mmmm."






*Admittedly, most RPGs have striven for backwards compatibility, such that games like HERO, GURPS, or Chaosium may have had 6 or more editions in 20 years, but the old product is still compatible, where the D&D brand has, by and large, made significant enough changes with each new edition that backwards compatibility has been mainly illusory.


**Probably not, actually. I may have in fact made this up entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not surprised with a change. I am surprised how quickly it came. I thought 4E would go a little longer than it will. Although with 4.5/Essentials came out, I think most people with half a clue could figure out 5.0 wasn't too far away, I still wish it had a slightly longer life. There's still 2 years before we will see 5.0. I will enjoy picking up the few 4E books I don't have that I want at discount.


Personally I hated the Essentials format. I like choice when I make my characters. I loved the Power Sources and Keywords and I wish they did more with them. Sure there were a TON of options at the time of character creation, but that also gave you tons of flexibility and gave you not only RP means to make your fighter different from another, but also a mechanical difference.


I'll try out 5E. If it sucks, I won't buy more.


My biggest concern is if they shut down all the 4E online content. Losing access to the Character Builder, Monster Builder and Compendium will really piss me off. And I still want my Virtual Table.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of anger in what you say, well expressed and thankfully not in flame war form. I applaud you for the restraint that I admittedly do not see on other forums. Now, let me rebut. And if my Rebuttal is too long, skip to the bolded part below.


So I have to ask - why anger? Why words like "open wound" and "sore"? Why is it Personal?


For the record, I did read your entire post. If I can post a novel and hope others will read it, I can read others' novellas... tongue.gif


Speaking for me personally, the anger and sense of betrayal stems from the fact that this IP was a very large part of my life (and probably even my identity) for many a year. Man, that sounds pathetic when put into words like that... rolleyes.gif


Using your example of other game systems, yes, though they changed they were mostly backward compatible. Even Shadowrun, which in my opinion is a shadow of what it was in it's hayday is still basically based on the same mechanics and the game still retains the same 'feel'. And though I loved that game, still wasn't invested in it like I was with D&D. The difference between the various off-shoots that you mentioned for D&D (Planescape, Savage Suns, etc.) was that while they were being produced so was the core line. I started with Greyhawk but never really loved it. I was a Forgotten Realms fan (even before it was released, the articles in Dragon by Ed Greenwood really felt...alive). I thought Ravenloft was ok, Al-Qadim was cool with me because they added it (and Maztica) to the FR setting (ret-conned or not). The others I ignored, but I could because the one I loved was still supported. As you say, 3+ changed everything. They left the fans of the old versions high and dry.


Anyway, your error is trying to apply logic to what is simply an emotional issue for many of us. I never said my view was logical...wink.gif


I don't feel betrayed by Reaper (or the other game companies) because, though you are correct that I'm not a fan of everything you produce, the quality is consistantly high. And you don't kill the lines that I enjoy only to replace them with things that I think suck. Or worse (to use the analogy that I see WotC doing) keep the name of the line but release a completely different (and inferior) style of models under the same name.


Much as it may sound to the contrary, I hold no ill will for any of the specific people involved at either WotC or even Hasbro. I guess that's hard to believe given my ire for the situation as a whole, but it's true. I blame 'the company', and by extension, 'the people' involved, but only to the extent that in my mind they are nameless 'placeholders'. I'm sure they are all fine, hard working people with the best of intentions. However, I have trouble reconciling the fact (though true it probably is) that they love the game too. How do people that loved the old D&D, turn it into what we have on the market now? This ain't "D&D", it's something else altogether, under a well-known brand name. Again, just my bias. I'm sorry if my hard feelings seem to poo-poo people you actually know and respect, that is an unintentional side effect.


Do they have an obligation to me or anyone else (besides their shareholders)? In reality, of course not. But if you're going to take over an IP that so many people feel so strongly about and then make it unrecognizable, then why bother. Just call it something else. You are right, they bought it, they can do with it what they want. Great for them. I do see your point. I really do. However, as I said, this is a highly-charged emotional issue for me. But at least I can admit it. Don't go looking for logic from me on this topic. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that with an IP that has become a cultural icon, I assert that they do have a larger obligation, but that's just me.


I was going to say I'll just be over here stewing in my own juices over this like I have for years, but I realize, as I alluded to in my previous post, I have the original material and I have BRP. I'm good. It really doesn't matter to me anymore what they do with it, I have the power to make my own version/vision a reality... smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we talk about things like the "feel" of D&D, I find it entirely subjective, and what encompasses that "feel" for one person is completely different to someone else.


I grew up with D&D as a segment of my life, from 7 years old and BECMI D&D, through 1e AD&D, 2e, 3e, etc (skipping 4e because it went in a direction I found completely unsatisfactory). I felt 3e captured the "feel" of 1e just fine, without being constrained by conceits like my Elven wizard can never be higher than 14th level. A big part of it however was gaming with like-minded people that shared a similar gaming history to mine, and embraced that aspect.


Nonetheless, while it is true there is no reason you have to stop playing the "edition-of-choice," if you want to recruit new players, it is far more difficult to tell them to hope they get lucky on Ebay (because WotC won't sell you a PDF of the old rules anymore), than to tell them to visit their nearest game or book store to pick up the in-print PHB.


But also innovation and a new way of looking at the game can definitely help revitalize a campaign. At the tail end of 3e everyone was getting tired of playing fantasy (except for me, it seems), and especially with 4e looming there was agitation to do something new. 4e came at just the right time -- but was so different that we would have had to abandon a campaign that up to that point had 12 years of continuous weekly play history, and something everyone had heavily invested time, effort, money, and passion into. Had 4e reboot been more like 3e (i.e. your old characters could be easily converted and fit into the new system), we might have continued to play fantasy for the last 3 years, instead of playing Star Wars SAGA (which IMHO is probably what 4e SHOULD have been like!). We've moved on to Pathfinder in the meantime, but I would have no problem playtesting 5e when it comes out, as long as there are no glaring issues with it.


In the end, while I feel a certain level of self-righteous vindication with this news (not a positive feeling I fully admit, and a selfish one), I can't begrudge the fans of 4e their fun, and can see why they would like the game. But similarly, if 5e represents a real improvement on Pathfinder, I have no trouble converting over if the rest of the group is like-minded...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Baphomet - We've managed to keep this civil! That's awesome, because I've been reading flame wars on other forums that had nearly died down for the last year re-erupt.


You're right - it's an emotional response, and I'm trying to apply logic to it. I hope that the logic of the situation can allow the emotions to subside, and help bring peace, over a hobby that should always bring more smiles than rage.


For the record, I play in 3 Pathfinder games right now. I play in 0 4e games. In the last 24 months, though, those 3 games were, in order, D&D Encounters (4e) for a year*; a non-encounters 4e homebrew-world-campaign that lasted 11 months**, and died when the holiday hiatus caused us to come back with a new game and beg to try it; the new game, Spirit of the Century, brought to satisfactory conclusion; a Star Was Saga Edition game that died because of bad plotting and player revolt; an AD&D 2nd Edition Ravenloft game that lasted nearly 11 months***, although it ended with a satisfying conclusion, lost forever in Ravenloft, but now feeling good about being damned; Kingmaker and Carrion Crown Adventure Paths.



*This was replaced by Serpent's Skull Pathfinder Adventure Path.


**I actually would love to revisit that campaign and "finish" the story - the world is still in danger and only we can save it!


***This was replaced by Kingmaker.



All things considered, I'd say Spirit of the Century was my favorite, but I'm up for anything. 2e, 3e, 4e, SWSE, SotC, Mouseguard, whatever. Heck, if we expand back from 24 months, my various groups will also add in that we collectively played Alternity, Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu (which edition I don't recall) twice, a Paranoia one-shot, and 3 campaigns of Marvels' old FASERIP system. Me, I'm a system junkie, and I love them all. So maybe I'm the wrong person to have an opinion of 5e. I'll buy it. I'll play it. If I love it, It'll become the new flavor, and if I don't at least I can add it to my gaming cred.


**Edit - it helps that RPG accessories is a large portion of my career, so, while I don't get paid to play them, its' important for me to have system knowledge as an aspect of customer service. I can ill afford to get to GenCon and be asked for a character mini for a certain game and not be familiar with what that means. Eladrin Fey Pacted Warlock? No, I have to know not only what that means, but what it would look like.

Edited by Reaperbryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Baphomet - We've managed to keep this civil! That's awesome, because I've been reading flame wars on other forums that had nearly died down for the last year re-erupt.


Bah! No matter how strong my feelings are (or rather, were - more on this in a moment), it's certainly not worth getting mad at anyone (any real person or persons), especially here on this board. Perhaps a few years ago, but I've grown too old and jaded for those shenanigans nowadays. :poke:


And the fact that I was finally able to put down my thoughts and feelings in a somewhat coherent manner was rather cathartic. I really feel a weight lifted. For the record, though I did feel personally betrayed, I didn't hold it against anyone that could find pleasure in the newer versions. I kind of envied the fact that they could, even if I couldn't understand how.


We've all got our opinions, and I was never under the delusion that mine was right, just that it was mine so it mattered more to me than others.


Whatever your poison, game on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am looking forward to checking out the new edition. I am an avid 3.5 player with nearly every expansion WOTC put out for that edition of the game. I liked some of the new ideas that 4E had going for it, but no one in my group ended up investing in it beyond the PHB that I bought and the Dark Sun stuff I gave to one of my buddies.


What has me excited about the new edition is that it is being headed up be Monte Cook. If any one can take the best parts of all the previous editions and distill it down into something fun to play and to run, its Monte Cook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Artists

There's a bit more about what their approach in this article, and it intrigues me more than the NYT's one did. The idea of making modular pieces you can plug into your game could be pretty cool. Or possibly not, but at least it's a plausible way to approach the idea of pulling in stuff from several previous editions. It also gives them a potential way to keep building sales.


A good GM will trump any system. Even with a good GM, I didn't love 4e. I felt like almost all your abilities were tied to combat. As a bard type character, this bothered me. (Also as a person who can't roll dice for crap, it bothered me. ;->) As an experienced player with a good GM, I was able to take a few things and say 'well if I can do this in combat, can I use it to do that out of combat', but I was concerned that people new to RPGing would not realize you could think outside the rules that way. (My GM assures me that the GM's guide had a lot of nicely written sections about doing your own thing and not being a slave to rules and stuff.) I also kind of felt like all the characters basically had the same abilities with different names. I get that they were trying to appeal to people who play computer games and MMORPGs and such, but I felt like it pulled too far away from the best elements of classic gather around the table games. Personal opinion, and we didn't play a whole bunch, so it's a limited personal opinion.


I think D&D's biggest problem is going to be Hasbro standing over its shoulder counting its beans. Hasbro expects a level of sales equal to Magic (if not, indeed, to stuff like GI Joe and whatever big name properties and toy line it has.) I don't know if any single RPG will ever do those kinds of sales again. I'm not even sure if all of the people playing RPGs add up to the kind of numbers Hasbro would like to see. Gaming has gone through the same kind of transition as television - it's not just the big three networks anymore, and it's not just D&D or just Magic or whatever anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I envy all of you who have regular games. Mine died about the time people in my group started college, and we all started moving away to different cities.


I have nothing against WoTC, but I will be the first to admit that I'm sometimes overzealously loyal. It's not always a bad thing, but sometimes it causes me to be inordinately stubborn about trying new things. It's the reason I'm a frothing Reaper fanboy. When I first started becoming seriously interested in minis, Reaper was the company that to me did it better than anyone else. Now more than ever there are a lot of people producing great minis, but to me Reaper is still the best. I'm also the type of person who emulates the old SSI/TSR gold box games on my netbook. When I first started playing AD&D 2nd Edition was at its pinnacle, and there was so much good material that you had a zillion options. When TSR started having problems it made me sad, and when WoTC took over I couldn't help feeling a bit of "they'll never be able to do it as well" attitude. One of the reasons that I like Pathfinder (I freely admit bias) is because of how much I loved Dragon and Dungeon magazine. So, when they decided to do their own thing, and I found out about it much later than everyone else in the gaming world, I embraced it wholeheartedly. I haven't been disappointed yet. However, I'm one of those people who usually gets the initial core rules, a few supplements that I like, and then refuse to admit that later additions exist :).


I hope that 5e does well, and I hope it brings more people into the fold. Since the internet it's easier and easier to connect with like minded people, but I still catch a lot of derision from people over my love of RPGs. People I work with who think nothing about spending a weekend playing on Xbox live or the PSN make fun of me because I played MMOs and RPGs. Anything that might interest more and newer players I think is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a bit more about what their approach in this article, and it intrigues me more than the NYT's one did. The idea of making modular pieces you can plug into your game could be pretty cool. Or possibly not, but at least it's a plausible way to approach the idea of pulling in stuff from several previous editions. It also gives them a potential way to keep building sales.


Agreed. What they've got there sounds almost like what I'm asking for, although, I don't expect Mike Mearls to pander to me directly just because I have the nuclear launch codes and the GPS coordinates for his house...ik_devil.gif


I personally want to see both evolution and revolution, with backwards compatibility for the elements I felt worked.


At the risk of aggravating people, I hated THACO, and I hated that sometimes 20 is good (like when fighting) and sometimes 20 was bad (like saving throws) in 2e. But I loved the optional weapon speed and fluid initiative rules. Not everybody does. So 2e's "blue sidebar" approach, wherein the core rules were given in the text, and variant rules were presented in blue sidebars, was brilliant. I say keep that.


for 3e, I liked the standardizing of the d20 such that 20 was always more likely to succeed, or guaranteed to succeed, than a 1 was. I liked the introduction of feats. I liked AC being a target number to hit, not a value that gave you a target number. I liked the simplification of saving throws into Fort/Ref/Will, since 2e, while more specific, often pigeonholed effects into places they felt silly -like non breath weapon effects that said "save as for breath weapon" because by creating the categories they had, they had made a system that wasn't flexible enough to allow new kinds of saves.


for 4e, I like how they handle skills and skill challenges (although their rules examples for skill challenges were lackluster, a creative GM could do so much with them) and I like Saving throws as defenses, so players were rolling their attacks, not monsters rolling to avoid. Made spellcasters feel like they had more control to me - I roll a 17 and hit your fortitude, versus I cast ray of fatigue, oh! the Monster made his save! Spellcasting was Active, not passive. I like how tactical movement happened constantly, many 3.x/pathfinder games once players have set up their positions, flanks etc, the board becomes static. AoO's etc. make movement undesirable in those combats, and I prefer cinematic combats, tossing foes around with powerful hits, running after foes and hitting them on the run etc.*


For Pathfinder, I like how they handled skills, too, although it's different. I like their attempts at game balance, the classes feel more close in power level, but there is enough disparity that it's not playing the same class by a different name.




Now, that's what I like. Can they combine all those, AND give me something new that i can say when 6e comes out that "from 5e I like..."? idk. will they? They'd better, if they want me to not use these codes...ik_devil.gif


*makes me want to add in houserules for forced movement from massive damage to my PF games - artifically add in the push effects to most hits, including spells. 10% or more damage in one hit - push 5' away from you, or from the origin point of the spell. 25% = 10' push, 50% or more 15' push. in all cases take damage from collision with object as if falling double distance. HMmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...