SydLexia.com Forum Index
"Stay awhile. Stay... FOREVER!"

  [Edit Profile]  [Search]  [Memberlist]  [Usergroups]  [FAQ]  [Register]
[Who's Online]  [Log in to check your private messages]  [Log in]
D&DNext aka D&D 5E


Reply to topic
Author Message
lordsathien
Title: Head of Lexian R&D
Joined: Oct 15 2005
Location: Metro area, Georgia
PostPosted: Oct 19 2011 06:05 am Reply with quote Back to top

Courtesy of examiner.com

When Monte Cook rejoined Wizards of the Coast recently, he was coy about why he was hired. Hiring Monte raised eyebrows for those who know him – Monte was, after all, a major force in the development of Third Edition and has been actively involved in the gaming community ever since. Wizards rehiring him seemed to have some significance for the future of Dungeons & Dragons.

Perhaps naively, I sent a series of interview questions directly to him on September 21. Monte knows me by name at least (we've met at I-CON 22) and I found our chats really enlightening about the design philosophy behind Dungeons & Dragons, including its sacred cows. I was careful not to ask the burning question, because I thought he wouldn't be able to answer it. But I did ask a lot of other questions about Wizards, Monte's gaming philosophy, and what he planned to bring to the table in his new role, whatever that is.

I've worked with Wizards' public relations team recently, so we're acquainted well enough that I wasn't too surprised when I was directed to a communications manager, who politely explained that no interviews will be coordinated with Monte, or any other internal teams, until 2012.

Thing is, Monte DID grant an interview in October, with Krosch of HubPages. Krosch didn't hit on any of the questions I asked, which is why I suspect my interview was denied.

Then Margaret Weiss, Dragonlance series author and whom I trust as a woman of her word, said on the Dragonlance forums:

wrote:
I've talked to friends of Monte's who are friends of mine and they all say, Yes, he's working on 5e!


So I'm just going to call it: If Monte isn't talking, and Wizards isn't talking, and Margaret IS talking…all this adds up to Monte working on the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons. You can expect an announcement in his Legends & Lore column in early 2012.

As Monte put it in his Twitter feed:

wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the well-wishes, kind words, and congratulations. Fun and interesting times ahead!


=================

So instead of trying to fix what's broken, WotC's going to make yet another edition in hopes of getting the top spot in the RPG market after Paizo's Pathfinder dethroned them.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
SoldierHawk
Moderator
Title: Warrior-Poet
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Oct 19 2011 02:53 pm Reply with quote Back to top

*SPUTTER*

But...butbut....but they JUST came out with 4E. WHAT. THEFUCK?!


militarysignatures.com

William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.

 
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Knyte
2010 SLF Tag Champ*
Title: Curator Of The VGM
Joined: Nov 01 2006
Location: Here I am.
PostPosted: Oct 19 2011 03:37 pm Reply with quote Back to top

4E should have been aborted before the first book ever hit a shelf.

3.5 was a great system. Wizards decided to scrap it for favor of a new system designed to shadow MMO systems. Most likely in a stupid attempt at trying to pull Warcraft payers into D&D.

Piazo, knew 3.5 was a great system, as they had making 3rd party source books for it. They pull 3.5 out of the trash. Retweaked it, slim-lined some of the fat, and added much more without drastically changing the core of the system. That's why Pathfinder works so well. 3.5 players already knew how to pick up and play Pathfinder without having to reread all the corebooks cover to cover.

4th Edition, didn't tailor itself to established players, which hurts it even more. Most 3.5 players, myself included, thought "why would I want to upgrade to a new system and have to relearn everything, when I already have a huge pile of 3.5 books on my shelves?"

Wizards said, "Fuck the old players, they aren't making us enough money. We need new players! Hey, MMO guys, for the price of 3 months playing WoW, you can buy our Players Guide, and have unlimited adventures that better than your computer games!"

Pathfinder said, "Come to us, faithful 3.5 fans! You can keep all your old books and keep using them! You just have to tweak your system slightly to adapt to ours! We'll even help you do it!"
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Oct 20 2011 05:10 am Reply with quote Back to top

I doubt 5e is in the works. While Margaret Weiss is an important part of RPG history, I don't consider her an official word on whether not or 5e is in the works. First off, it would be kinda a terrible business plan, since the 4e players have been promised a lot of shit they have yet to get. Two, it is kinda a bad idea to keep releasing book content for a game you are about to finish up supporting (in fact, I think this is one of the reason 4e gets such a bad rap. Advance DnD stopped getting support in 1998, first 3.0 book came out 2000, from 3.5 to 4e, it was only a couple months. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth.). I understand the game needs to evolve (see that 3.5 is the third edition of dnd to come out, and has DRASTICALLY changed all the original and advance dnd rules), but I don't think the timing is right. I couldn't be wrong, but if that is the plan, then WotC ends up looking terrible here... well, more than they already do for all the fucks up through out 3.5 and 4e.

More realistically, I am thinking Monte is working on a new campaigning for 4e, seeing as that is one of WotC's unfulfilled promises.

EDIT: Oh, and Paizo was always going to win these past quarters. WotC is releasing considerably less content than them each month. There was literally no chance of WotC coming out on top.
View user's profileSend private message
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Jan 09 2012 01:21 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Whelp, color me wrong and shit.
The good news about 5e:
Open playtesting
The bad news:
Pretty much everything else?

Look, it is no real secret I actually like 4e. It is a slower, generally lower power game, but if I honestly had to pick, I would probably go with 4e over 3.x any day of the week. yes, even with this recent "we need to make sucktastic classes in order to emulate 2e" attitude that has been around as of late. However, I am going to try to look passed this in order to explain why 5e probably isn't going to work out well.

1. bad business model.
WotC did a similar, sudden announcement near the end of 3.5 life for 4e, and it pissed people off. This is pretty much the same deal. That, and there have been a lot of promised thing for 4e that have yet to come out (Ravenloft updated, a unique 4e campaign setting, ect).
2. Monte Cook is back.
I know Monte Cook had a huge hand in designing 3.5, but that doesn't make him any less of a mediocre designer. Though some of that may be curved by open play testing, pending if WotC pull a paizo or not. I am not going to get into the exact problems I have with Monte Cook, but just know the man thinks the 3.5 monk is one of the pinnacles of design in the system.
3. 3.5 round II.
I think this is going to be the biggest problem for me. I can't help but think that with Monte Cook on board, and the current designer philosophy of "APPEAL TO PLAYERS OF OLDER EDITIONS! NOW!" by applying abjuratory fluff restrictions, that they are just going to remake 3.5. That is not an improvement or innovative, and not what I want from a "new" rpg.

But maybe I am worrying for nothing.

Sign up for playtesting here.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109
View user's profileSend private message
LeshLush
Joined: Oct 19 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
PostPosted: Jan 28 2012 01:58 am Reply with quote Back to top

I think that Monte is a great idea man, but a horrible details man. Things like Feats, the 3e skills system, prestige classes, and effective character level are all brilliant things. Implementation was sometimes horrible. Feats like Toughness, Dodge, and Mobility? Pointless beyond belief. The Dwarven Defender PrC? Piece of shit. Vampires have a level adjustment of +8? Don't bother.

I think he's a great guy to have leading discussions what to do with a game system, but they're gonna need to have a lot of people more competent with actual game mechanics to make sure things don't fall apart.
View user's profileSend private message
BlazingGlory
Title: KANE LIVES IN DEATH!
Joined: Aug 10 2009
PostPosted: Jan 28 2012 03:29 am Reply with quote Back to top

LeshLush wrote:
I think that Monte is a great idea man, but a horrible details man. Things like Feats, the 3e skills system, prestige classes, and effective character level are all brilliant things. Implementation was sometimes horrible. Feats like Toughness, Dodge, and Mobility? Pointless beyond belief. The Dwarven Defender PrC? Piece of shit. Vampires have a level adjustment of +8? Don't bother.

I think he's a great guy to have leading discussions what to do with a game system, but they're gonna need to have a lot of people more competent with actual game mechanics to make sure things don't fall apart.

And on that note, what do you think the odds are of non magic classes being anywhere near the casters this time around?
View user's profileSend private message
LeshLush
Joined: Oct 19 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
PostPosted: Jan 28 2012 01:47 pm Reply with quote Back to top

BlazingGlory wrote:
LeshLush wrote:
I think that Monte is a great idea man, but a horrible details man. Things like Feats, the 3e skills system, prestige classes, and effective character level are all brilliant things. Implementation was sometimes horrible. Feats like Toughness, Dodge, and Mobility? Pointless beyond belief. The Dwarven Defender PrC? Piece of shit. Vampires have a level adjustment of +8? Don't bother.

I think he's a great guy to have leading discussions what to do with a game system, but they're gonna need to have a lot of people more competent with actual game mechanics to make sure things don't fall apart.

And on that note, what do you think the odds are of non magic classes being anywhere near the casters this time around?

Probably decent. The disparity only really existed in early 3E. In 2E, there was an inherent danger to using magic that helped balance things, as well as a lack of ridiculous spell combos like contigent celerity/time stop/whatever nonsense. In 4E, everyone is exactly the same. By the end of 3E's lifespan, Tome of Battle introduced powered up melee, and newer casters like Dread Necromancer and Binder did a good job of toning things down. However, things get weird when you consider how easy or hard it is to get a class to perform, not just the top end of their power. For instance, a first time player with a Warblade is going to mop the floor with another first timer's wizard. However, if both of those players have system mastery, then the wizard will assrape the multiverse, make an orifice demiplace for his extradimensional cock, decide the warblade's existence is an affront to his sexytimes, and force said warblade to fuck his own asshole until he dies of exhaustion.

Don't get me wrong, because I currently play 3E, and it may very well be my favorite edition, but there are some things in that system that are damned wrong. It's not just that certain classes are more powerful, but that they make other classes redundant. Your rogue is the best and sneaking around, killing things quietly, and opening locks? My wizard prepares, greater invisibility, silence, hold person, and knock. Now he's better. Your paladin is a divine warrior who beats people in the head? Dave's cleric can cast divine power. He's more powerful than you and your horse. In addition to raw power, a handful of classes shouldn't be stepping on all of the other classes' toes. There needs to be some things that magic can't do.

Back to the main point, ToB, 4E, et. al. show that the people at WotC clearly know they fucked up. I think they can get it right. However, will they? If they pull another 4E and make every class play the same, then all the 4E haters will continue to play 3E or Pathfinder. If they do like Paizo and give minor buffs to weaker classes and tweak the most broken spells, then in the end it won't matter. Pathfinder monk still can't tie his own shoes, and wizard still don't give a shit about nobody, even if not on the same level. I hope they look at Star Wars SAGA Edition. Lots of good ideas in that system. D20 is certainly salvageable.
View user's profileSend private message
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Jan 31 2012 04:39 am Reply with quote Back to top

LeshLush wrote:
In 4E, everyone is exactly the same.

I am sorry, but this is something that bothers me whenever it is brought up about 4e. No, not everyone is the same, not even close. Even those in the same roles aren't similar. What I consider the the best example of this is the swordmage and the fighter. The fighter walks up to enemies, hits them in the face, and mark them to keep their attention.
Swordmage marks from a distance, and makes the enemy chase him around if he doesn't want to be hurt/ineffective. Even within the same class characters widely vary, from grapple fighters, to sword and shield, to chargers and fullblade users. Sameness among classes and roles was not an issue.
Sameness among the power sources, however, are an issue. Psionics stand out in 4e because they use a different system, (as oppose to the AEDU system, they get a handful of at wills and power points each encounter to make them better. Similar to 3.5 factotum), which uses there are power sources can be different, and is something that really should have been explored from the beginning.

Anyways, on topic, 5e Q&A panel notes:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317494-seminar-transcript-reimagining-skills-ability-scores.html

Things I like:
Skill system sounds pretty cool
Themes are one of my favorite parts of 4e, and I am glad to see them returning

Things I dislike:
Magic Item Dependency is back in full swing. A problem I have in 3.5 and 4e, and something I was hoping would die this edition.
Scaling is gonna be wonky, with a possible removal of some sort of static bonus to hit from leveling, which wouldn't be so bad, except...
Rolling dice is back to the standard. Now, I don't have a problem with rolling dice for stats, though I prefer point buy almost any day of the week. However, having a system where ability mods matter more because you aren't getting any static mod, this is gonna be a problem. Also, I expect events to enforce point buy due to the jerks who bring in all 18 sheets. This is gonna be a small disconnect that I feel shouldn't need to exist.
Racial penalties are back. I don't like them, and feel you can express the same thing with bonuses. Cosmetic thing I dislike.

Things I am unsure about:
The save system in place. On the one hand, I dislike the concept of saving to avoid something, and think it is easier to just have the attack roll. On the other hand, they are making it sound like the stat you apply to the save is gonna be flexible, which is pretty neat... I think...
Status effects are gonna be source unique for the most part.

Also, classes heavily discussed at the panel, look for them in the PHB:
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
wizard
Ranger
Warlock
Paladin
Warlord
Druid
Psion
Assassin
Bard
Barbarian
Monk
Sorcerer
View user's profileSend private message
LeshLush
Joined: Oct 19 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
PostPosted: Feb 01 2012 12:27 am Reply with quote Back to top

nihilisticglee wrote:
LeshLush wrote:
In 4E, everyone is exactly the same.

I am sorry, but this is something that bothers me whenever it is brought up about 4e. No, not everyone is the same, not even close. ...
Sameness among the power sources, however, are an issue.


You are right, and this was more the point that I was trying to make. Not that every character has the same role or plays exactly the same. I know that 4E is a perfectly viable system and that lots of people love it, but for me, the whole mage, cleric, fighter, and rogue all have the same encounter power system make it not feel like what D&D is to me. Unfortunately for WotC, a lot of people seem to have felt this way, hence so many people still play 3E or jumped to Pathfinder.


Thanks for the link. Looks like a very interesting read.
View user's profileSend private message
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Feb 01 2012 06:09 am Reply with quote Back to top

LeshLush wrote:
You are right, and this was more the point that I was trying to make. Not that every character has the same role or plays exactly the same. I know that 4E is a perfectly viable system and that lots of people love it, but for me, the whole mage, cleric, fighter, and rogue all have the same encounter power system make it not feel like what D&D is to me. Unfortunately for WotC, a lot of people seem to have felt this way, hence so many people still play 3E or jumped to Pathfinder.


Indeed, and I can get that. I am one of the first to admit that 4e isn't perfect, but there are just a couple of arguments that really bother me*. I don't expect everyone's tabletop game of choice to be the same.

and yeah, the link is a good read if ya want to follow the 5e stuff. Also, check out Monte's new Legends & Lore stuff at WotC's website. He pretty much keeps saying the same thing over an over, but I figure that will where they will talk about 5e more when they are ready for it.

*mostly the "everyone is the same" and "if I wanted to play an mmo I would play wow" stuff I hear a lot, neither of which I find true in the slightest.
View user's profileSend private message
aeonic
Title: Sporadic Poster
Joined: Nov 19 2009
Location: Kissimmee, FL
PostPosted: Feb 25 2012 07:01 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I'm set to participate in the open playtest, but I think my problem with the aims of Hasbro/WoTC at this point is that they've more or less said, "We want to make it a game that everyone's going to be happy with." This, IMO, is a recipe for disaster waiting to happen. I think Monte Cook oscillates between brilliant and so-so, but you can almost guarantee that shortly after 5e comes out, they're going to can him again, and that's one of HasbroTC's real problems. They don't retain staff long enough to ensure that the finished product stays consistent.

Myself? I'm still willing to give 5e a try; played 4e and really didn't like how it went, not one bit. More to the point, I LOATHED the shoddy knife-work applied to Forgotten Realms to make it fit the 4e setting; I know that each edition of the Realms got tweaked a little to fit, but for 4e, they pretty much turned it into an entirely new setting. As of about a month ago, I officially switched over to Pathfinder. A buddy of mine let me borrow the Inner Sea World Guild and I was blown away by the writing in it, the depth of the setting, and a lot of the elements it had (crashed spaceships? interplanetary travel? firearms? god of man dies, everything FUBAR?). I figured I'd buy a couple books, and was even more pleased when I could pick up the PDFs instead of having to buy hard copies, and yet more again when they were a fraction of the price. The way it seems to me is that Paizo just has more heart for the game, whereas Hasbro sees it as a business venture. I'm not saying they have to have, say, a Kevin Siembieda holding the reins so tight that the company and fanbase bleeds as a result, but I definitely feel that had they retained certain writers and worked a little longer on the mechanics aspect of things, 4e could've been a lot better.

To summarize, willing to playtest 5e but hesitant; playing Pathfinder, love it.


Who likes role-playing games? Me. Way too goddamn much.
 
View user's profileSend private message
LeshLush
Joined: Oct 19 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
PostPosted: Feb 25 2012 09:27 pm Reply with quote Back to top

aeonic wrote:
stuff

I'm in a similar boat. Also signed up for the playtest, and cautiously optimistic about 5e, but Legend (new fan-made system based off of 3e) is so awesome at fixing stuff wrong with 3e that I feel like 5e is going to need to be damned impressive.

Also, I DM a 3e game that has gone on forever, and I know none of the players will ever want to change, so even if I continually move on, I will always also be playing 3e.
View user's profileSend private message
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Feb 25 2012 09:46 pm Reply with quote Back to top

LeshLush wrote:
aeonic wrote:
stuff

but Legend (new fan-made system based off of 3e) is so awesome at fixing stuff wrong with 3e that I feel like 5e is going to need to be damned impressive.


Yes! Legend is awesome. Still have some issues with 3.x style games in general, but Legend is easily my favorite take on it.
View user's profileSend private message
Probable Muppet
Joined: Aug 05 2008
Location: CA
PostPosted: Feb 25 2012 11:19 pm Reply with quote Back to top

I am a total D&D newb, having played maybe 3 games of D&D and one of Mage; but one thing in the Q&A session mentioned that I found to be true personally in my limited experience was the the "gritty" low levels, or the fear of the level 1 PC dying.

I have personally experienced the feeling of "If I choose to attack the goblin, will the ceiling fall and kill the entire party", maybe (probably) due to my inexperience.

So I had an idea regarding this issue, that I wanted to run past you experienced players, it could be really stupid but...

What if there was a "Catastrophe" system tied to the classes or themes. For instance, if you where a Fighter class, you could have a one time choice to loose a limb and have your weapon busted into pieces, instead of dying. Or if you were a caster, you could choose to be turned into a slobbering crazed man for 3 days, casting spells through "muscle memory" and becoming a real liability to your party and to everyone around you. Or maybe that second one would fit best with a theme, for instanced a "Demon Touched" caster could temporary be turned into a chaotic liability for a period of time.

A player would be able to choose like 2 of these Catastrophes, one tied to class, one tied to theme, or even a basic one tied to a permanent stat reduction. And the player could use these as an alternative to permanent death at the discretion of the DM.

I tried playing a Dragonborn Paladin once with really low intelligence. I wanted to tie his low intelligence to the character being good at heart, but incredibly reckless, prone to bashing down doors at the wrong time looking for evil doers ect.; but feared the repercussions of death and endangering the party. With a system like this in place I would have less fear in playing around with the character.
View user's profileSend private message
LeshLush
Joined: Oct 19 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
PostPosted: Feb 26 2012 12:35 am Reply with quote Back to top

I'm going to assume you're talking about 3rd Edition.

Personally, I'd probably rather die than get stuck playing a one-armed fighter for a campaign. Particularly if the game was still at low levels and I hadn't gotten too attached to the character yet. Also, if my friend's wizard went insane and started casting spells randomly at random targets, you'd better believe I'd need strong in-character reasons not to just murder his wizard and force my friend to roll up someone new.

I think the advice I would give would be: don't start at level 1. Start at level 4, or maybe even five. Tell your DM that you still feel uncomfortable and ask him put some training wheels on for the next few sessions.
View user's profileSend private message
aeonic
Title: Sporadic Poster
Joined: Nov 19 2009
Location: Kissimmee, FL
PostPosted: Feb 26 2012 05:05 am Reply with quote Back to top

Honestly, I'm with Lesh on this one, although to be quite fair, I've heard the 'goblin with a rock could kill me' argument so many times that I temporarily go deaf every time I hear it. In 3.x, I usually start around fifth level or higher, because it generally gives more of a starting point for a really solid and thematic character. Honestly, I think that any DM who does a TPK on a 1st level party, especially with new players, is a ginormous piece of shit. Yeah, sometimes the dice go bad, but even then, a low-level adventure should be scaled to the point where, unless the party does some egregiously stupid shit, they're not going to die. Get knocked out, need to be bandaged by party members? Sure, that can happen. My thing is, a normal person could kill another normal person with a rock, so it makes sense the same could happen to a wet-behind-the-ears farmboy with his grandpa's sword or a sickly apprentice who just learned how to cast non-cantrip spells. I think that Legend and Pathfinder have done a bit to ameliorate that fear, but even still, it shouldn't be much of a fear in the first place.

I consider myself fortunate that my semi-regular Pathfinder tabletop consists of myself as DM, my wife and our former roommate, and we have a blast. They started out at first level, and I used a module that was for four 1st level characters. They not only survived, but they kicked it's ass as a ranger and a wizard. Why, you ask? Because they did sensible or creative things. When they were being attacked by dire rats in a larder, they jumped up and onto a high table and hacked/bespelled them to death as the rats tried to climb up it. When they heard the muffled sound of kobolds in a room adjacent to it, busily gambling, they took a massive jug of high-proof liquor they'd found in the larder and rolled it inside, then fired a flaming arrow at it and doused them all in burning spirits. They got attacked by an ogre in a cave portion, so what'd they do? Ran to a narrow part of the cave's tunnels and shot/fired spells at it until it died. Of course, those two are kind of weird (my wife, for example, has asked to perform Prostitution checks to lower the price of magic weapons from vendors, and my ex-roommate found treasure in the stomach of one creature, so now they regularly gut everything they kill), but still, we have a lot of fun.


Who likes role-playing games? Me. Way too goddamn much.
 
View user's profileSend private message
lordsathien
Title: Head of Lexian R&D
Joined: Oct 15 2005
Location: Metro area, Georgia
PostPosted: Apr 11 2012 06:50 am Reply with quote Back to top



"Life is a waste of time. Time is a waste of life. Get wasted all the time, and you'll have the time of your life!"
 
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
lordsathien
Title: Head of Lexian R&D
Joined: Oct 15 2005
Location: Metro area, Georgia
PostPosted: Apr 12 2012 12:15 pm Reply with quote Back to top

In case people can't bother sitting through an entire hour-long video, there was a Q&A section roughly a third into it with the following highlights. Pardon the disjointed bulletpoints:

* This edition will be based around a hub/kernel that can easily be added to. Optional systems, like psionics won't be a part of it. That will also likely mean campaign setting content will be their own optional materials. It's sounding a lot like how nWoD has the base book where you're a human and all the awakened being books (Vampires, werewolves, mages, golems, changelings, etc.) revolve around those rules.
One example to this modularity was Death and Dying; the standard rules are once you hit 0, you can survive to a certain number of negative hit points. But if the DM decides he wants to handle vitals in a more dramatic light or perhaps a more pulpy, comic-book style where the heroes never die, they just wind up unconscious.
The modular content won't be designed to be so much as campaign setting-centric as much as general style options. Avoiding "okay, there're 20 kinds of DMs, let's do a line for each kind" like TSR sort of did with 2E back in the day.

* Skills have been a big issue with development, due to a lack of uniform implementation across editions. 1E barely had them, 2E had NWPs, a full-fledged system in 3E and a stripped (dumbed) down version of that in 4E. Conversely, a wizard in every edition is going to study is spellbook to memorize spells.

* 4E's skill challenges flat out will not be returning in the base rules.

* They're currently on the 4th playtest build.

* Character customization will go beyond class and race. Story-based character themes, such as being nobility or will let you modify the base character with some modest changes.

* Turn undead was considered as a power more for higher level clerics. They realize this was a stupid move the moment one playtest group encountered some skeletons and the cleric could only shrug and say "I don't have it." Thankfully it will remain a 1st level ability.

* Online play tools like 4E's DDI and virtual tabletop are going to likely be adapted.

* They're trying to work on solving the "Linear Fighter vs. Quadratic Wizard" power issue. Especially with spells that deal damage vs spells that flat out "shut down" a monster like dominate, sleep, charm, illusions, etc. Furthermore, while 4E allegedly did a great job at balancing the classes within combat, they want to go beyond that and extend that balance to noncombat actions.

* Classes are being looked at as individual pieces. Playtesting breaks up where something like one of the newer classes like 4E's Avenger should be between a class or a kit/variant off an existing class with more traction.

* The general system, in an effort to be a simplified kernel, seems to veer away from things like saving throws and skill checks. Instead, they'll go off the core ability scores, with the throws/checks coming in with the various modular rule extensions.

* One questioner commented that 4E seems to have had about half the lifespan that 3.X had, hoping that WotC has a stronger focus on 5E. And he also joked "And how long do you think it will be before Paizo releases 4.25E?"

* Miniatures will NOT be required
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
aeonic
Title: Sporadic Poster
Joined: Nov 19 2009
Location: Kissimmee, FL
PostPosted: Apr 25 2012 08:19 pm Reply with quote Back to top

http://montecook.livejournal.com/251404.html

No more Monte Cook working on 5E. Wonder what that's going to do to the finished product?


Who likes role-playing games? Me. Way too goddamn much.
 
View user's profileSend private message
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Apr 25 2012 08:47 pm Reply with quote Back to top

aeonic wrote:
http://montecook.livejournal.com/251404.html

No more Monte Cook working on 5E. Wonder what that's going to do to the finished product?


And today became a slightly better day.

This isn't going to be all good for DnD 5e, and I hope they take another year or two to playtest now that the team has been shaken up, but this change is going to be for the better I think. I do wish Monte the best, and I want it clear I don't hate the guy, I just find many of his design choice questionable. From what I understand, his fiction writing is pretty good, I just haven't had the time to read any.
View user's profileSend private message
SoldierHawk
Moderator
Title: Warrior-Poet
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
PostPosted: Apr 25 2012 09:09 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Why would you need to have story based customization? Isn't that what roleplaying is for?


militarysignatures.com

William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.

 
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: Apr 25 2012 10:00 pm Reply with quote Back to top

SoldierHawk wrote:
Why would you need to have story based customization? Isn't that what roleplaying is for?


Themes are a carry over from 4e, and were introduced for two reason, to give more options at level 1, and to help stop the whining of removing most RPing rules from the game. It is kind of a simple explanation, but that is all they really were, and I think will be all they really are here. I think they might work better in 4e refluff friendly environment, since I worry about people ending up with similar backstorys due to wanting a single benefit, but I am reserving judgment till I see them, since I liked them in 4e.

At least, I assume that is what you are referring to for the story based character customization.
View user's profileSend private message
nihilisticglee
Joined: Oct 12 2007
PostPosted: May 24 2012 03:14 pm Reply with quote Back to top

Open play testing has started, take a look here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Reply to topic

 
 Jump to: