Dungeons and Dragons, 5th edition

[Rub'Rum]

... Is coming!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/a...players-input.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all?src=tp

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109

It seems they have finally come to their sense. I like 4e, I like the choices, I like how easy it is to gamemaster as all the formulas are right there for you to pick up. However, you can't deny that instead of inspiring videogame makers like it used to, it has now started to inspire itself from videogames, and it will never be able to really compete with videogames in that niche. I always felt combat in 4e was a little too "divided" from the main game. It took a long time to solve, often an hour, it was almost a game within a game. If the DM threw encounters at us that didn't advance the story much, I had a sense of frustration as we were wasting an hour of our game time, exploration of his world, on a fight. Fights had better have interesting features too (terrain, locations, and whatnot). That's always true, but much truer in 4e. There was also less and less about the characters that defined what they could do outside of combat I guess. Skill challenges are an interesting idea, but it seems like most game masters weren't able to create interesting ones. It felt artificial how you'd try to come up with actions that always resolved exactly in the same way, especially when given the list of useful skills.

I think what is really necessary is to reduce the number of books published, try to create an awesome application compatible with PC and Mac that does everything (much better than what we have now). Offer a lot of base material (classes, races, etc) through this online system maybe, and the extra stuff through tiny payments. The electronic and online format is really where they should go at I think. edit: when I'm talking about these electronic things, I mean both as a means of playing the game online (a SIMPLE virtual tabletop software with rules embedded in it. And I do mean SIMPLE and quick), and also great tools for creating and printing game elements for live games around a table.

 

[Luckymoose]

I liked 4e more than 3e or 3.5e, but they have seriously limited the system with the base rules to a point where house rules/items are a requirement to enjoy it. I'm curious to see what they get right this time around. The things I want to see kept:

- Short prep time for a DM
- Balanced classes throughout the tiers
- The Monster and Item cards which are all balanced with one another

Things I want changed:

- The length of combat needs to be shortened
- More ability for house ruling and an emphasis on fluidity in the rules
- A removal of the skill challenge system and replaced with a much more realistic system of checks and balances

 

[Ruler]

Nice, damn, Ive wanted to gather new group years now. Used to play alot when I was younger then boozing and chicks took over. Also now we play Texas Hold' em.

Does anyone know if they make those programs for PC anymore? Are they evolved at all? I think it would be great if GM's could share their campaigns.

 

[Luckymoose]

Dungeons and Dragons Insider, which I just let expire due to lack of funds, is a service WOTC offers for like 70 bucks a year that includes a number of amazing programs. Including a full monster builder with the entire contents of every monster manual for the current edition, a character builder that is up to date with every issue of Dragon and Dungeon and soon they are releasing a virtual tabletop program.

 

[Ruler]

Thanks, Im trying to google if I find community around here, dont think my current friends are up for a game.

EDIT: LOL, looks bad. Found only post from 2007 and no single reply.... somekind of online program to find players and community is definitely needed, or then Im just unfortunate not to have RP friends.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Dungeons and Dragons Insider, which I just let expire due to lack of funds, is a service WOTC offers for like 70 bucks a year that includes a number of amazing programs. Including a full monster builder with the entire contents of every monster manual for the current edition, a character builder that is up to date with every issue of Dragon and Dungeon and soon they are releasing a virtual tabletop program.

The failure to have all of this ready at launch was probably an important problem with this edition.

I'm at the point where I think they should do something to jolt the pen and paper industry. Something drastic. D&D needs to be there pushing the envelope. Maybe almost make a computer game out of this edition. Well actually no. What I mean is, sell it as a computer application for both mac and PC. An application where you build characters, make maps, have a tabletop if necessary, have images you can easily insert in text documents, easily accessible stat blocks and all (and a centralized app where you can find nearby players!). I'm aware 4e is a bit like this, but it's still not what it could be. Make it a good looking application, almost a computer game. Basically like a computer game where you do everything except actually play the game. The computer app is done to quickly prepare all you need for the game, and does so in a professional-looking slick environment and not just a list of drop down menus. Maybe drop the physical distribution altogether. Sell extra content as expansions for a decent price, to add to the application. Yeah, D&D DLC. I'd rather pay 50$ to get the base app then 10-40$ per year to get bundles of extra content once in a while, than buy expensive books and waste hours trying to make my own (or hunting for) computer tools with Excel or I don't know what. Or they could do this all web-based. They just have to make this much more powerful and attractive than the current applications for 4e.

Also I would put some money on them being all "epic" and "modern" and dropping edition numbers. Just like how the new movie was Rocky Balboa instead of Rocky VI, we're gonna get "Dungeons and Dragons". At best... At worst we'll get "Dungeons and Dragons; Platinum" or "Dungeons and Dragons; Reloaded".

 

[Luckymoose]

I have faith in the likes of Chris Perkins and the other members of development to do a good job with a new edition.

 

[Maniacal]

I hope they do a top notch job. I played a D&D 4e campaign which ended in December (we didn't get that far into it though, but it was a lot of fun) and the combat did take a long time (except for me, I was a highly original dwarf barbarian, and my combat turns usually consisted of "you didn't hit him" or "you dealt damage!" and were over quickly. Unlike everyone else's turns...

I don't know if it helped or not but we were playing it online so the dice rolls were easy to see.

 

[Luckymoose]

I've played in and DM'd campaigns on the #nes IRC channel, using a dicebot made by flyingchicken... actually I should get the group back on schedule.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I'm not really too concerned by this. 4th edition didn't grab me and I (and my group) stuck with 3.5 for a long time. My favourite system out there is still probably GURPS though.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Last week-end was one of the first public events concerning the next iteration of D&D. There are a few seminar transcripts available at ENWorld

One of the things that made me the happiest was this answer to a question:

Q: How do you think magic items fit in this next iteration?

Bruce: Magic items have always been a part of the game, but with 4th it became part of a player's natural progression so that you would have to pick up items from stores or other places to keep up. One of the negative things that brought up was that it eliminted some of the exploration that was so integral in earlier editions. You no longer had to go questing or searching for that magic item. We want to decouple magic items from character progression so they're not needed, and return that exploration and excitement of finding magic items.

Monte: Yeah, it was surprising (talking about the result of a poll on the subject). A majority wanted magic items to be special and not to be able to buy them in shops and such. Of course that could be campaign specific. We're running with the idea that magic items are special and not bound to character progression, though things could change through playtesting. But we want it to be something that the DM plans, or something that a player/character wants to go on a quest to get that magic item they've heard of or need to accomplish there goals. We're going forward with the idea that magic items are possible, but difficult to create by PCs. We're not balancing the classes based on the expectation of magical items. It's about the player going to find the loot.

Yay! I remember when I used to play AD&D. Finding magic items was special. Magic was mysterious. You'd only find one magic item every so often and everybody paid attention and didn't just go "well duh another pair of magic boots of whatever, anyway I already got my own pair of magic boots of this and I don't care who gets these". The later iterations of the game make magic items part of levelling up. By level 3 you're all geared up and probably look like a WoW freak-show to every inhabitant of the world. I hope they stick to the answer they gave there and tone down the magic, or at least, keep it separated from game balance. In later editions of D&D, if you decide to run a low-magic campaign like in the good old days, you literally have to artificially give arbitrary boosts to the characters as they level up to account for the fact that they don't have magic items. There is even a part of the rulebook in 4e that basically said "If you run with less magic items, give character +2 here and +2 here every so and so level to account for improving monsters".

 

[Antilogic]

Gawd, last system I actually played a game in was 2nd, although I have the 3rd and 3.5 patch books somewhere.

Regarding the post above, why doesn't the DM just select monsters that are slightly easier for the PCs to face instead of random boosts? Seems like an arbitrary set of rules to include in the base 4e set.

 

[Luckymoose]

Gawd, last system I actually played a game in was 2nd, although I have the 3rd and 3.5 patch books somewhere.

Regarding the post above, why doesn't the DM just select monsters that are slightly easier for the PCs to face instead of random boosts? Seems like an arbitrary set of rules to include in the base 4e set.

Because there are no monsters beyond a certain level that the party could hope to beat without the boosts from magical items. It is how the system is designed.

 

[Antilogic]

Because there are no monsters beyond a certain level that the party could hope to beat without the boosts from magical items. It is how the system is designed.

So if I have a set of level 10 PCs in a low magic campaign, most monsters for a level 6-9 encounter would be too difficult without the random boosts?

I preferred the low-magic campaigns. You really treasure your equipment if you don't have too much of it, and at least in our games the mage turned into a hybrid engineer-scientist support character instead of the heavy artillery. Assuming they could figure out how to make the equipment, which required a lot of work translating texts and hiding from the mage-hunters.

 

[Luckymoose]

So if I have a set of level 10 PCs in a low magic campaign, most monsters for a level 6-9 encounter would be too difficult without the random boosts?

Pretty much. Without the required +1s and +2s they might have a really hard time hitting them.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Gawd, last system I actually played a game in was 2nd, although I have the 3rd and 3.5 patch books somewhere.

Regarding the post above, why doesn't the DM just select monsters that are slightly easier for the PCs to face instead of random boosts? Seems like an arbitrary set of rules to include in the base 4e set.

It's not an entirely useless solution and I've used it a bit, however it doesn't work perfectly, far from it in fact, as Luckymoose pointed out. And it makes the first few levels where you start to get more magic items (actually that's pretty much level 1 and 2) sort of boring as you have to extend the shelf life of the early monsters.

Talking about monsters, I'm not sure I like the concept of having evolved versions of basic monsters to keep challenging people who are higher levels. Stuff like "Super chieftain Kobold" being level 11 monsters... Um... No thanks. I guess it's fun the option's there for people really CAN'T GET ENOUGH KOBOLDS.

 

[ColdWizard]

I remembered when I played D&D too. Next session is next week.

The group I'm in runs 1e with 2e NWP. Some of the members have a passing interest in 5e but as the DM said "Why change? I've never had a problem with finding a another 1e player". We have a new one joining next session in fact.

 

[Antilogic]

Pretty much. Without the required +1s and +2s they might have a really hard time hitting them.

Glad I didn't play 4e, I would have gone crazy. Thanks for the clarification.

It's not an entirely useless solution and I've used it a bit, however it doesn't work perfectly, far from it in fact, as Luckymoose pointed out. And it makes the first few levels where you start to get more magic items (actually that's pretty much level 1 and 2) sort of boring as you have to extend the shelf life of the early monsters.

Talking about monsters, I'm not sure I like the concept of having evolved versions of basic monsters to keep challenging people who are higher levels. Stuff like "Super chieftain Kobold" being level 11 monsters... Um... No thanks. I guess it's fun the option's there for people really CAN'T GET ENOUGH KOBOLDS.

You would have hated my goblin fortress. We had some munchkin gamers who were taking a break from the main campaign, and I put their level 7-8 PCs through an annoying dungeon where the only enemy was goblins. The traps, ambushes, and architecture really evened the odds though, to the point where they were at risk of dying before going down to the lower levels.

 

[Luckymoose]

Goblins in older editions are fine. The pre errata goblins in 4e at level 1 had a +6 to hit.