Worried about 5th

7 hours ago by e_whit
Ive been contemplating over how 5th should be. A. Taking the best core from all editions and have advance rules that can be picked by each individual game group.

Or B.  Being able to create a character based on your preference thus person A creates very basic character. Person. B creates 3.5 character and person C creates a 4th edition character.
Without seeing how it will play out yet I have reservations on this style. How a group of 5 each have different character in vast ways. Will all character versions have same xp chart when one gets no feats (basic) compared to one that gets feats and etc (3.5). How will a persons 4th edition with powers come into play when playing with those that don't have it.  Will push and pull and slide from powers apply?  Will a 4th Ed Mage cast different damage compared to another Mage 2nd Ed who can cast a 10d6 fireball
Will the 4th Ed warrior not get to wear platemail compared to another warrior who can wear full plate.  Healing surges for one character and another without?  Will the cleric 1st edition get upset when the 4th Ed next to him can cast powers while he has run out.
I see people getting upset over other people when one character can get more choices over another.  My warrior has double specialization. What does your basic get?  My wizard casts 10D6 fireball. Lol. Yours is only 3d6 and your same level HA! 
If their idea is to allow an option for each individual to make a edition character of their choice I see to many imbalance and if you change those imbalance your changing the idea of playing each edition as a choice. Example. Hmm let's make tfe Mage cast 6d6 max for fireball for all editions. Well you just changed each edition to prevent those pitfalls yet just created one. 
Tread carefully.
And on a side note regarding spells with names like Bigby otiluke etc. they will always be apart of the game never change it. Although in FR it doesn't make much sense since Bigby otiluke Mordenksnein etc were never a part of FR. 
I for one dislike that they have been tossed aside with Greyhawk.  I'm not asking greyhawk world to be rebuilt   I thought the gods were boring but loved how beloved modules fit on the greyhawk map. The circle of eight Along with iuz iggwlv Vecna the lich and the other greyhawk need a place in the D&D world. I'd rather see a new world map since 5th edition will be a re start for D&D. And in this world each old world is now a continent. Greyhawk FR Ebberon Dragonlance mystara.
This would allow cross interaction with all the famouse characters. Mordenkanein Elminster Dalamar
I travel to Waterdeep one day and City of Greyhawk the next.

I think you are being a bit too literal with the game designs intent. They have never said that you will be playing a 3.5 version wizard vs. someone else’s 1e wizard. What they are trying to do is allow the player to choose the level of complexity they want their character to have.


So I would assume that the fireball spell will be the same spell regardless of the level of complexity you put into your character. Maybe the spell itself will have varying levels of complexity as well, like maybe if you wanted a more 4e style character you could sacrifice damage for controller like effects, i.e. push, pull, and slide.

I think you are being a bit too literal with the game designs intent. They have never said that you will be playing a 3.5 version wizard vs. someone else’s 1e wizard. What they are trying to do is allow the player to choose the level of complexity they want their character to have.



Yes, that's more like it.

G.

P.S.: though, in case, the Classic D&D Magic-User will rule with its 20d6 fireballs Laughing

Totally on with the idea of the different class's to have a good strong niche within a party, specialist talents or techniques that make the:
The fighter good at melee( or ranged)
The ranger is an expert tracker, stealthy and wilderness warrior
The cleric can aid his\her comrades with prayers and heal the injured
The Bard is an all-rounder, between the rogue, mage and cleric
The rogue is a city rogue(or wilderness bandit) who knows traps, locks and stealth
The Druid a master of herbs, nature healing and animal control
The Wizard a master of the arcane, making the impossible possible(invisibility, illusion and arcane blasts
Barbarians are savage fighters, only knowledgable in certain armour and melee weapons.
Paladins are the divine warriors, elite killers of evil priests, demons and undead.

These are the roles of each of the core characters with specific capabilities within a party.

Maybe that would make the ranger less effective in a city setting but I'd never say that he'd be useless in the setting. However he would be better in certain environments.

It depends if you are keeping with the origins of the class's or going 4E direction of giving more specialist capabilities with certain fighting styles (ranger and rogue are heavy hitters, fighter is a melee controller with heavy defences and strong melee attacks).

Paladins were specialist enemies of defined evil creatures origionally and based on the mythic characters (lancelot was the main influence) so again you either go with the flavour of the character or open the character up to become a more flexible character concept (again as in 4E and later periods of 3.5 FR).

I see no problem with making the ranger a specialist archer type because this fitted better with the old style character concept(Robin Hood) but I do think the 4E fighter should have had a few more ranged options as well as melee or have the ability to go down the archer route.

I see no problems with the 4E changes to the character concepts but the characters should never lose the basic concept in lieu of nifty abilities.
 IF the rangers only shtick is wilderness survival then a rogue with a few feats and what not can cover that.
  I can dispute your arguement about the ranger and the rogue. Your point about the rogue being abled to replace the ranger with few feats and 'what not' can be reversed, a ranger could replace the rogue with a few feats and 'what nots'.
Not very conclusive as arguements go.
Considering that I have run adventures from 2E, 3E and 4E and have never seen the ranger to be irrelevant in any situation over the years. The roleplay of the character made the character relevant, his specialist capabilities just made him better at certain tasks (tracking, animal friendship, wilderness survival and killing certain creatures), as did all the character class's.
Saying that I do like the more open ended class's in 4E, but just think a few more flavour capabilities should be on offer so that you can create the origional concepts for the characters( a few feats or something like this). However I won't stop playing 4E until I've had a chance to have go at 5E.

You could have the character build based on putting in different aspects for different capabilities, for example:-
Melee abilities\talents
Ranged abilities\talents
Magic abilities\talents
Divine abilities\talent
Stealth abilities\talents

and so on, so a character who put all their focus on taking all melee abilities would be like a 4E fighter, but a fighter who had 1 Melee talent, 1 magic talent and 1 rogue talent would be similar to the hybrid of 4E. However this could become very complicated for new players and would the end result be really worth it? I like the idea but don't know if this method would be too difficult to balance.
You can already do this in 4E, so D&D Next should have no trouble. My campaign has someone using an Essentials character spread over three pages with so many options it isn't funny, then another with a simple character sheet with only two at wills and an encounter. They asked if they could try something simpler, and it works for them and doesn't break the group.

Most of what D&D Next seems to be trying to do can be done in 4E, it's just that too many people wanted to ignore the benefits for no good reason I can see.

Reading through the poll results for the last few weeks I suspect that most of the good intentions will get washed away by the plethora of people from the Pathfinder forums who come in to vottrot make D&D Next a PF clone. The results are always predictable; they will be overwhelmingly PF-ish, with all the limitations that brings.

D&D Next doesn't need to be griundbreaking to achieve its goals, it just needs to be better. If the designers listen to the polls, it won't be. 
My thoughts on what works and what doesn't in D&D and how D&D Next may benefit are detailed on my blog, Vorpal Thoughts.
There is alot in 4th that was good. However let's talk about a few other things. The ranger can be good city outdoor and dungeon. Choosing on which one he chooses and what the DM provides in game. The rogue is actually more limiting with streetwise however makes up with the rogue skills that should be limited to rogues. However they do have alot in common for skills but end with combat style. Depending how old you are you may remember the paladin for each alignment back when there was 9 alignments. The paladin of LG alignment must be or otherwise every fighter would choose that class. Another thing is thinking that everyone has to pick from a catagory to be balanced. Well think again. Not everyone wants to play a class they didn't want to play. People play whaht they want to play do t for e it on them. Oh we need a Mage so you have to play one because we picked everything else.
However all of these descussions are good because WotC needs to know so let's keep the debate going. As for polls individual polls will not work. And d&d WotC need a 1,000 question poll made.
I do like the idea of begin able to build the character to particular style, based around your character concept but as long as it doesn't make the game too complicated (I've little problem with complicated but this could be a problem for new starters).

Even back in second edition TSR produced a set of books for each of the core class( and races) that gave tweaks and adjustments to them based on the concept (for example a wilderness rogue, or rogue thug, or cleric templar) which was an interesting method of including a little more variation. This was a little like the 4E character themes, however these included more on the non-combat element that 4E which was a little better than the character themes of recent.

Overall I don't have a problem with giving options for characters to have broad abilities, however I would like to be able to create the origional concepts from the early days (2E) which I think if WOTC are trying to give the feel of all the editions then they need to have this to mind in D&D Next. A classic LG Paladin, that tithes to the common people,heals the sick and injured and has a special mount should be possible or a Wilderness Aragorn or Robin Hood should be possible.

I am a big believer in giving characters the ability to change over the campaign, so the wild, savage barbarian should be able to develop into a cultured knight or lord.

Was the Paladin alignment variants in the Paladin book of 2nd Ed? I do remember a few character options in Dragon magazine of the early days, one article being "Paladins arn't boring" or something along those lines because the origional Paladin was thought of as too tied down to be fun (I think that was a misunderstanding of alignment and the paladin restrictions).
The extra paladins were from. Dragon magazine. One for each alignment. we played around with it. Plethora of paladins I think was the article. The chaotic neutral Pali was the most feared. Anyway. They should stay with lawful good
@Bremc_Aus
I'm not seeing that in the votes.  I'm seeing spreads all over the place.  I'm just the opposite in my view though.  This is the D&D forum and not the Pathfinder forum.  Thus I would expect 4e concepts to be favored if any are being favored.  I fear some of these polls will lead the designers to believe that a concept is desirable when it's desirable only within these forums.  Maybe they are doing outside research.

I see a DM defining his campaign mostly.  There will be DM's though that allow more class variation than others.  Some DM's might go old school and say vancian only.  Other DM's might go 100% 4e and say non-vancian only.  Others will fall in between (thats me in all likelihood depending on each class of course).  I like mechanical variety in classes because it's fun.  I'm not as strong on flavor being a class driver.  I'd rather pick my mechanics and then flavor it myself. (does that make me a narrativist ).





 
Now that I have more time and sorry but I usually post from iPhone so spelling mistakes galore. Here is the link for paladins of all alignments dragon mag #106 I believe
members.tripod.com/Lord_Eadric/paladins/...

I remember the sup books for each class with about 50 xtra xtras from gladiator to pirate to swashbuckler etc. I always hated Bying xtra sup books and still do. Back in basic 79 and through ad&d I remember getting modules pb, DM, mm 1 , mm 2, ff. that's fiend folio , deity demigod yes the cool one with cthulu and Elric mythos. Then it went to UA. My friends bought all the brown cover class sups. Which for the most part were never used. Like a novelty try it once say whatever and went back to the main books. We also tried like I mentioned the paladins. The dragon mag archer , witch etc. But still came back to core classes.
Personally I don't like to see a change from core classes til lvl 10 as they did in 4th with paragon. I really like how it worked. I also hated how I think it was 2nd Ed they had ridiculous amount of skills which took like a page in itself on the character sheet. I once again choose how 4th edition built skills list or for a faster method basic style. Just tell the DM what you want to do and the DM assigns the roll with modifiers
To answer your original question: It won't happen

When a game master starts a campaign he will decide which version he will use.  The players will create characters in that version, or they won't play in that campaign.

Period.

The advent of 5e doesn't stop this from happening, it just adds another edition that game masters can choose from.
To answer your original question: It won't happen

When a game master starts a campaign he will decide which version he will use.  The players will create characters in that version, or they won't play in that campaign.

Period.

The advent of 5e doesn't stop this from happening, it just adds another edition that game masters can choose from.



QFT. I agree with Emerikol on this point as well. With 5e, it is not as though every option is going to be available in every game, and that you'll have a guy playing a 4e-style wizard right next to a guy playing a 1e-style wizard in the same game. At least, not as a necessary consequence of the rules. Any given gaming group will determine the type of campaign they are running, and if you don't like what they're doing then you find another group. In my view, that is a good thing. People can find like-minded people and play how they like.
...With 5e, it is not as though every option is going to be available in every game, and that you'll have a guy playing a 4e-style wizard right next to a guy playing a 1e-style wizard in the same game. At least, not as a necessary consequence of the rules. ....



Actually, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the designers already said that one of their goals is exactly to have a system that allows a 4e-ish style wizard to play alongside an older edition-ish wizard within the same gaming group. Having both character styles play at the exact same table is precisely one of the goals they were shooting for.

Yes, individual groups might choose to restrict certain types of options or characters, etc. But as far as I know the design goal is for the system to allow characters of the same class from different edition styles to be used all by players sitting next to each other in the same campaign.


Actually, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the designers already said that one of their goals is exactly to have a system that allows a 4e-ish style wizard to play alongside an older edition-ish wizard within the same gaming group. Having both character styles play at the exact same table is precisely one of the goals they were shooting for.

Yes, individual groups might choose to restrict certain types of options or characters, etc. But as far as I know the design goal is for the system to allow characters of the same class from different edition styles to be used all by players sitting next to each other in the same campaign.



You are right, Bodyknock. That's what they said, though I've started to wonder how much they expect that to happen. I'm just thinking that, human nature being what it is, groups where the DM or majority of players don't like AEDU powers (just to use an example) are going to say "we're not usings those rules." I think what we'll see is the options to play in different ways, but in practice groups picking and choosing what rule sets to allow to keep their own game internally consistent. Just speculation though.
...I fear some of these polls will lead the designers to believe that a concept is desirable when it's desirable only within these forums.  Maybe they are doing outside research.
 



I have a feeling they're listening more to their playtesters and to each other and people they talk to in person at events than they are listening to the polls and this forum. I don't think they're ignoring the forums, but I doubt they're taken nearly as seriously as actual playtester feedback and comments from demo events. 

Honestly forums are a fun place to post ideas or rant, etc, but they're not ideal places for designers to get feedback since many posters (including myself) aren't professional designers, don't know what's going on behind the scenes during development, and don't know what ideas have already been discussed and rejected and why.  Many ideas on game forums have already been discussed in detail and shelved or rejected by the developers long before it was posted on a forum. There are plenty of good game ideas posted on forums that just don't pan out in practice. That doesn't mean the designers ignored the forums, it just means they already debated the topic internally and decided against it.


So how much of 4e makes it into 5e is probably going to be mostly a matter of what happens in playtesting and internal design decisions, not on what's posted here. In fact overall I'm actually optimistic when it comes to new editions because I think in general the designers keep what works well in playtesting from the old edition and change what doesn't work while keeping in new ideas that playtested well and shelving ideas that didn't. No system's perfect but on average I think this sort of evolution in the testing-design cycle leads to a better game after each iteration. (Not surprisingly I like 3e as a system better than 2e and 4e better as a system than 3e.)
In regards to the martial class fighter/ranger/rogue conflict.  I really think that the answer is to limit the scope of the fighter.  He was simply to broad a character concept pre 4e.  I like how 4e basically decided that fighter was the big front line heavy hitter and took away his ability to become the light stealthy warrior or the straight archer warrior.

the way I see it:

Fighter: The heavy hitting, tough as nails frontline combatant.  The fighter stands toe to toe with the biggest meanest scarriest green things that the DM can throw at him and doesn't back down.

Ranger: The archer.  Rangers aren't as robust as the fighter and they much prefer to do their work from range raining death down on their enemies.  The ranger really should just be the archer character, all of the minor magic, animal companion stuff and whatnot is already done better by the Druid.  If they do have melee capabilites those abilities should be based around movement and getting back out of range to resume firing.

Rogues: Rogues fight from the shadows with bursts of damage before melting back into the shadows or hiding behind the armored forms of their frontline allies.  The rouge is the quintisential skirmisher and should have a variety of movement based abilties to give them a chance to get sneak attack damage..


Actually, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the designers already said that one of their goals is exactly to have a system that allows a 4e-ish style wizard to play alongside an older edition-ish wizard within the same gaming group. Having both character styles play at the exact same table is precisely one of the goals they were shooting for.

Yes, individual groups might choose to restrict certain types of options or characters, etc. But as far as I know the design goal is for the system to allow characters of the same class from different edition styles to be used all by players sitting next to each other in the same campaign.



You are right, Bodyknock. That's what they said, though I've started to wonder how much they expect that to happen. I'm just thinking that, human nature being what it is, groups where the DM or majority of players don't like AEDU powers (just to use an example) are going to say "we're not usings those rules." I think what we'll see is the options to play in different ways, but in practice groups picking and choosing what rule sets to allow to keep their own game internally consistent. Just speculation though.




It's certainly possible that a DM might say "NO AEDU FOR YOU" to his players. Personally though I'm more of an optimist, I think most DMs would be flexible in letting players chose the style of character they want to play and going with that, especially if the system is balanced in such a way that the different styles of character builds are relatively equal in effectiveness to each other (ie 3e-style wizards in DnD Next are on par power-wise with 4e style wizards in DnD Next.)  Most DMs would only reject something if they felt it was somehow overpowered, for example, and most players don't really care what type of character other players are using.


Actually, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the designers already said that one of their goals is exactly to have a system that allows a 4e-ish style wizard to play alongside an older edition-ish wizard within the same gaming group. Having both character styles play at the exact same table is precisely one of the goals they were shooting for.

Yes, individual groups might choose to restrict certain types of options or characters, etc. But as far as I know the design goal is for the system to allow characters of the same class from different edition styles to be used all by players sitting next to each other in the same campaign.



You are right, Bodyknock. That's what they said, though I've started to wonder how much they expect that to happen. I'm just thinking that, human nature being what it is, groups where the DM or majority of players don't like AEDU powers (just to use an example) are going to say "we're not usings those rules." I think what we'll see is the options to play in different ways, but in practice groups picking and choosing what rule sets to allow to keep their own game internally consistent. Just speculation though.



I would never play with people who always want to dictate what classes and races their fellow players can play. Not cool, not friendly, just plain bad behaviour. If the new mechanics actually allow me to cast at-wills and dailies alongside another player's Vancian spell list, why not?

Member of Grognards for 4th Edition
What's being missed here is that there are not 2 camps.  There are a 100 camps.  Some of those camps allow an AEDU wizard AND a vancian wizard.  Others won't.   If they thought there really were just 2 camps they'd just reissue 3e and sell 4e alongside it.

Simulation <-------> Narrativism is a continuum
System Mastery <-------> Total Class Simplicity is a continuum

People don't choose the ends all the time.  While I want vancian back I wouldn't care if something akin to AEDU was chosen by another player.  Anything I hate though as DM I would of course ban but that will vary from DM to DM and in infinite varieties of ways.