The 3.75 Compromise

Grab a large sack, throw in several cats and shake. Basically the D&D Editon wars. D&DN has several stated goals such as things like modularity and the like and that is will be designed to attract players of all edtions. Some of you have been noting I have been asking silly questions for the next week or so about what people liked from 4th ed or do PCs expect things at ech level and various other things.

 Wizards seems to be trying to reinvent the wheel. Bounded accuracy does not work atm due to expertise dice from the Rogue and fighter to a lesser extent. I'm not a great fan of D&DN skill system either. Tweaking 4th eds or Pathfinders skill system to me would be a better idea even if one wanted lower numbers so no more DC 35 and 40 skill checks. With DCs so low in D&DN with 4-5 PCs rolling even untrained you have a reasonable chance of making anything DC20 or lower by someone in the group. A tweak to 4th eds skill system for example could be something like.

half level +3 instead of 5.
Skill Focus grant advanatge one chosen skill instead of +5.
Add more skills including missing 3.5 skills.

 If 20 was still the cap for ability scores one could have +18 to a skill check with advantage by level 20 assuming a 20 in the relevent ability score. Bounded accuracy may have to be stretched to 30 instead of 25 but you get the idea.

 But anyway the 3.75 compromise. Alot of people on the forums find the D&DN classes a bit boring. They want to keep the PCs powers within reason atm but the monsters are also really weak. Can't be to hard to scale 4th ed monsters down a bit tweaking them if required. I don't think Kobolds having shift is going to overpower them or upset the 3.5 players. WoTC did actually make a 3.75 game that still has a fanbase now and seems to avoid the poo flinging 3.5/PF and 4th ed tends to attract. That system was Star Wars Saga. What upset me a it back in 2008 was that 4th ed was 4th ed and I was hoping the then new 4th ed would resemble Saga more than what I got. Now I don't want a D&D Saga Ediiton as such but for core rules I would be looking at that system personally as it works well and has not been used in a D&D editon avoiding the use 3.5 or use 4th ed mentality some people have.

 Each Saga class looks something like this.

starting abilities
talent
feat
talent
feat.

etc. The feats and talents let you construct the class how you want to to be. It kind of resembles 3.5 in that way. No dead levels for starters and a talent of feat can be a flat umber or an encounter or daily power a'la 4th ed. One could also let you use those talents to add D&DN manuveurs into the game.

 Saga races also resemble 4th ed ones but several have the 3.5 -2 stat modifier. One could easily ditch that and while I do prefer 3.xyz over 4th I prefer 4th ed races over D&DN ones. Hmans for example are boring and overpowered in D&DN. One could also port over 4th ed floating ability scores- Ie elves get +2 dex and +2 wis or int. Basically we have.

3.5 style build options.
4th ed encounter/dailies if you want them
Static bonues for pre 3rd ed/3rd ed players.
A core sytem that already works
Easy to convert 4th ed monsters to it. Or 3.5 ones.
Fast to run
Easy to design for.
No dead levels

 It still retains BAB but that can be turned into D&DN attack modifiers and Saga did have some problems around things ike Skill Focus Use the Force which won't be a problem in a D&D conversion. Not all the classes would need to follow the talent/feat/talent/feat pattern such as spellcasters since they get spells instead every time they level up. A Ranger talent or class bonus feat for example could grant access to spells like a 3.5 Ranger or you could take a combat feat instead or pick up a 4th ed encounter power. Sneak attack can be a level 1 talent Rogues can take. The designers really only have to design a talent tree and that is not hard. The basic class structure works through to level 20 as well.

lvl 11 talent
lvl 12 feat
lvl 13 talent
level 14 feat.

etc

 The bonus class feats are on top of the feats at level 1,3,6,9,12 etc. 4th ed proved you can add powers to feats as well so one would have to be a member of XYZ class to gain a cleric power feat for example as that could be put in the prerequisites.

 The core system they are still tinkering with has already been designed in Star Wars Saga. One can throw out class skills and use D&DN style backgrounds. Advantage/disadvantage can easily be plugged into any d20 game and so cn expertise dice which right now cause out of combat problems involving skill checks. An AEDU style class could easily be added and a varient AEDU wizard could easily be designed.

3.75 AEDU wizard

lvl 1. At wills, class features, pick an encounter power and maybe a daily.
level 2 talent
Level 3 feat
evel 4 talent.

 Each talent or feat allowing you to get a 4th ed style power or utility. One could have a AEDU wizards and Vancian wizard sit at the same table. Maybe one is from Nerath and the other is an Arkhosian tradition wizard.

Maybe 4th ed players would not get everything they wanted at 1st but if I was WoTC I would bring out a 4th ed style PHB or module very early in the the games release schedule or even have 4 core books on release. THe sytem is a evolution of 3.5 and it can accomodate 4th ed players.

 Beats me I is stupid. If enough people like my idea lets unite the fanbase and let Mearls know what we want but in a polite way.



 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Keep in mind that there are a great many of us that want D&D closer to the editions that existsed long before either of the ones you mentioned.
4e people mostly want statigic/tactical depth.  AEDU gives both with it's short, mid, and long recharge powers.  Add to that the fact that everyone chose 5+ powers from a decently sized list, and your have a start.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Keep in mind that there are a great many of us that want D&D closer to the editions that existsed long before either of the ones you mentioned.



I have a friend who is a HUGE fan of Saga and pretty much argues for exactly what the OP is advocating.

The issue is that not everyone was happy with 3.X at all... so the "Saga/3.75" option is tantamount to admitting that "one edition to rule them all" is no longer on the horizon. 
Keep in mind that there are a great many of us that want D&D closer to the editions that existsed long before either of the ones you mentioned.



 What do you want fomr a pre 3rd ed ediiton of D&DN? Do you like the speed of the game, the simplicity of the rules or do you want level limits to return and fighters to have the ability to gian follwers at 10 and only have weapon specialisation as an option?

 What specifically do you want in D&DN from pre 3rd ed?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I have only tried two star wars sessions using the saga rules as a player, I remember i found it interesting / had fun, but then we went on to start a FR campaign since we wanted a fantasy game and not a science fiction game. I can not remember any of the game rule details

Well, that should leave you in perfect position to talk about it in depth then, right?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Well, that should leave you in perfect position to talk about it in depth then, right?

MWA
Keep in mind that there are a great many of us that want D&D closer to the editions that existsed long before either of the ones you mentioned.



 What do you want fomr a pre 3rd ed ediiton of D&DN? Do you like the speed of the game, the simplicity of the rules or do you want level limits to return and fighters to have the ability to gian follwers at 10 and only have weapon specialisation as an option?

 What specifically do you want in D&DN from pre 3rd ed?




AD&D 2E
I liked the speed of gameplay and the focus on ability scores. This is already fixed in DDN.
I liked 2nd edition Skills (Proficiencies), honestly its this type of open-ended skill list I'd like to see in DDN. Not quite there yet but easily adaptable in a module.

D&D 4E
DM aids, 4E is the only edition that really addressed the problem of the heavy burden placed on DMs. The edition worked to give tools required to make NPCs/Monsters and Encounters easy to customize and run

D&D 3E
Class structure, Classes for Monsters and NPCs, FEATS and character customization.

SW SAGA
I think it had the best class structure: Talent, Feat, Talent, Feat. Nice progression with no dead levels that is easy to remember and allows for customization.

What is new in DDN that is better then previous editions:
Bounded accuracy
Advantage
Action Economy
Ability based checks
As 3.x is pretty much my least favorite edition the very idea is a non starter.

If you want to play that game more power to ya but I have no interest in it.
 
Keep in mind that there are a great many of us that want D&D closer to the editions that existsed long before either of the ones you mentioned.



 What do you want fomr a pre 3rd ed ediiton of D&DN? Do you like the speed of the game, the simplicity of the rules or do you want level limits to return and fighters to have the ability to gian follwers at 10 and only have weapon specialisation as an option?

 What specifically do you want in D&DN from pre 3rd ed?



Mostly, I want rules that are simple and malleable - easy to modify or discard any single rule without breaking (m)any other rule(s). I want only the rules that are needed to resolve whatever actions the PC's take without dictacting what actions are actually available to be taken. I want rules that get out of the way when they are not needed.

I want character creation that takes no more than five minutes. I want encounter building that takes no more than five minutes. As DM, I want to be able to write an adventure, not build a series of tactical scenarios. When a player says "I do this..." I want to be able to make a call on the outcome of their actions without having to cross reference anything. I want to be able to run a full adventure in a single 3-hour gaming session, not just one or two set-piece combat encounters.

This is just the tip of the iceberg - I have to leave the office in a few minutes so I don't have time to write more. But to your specific questions, I never liked level limits, or the hard-coded fighter followers - but I do like that those rules were very easy to change or remove without the rest of the system crumbling to bits because of it.


I'm not necessarily saying that your proposal here will run counter to any of the things that I want, by the way. I just wanted to point out that trying to create a middle ground between 3.5 and 4th edition doesn't take into account the interests of everyone that 5th edition is intended to take into account.
While I don't like DDNs skill list right now, I like its DC and training system more than I have like the DC and training system for any edition of D&D. I don't want them to add 1/2 level bloat to their math! I would like them to fix the way Mighty Exertion and Skill Mastery effect the skill system, though...

 
 What do you want fomr a pre 3rd ed ediiton of D&DN? Do you like the speed of the game, the simplicity of the rules or do you want level limits to return and fighters to have the ability to gian follwers at 10 and only have weapon specialisation as an option?

 What specifically do you want in D&DN from pre 3rd ed?

I know this question /really/ isn't directed at me, and I'd prefer 5e to be a modern system.  But, I started playing D&D in 1980, and there are things I miss about the classic editions of the game.



  • Variants:  A lot of people say they love that the rules were 'simple.' They weren't.  They or the DM they were playing with just ignored a lot of them.  Or changed a lot of them.  The attitude of the writers (mostly EGG, himself, of course), and of the community (which was a lot less connected back then), was very accepting of variants. Changes to the rules specific to a campaign or a scenario were the norm.  The rules were 'bad' by modern standards, but you felt no obligation to just live with their flaws.  Your fixes might be worse, but you felt no obligation to just stick them out, either.  

  • Arbitrary monsters:  Monsters weren't built by formulas nor were they detailed simulations.  Monsters were a quick sketch of the abilities and attributes that might matter to the PCs facing them or the DM placing them.  OK, in 2e, it got very "ecology of," so I guess this isn't /all/ classic D&D.  There was also nothing wrong with saying that a young Ogre fought as an Orc, or a tough kobold fought as a hobgoblin.  

  • Arbitrary items:  Magic items didn't follow any particular rules, not in how the DM placed them, not in how they were made, not in how they worked.  They just did whatever the heck they said they did.  I hated this at the time, but today I think that it made items more interesting and desireable as treasure.  Game-wrecking, too, of course, but in an interesting way. 



Do I really think those things have any place in modern D&D for a modern audience?  No.  But, I do miss them sometimes.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Keep in mind that there are a great many of us that want D&D closer to the editions that existsed long before either of the ones you mentioned.



 What do you want fomr a pre 3rd ed ediiton of D&DN? Do you like the speed of the game, the simplicity of the rules or do you want level limits to return and fighters to have the ability to gian follwers at 10 and only have weapon specialisation as an option?

 What specifically do you want in D&DN from pre 3rd ed?



Mostly, I want rules that are simple and malleable - easy to modify or discard any single rule without breaking (m)any other rule(s). I want only the rules that are needed to resolve whatever actions the PC's take without dictacting what actions are actually available to be taken. I want rules that get out of the way when they are not needed.

I want character creation that takes no more than five minutes. I want encounter building that takes no more than five minutes. As DM, I want to be able to write an adventure, not build a series of tactical scenarios. When a player says "I do this..." I want to be able to make a call on the outcome of their actions without having to cross reference anything. I want to be able to run a full adventure in a single 3-hour gaming session, not just one or two set-piece combat encounters.

This is just the tip of the iceberg - I have to leave the office in a few minutes so I don't have time to write more. But to your specific questions, I never liked level limits, or the hard-coded fighter followers - but I do like that those rules were very easy to change or remove without the rest of the system crumbling to bits because of it.


I'm not necessarily saying that your proposal here will run counter to any of the things that I want, by the way. I just wanted to point out that trying to create a middle ground between 3.5 and 4th edition doesn't take into account the interests of everyone that 5th edition is intended to take into account.



 Sga was reaosnably quick in terms of character creation at level 1.  Your 1st point may be harder to access but the Star Wars Saga had the DMG, PHB and MM all in 1 book that was about the same size as a single 3.5 core book or a 4th ed PHB. Maybe a little thicker. Not sure if that counts as rules light for a core book.

 Saga wasn't perfect by any means nut enither was 3.5 and 4th ed. In some ways D&DN is trying to reinvent the wheel.

 Slygamer those idea from D&DN can be added to a 2.0 Version of Saga and one could probably houserule them into 3.5 and 4th ed except maybe the bounded accuracy idea. Saga 2/0 could be tweaked to incorporate that as well since it would be a "new" system.

Stoloc anyhting that is not 4.5 seems unacceptable to you. I can't sugercoat it I don't think D&DN is going to be any good for you unless its 4.5 and I don't think it will be.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 As I said Hipster if we could rally enough of the forum users behind it from multilpe sides of the edition wars fence and say "this is a good idea, why not do this" it could fly. THe hard work has more or less been done in Saga and its a very easy converison to get the elements from D&DN that are popular into it.

 They are trying to make a system to achieve the same goal when its already there and just some tweaking or they can evolve it a bit further. Condition track form Saga can be ditched, BAB can be ditched, NADS can be used and converiosns from d20 games isn't a massive probelm although some things won't be able to be converted.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

A 3.75 is probably the only way D&D could get on top again. 

Too bad it's too much common sense for it to happen.



Likely not.

Don't forget that 4th Ed outsold Pathfinder for the first half of it's life (at least, according to Amazon, the FLGSs and the brick and mortar bookstores) and even a 3.75 based on Saga isn't going to pull many Pathfinder players.

So if Next goes that way they will miss out on basically all of the 4th Ed players AND many Pathfinder players AND most of the OD&D, AD&D and 2nd Ed players who never converted to 3.X.

That sounds like a fastrack to financial oblivion to me.

...

I certainly wouldn't buy it, and (like 3.5) would use violence against anyone who suggested that I DM for it.       
ANy verison of D&D is gogin to sell well on release. D&DN regardless of the final form it takes is going to have to compete with Pathfinder. PF has already outsold 4th ed so 4.5 is a no go. THe hardcore PF and 4th ed fans will not look at 5th ed regardless of what it is unless its a reprint of 3.5/4th ed.

 A suspect a large chunk of Pathfinder fans are into it because it has support and its not 4th ed. PF has issues some 3.5 related, others of Paizo's own making.

 D&DN is kinda fun but there is post after post of it being a bit bland, the races sucking and its unbounded accuracy concept not reall working that well. Any 1st and 2nd ed holdouts still left probably won't play D&DN unless it is either a clone of what they are using or at least is fast to run and easy to DM fiat.

 3.5/PF is kind of disqualified due to being a pain to design for and run at higher levels. 4th ed is disqualified by virtue of being 4th ed which caused people to switch to PF. Saga is very rules light compared to 3.5 and 4th so that alone may appeal to pre 3rd ed players. If they have a problem with d20 in general 3.5, 4th and D&DN will not appeal to them regardless.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The critical part is, make something there will attract many customers, because that attracts even more customers, since people will buy what they need to buy in order to find groups to play with
Also, a 3.75 isn't a "Compromise" any more than a 4.5 (whatever the hell that would look like) would be.

It's a direct slap in the face to anyone who didn't like 3.X (which is a heck of a lot more than just 4th Ed players).

This is NOT the way forward.   
See previous statement about pre 3rd ed players. Design something simple for them if thats what they like, if they don't like d20 no new version of D&D will appeal. Not being d20 will likely alienate 3rd ed/pf players and 4th ed players.

 No compromise will be perfect. You can't appeal to the extremists of any edtion so they should be ignored IMHO.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

A 3.5 clone would make Wizard compete with Paizo who holds all the cards in terms of 3.XYZ right now and it would alienate the 4th ed players totally. Also one day 6th ed will roll around and OGL leaves the Door open for another repeat f Paizo.

 Its not like after a 4 year break WoTC can say "oh we are gonna make a better adventure path than paizo". He they stuggled making a decent 4th ed adventure using their own rules.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


AD&D 2E
I liked the speed of gameplay and the focus on ability scores. This is already fixed in DDN.



Well sort of... I still think ability scores need to be roughly twice the bonus for ability checks, like they were in 2E. the main problem is that a guy with 18 strength isn't that much more likely to succeed at forcing a door than someone with 10 strength.
 Brand loyalty did bring alot of players over but they did not stay either due to not liking 4th ed or liking 3.5 better and having Paizo relase Pathfinder in 2009. 4th ed provoked a massive backlash to the extent that 3.5 with all of its problems was preferable to 4th ed.

 I could fix 3.5 myself in a hypthetical "4th ed" but it probably would not be compatable with 3.5 anymore. 4th ed was differnet and I don't think PF being compatable was a large reaosn people jumped ship although it was a contributing factor.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Also, a 3.75 isn't a "Compromise" any more than a 4.5 (whatever the hell that would look like) would be.

It's a direct slap in the face to anyone who didn't like 3.X (which is a heck of a lot more than just 4th Ed players).

This is NOT the way forward.   


It was the logical step after 3.5. WotC thought brand loyalty alone was enough to bring RPG fans to 4e. It's didn't and Paizo showed that "3.75" could be very profitable. 

So any OGL game WotC would produce should really be named 3.8 or 3.9.  



For Paizo, who are just as trapped by the OGL as they are liberated by it, it was the logical step.

For WotC, who have another edition of experience and development to draw on, (and we've all seen that, even if we don't like it wholesale, 4th Ed brought a lot of good ideas to the table... many of which no system using the OGL engine will be able to duplicate) it is a foolish leap backwards.

Next should not be a "clone" of ANY edition.

It should be the BEST parts of ALL the editions brought together to make a BETTER game.

...

And I'll say it again.

I will not buy any version of D&D based on 3.X ever again.

Anyone who tries to get me to DM for any version of D&D based on 3.X will get punched.

NEVER again.               
 Does D&DN count as 3.X for you if you mind me asking?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Does D&DN count as 3.X for you if you mind me asking?



Not at the moment.

But then, it's not got most of the (content removed) stuff which made 3.X something which I will used violence over.

Let's just say I vividly remember an 8-hour day spent writing up a couple of NPC Monsters and leave it at that.

EDIT: Content removed due to asked vulgarity, which is a Code of Conduct thing. www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... 
 Does D&DN count as 3.X for you if you mind me asking?



Not at the moment.

But then, it's not got most of the (content removed) stuff which made 3.X something which I will used violence over.

Let's just say I vividly remember an 8-hour day spent writing up a couple of NPC Monsters and leave it at that.   



Most 3.x E fans would like to see less need for long GM preparation hours, that is, reduction in prep time is probably the only arguement there can convince 3.x E fans to try 5E
  Sure I fully agree with that sentiment Admiral. In one of my thread directed at 3.5 fans in regards to what they liked about 4th ed its monster system was universally popular. My 3.75 system would actually make 4th ed monster conversion very easy the main thing that would have to be tweaked being the numbers. Some of the most ardent 3.5 posters here conceded that point and not a single 3.5 poster argued that the CR system or high levle play  in 3.5 was an advantage to that system.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

3rd Edition rules and other systems similar to that are the reasons i disliked the D&D Brand before, i hated D&D games, i hated Temple of Elemental Evil and Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 (wish is a shame on 2, because outside of the 3rd edition rules crap, it was a decent game), hell, i can't even bare to play KOTOR 1 & 2 because of the rules set...

I would rather play AD&D than 3rd edition...and i would rather not play at all than play AD&D...

This 3.75 idea is a horrible idea from the marketing points of view...because the 3rd edition like market is already covered, by Paizo... and all the other games under the OGL
I have to admit, I hope WotC dont go for the "3.X was popular so lets butcher that for Next" approach. 
Yes I admit going back and taking a lot of the good features is fine but too many people are asking them to turn next
into a polished version of 3.5, which has been stated many times is the realms of Paizo now and Im happy to leave them
to it.

So far I like the way next is going, though I would like to sweep a fair share of the latest packet under the rug.

Keeping this thread along the lines of "whats best" from each edition to try and pull in would be more useful and cause a lot less bad blood imho...

On a side note, HipsterCats avatar really reminds me of Castiel from Supernatural. (misha collins)
To be honest if Wizards implement shamans any time soon, they need to take a lot of inspiration from that video.
In one of my thread directed at 3.5 fans in regards to what they liked about 4th ed its monster system was universally popular.

Hardly universal.  The scope of the thread just didn't allow for detractors.  Personally, I think the monster system of 4E was the worst part of the entire edition, and loads worse than anything that came before it.

The metagame is not the game.


So far I like the way next is going, though I would like to sweep a fair share of the latest packet under the rug.



I was SO excited about NEXT until the last packet and it  seems to have scared a lot of people.  There are plenty of good things in there but the class structure just turns me off now.  Not to mention I'm still concerned with armor and such but thats another thread.

I totally understand the idea of taking the good from other systems but we can't make people feel we are going back either.  It has to FEEL new but with some old favorite furriness that gives us that warm satisfied feeling

Next has great ideas but I am confused about bounded Accuracy combined with maneuvers that allow up to a +10 on a skill or save check.

Beyond that I like ability and skill maxes, the slower BAB increase, ect.

Class structure from 3x may be my fav.  I like sage alot but it's a little like 4e in all classes are the same.

4e had a lot of great rules and strategies.  I like utility stuff in combat.

In one of my thread directed at 3.5 fans in regards to what they liked about 4th ed its monster system was universally popular.

Hardly universal.  The scope of the thread just didn't allow for detractors.  Personally, I think the monster system of 4E was the worst part of the entire edition, and loads worse than anything that came before it.




 It was popular from the 3.5 players who did post in the thread. I'm not saying we have to copy 4th eds monsters but the ease of use and speed of designing for the sytems seemed to be a plus.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Brand loyalty did bring alot of players over but they did not stay either due to not liking 4th ed or liking 3.5 better and having Paizo relase Pathfinder in 2009. 4th ed provoked a massive backlash to the extent that 3.5 with all of its problems was preferable to 4th ed.

 I could fix 3.5 myself in a hypthetical "4th ed" but it probably would not be compatable with 3.5 anymore. 4th ed was differnet and I don't think PF being compatable was a large reason people jumped ship although it was a contributing factor.

I think compatibility was THE factor. There are others, but that one is the crux of the success of PF.

Next should not be a "clone" of ANY edition.

It should be the BEST parts of ALL the editions brought together to make a BETTER game.


No sellable. It will be a mish mash of all sort of design philosophies and fans of previous editions would miss what is missing from the edition they loved.

3.x/PF is a very solid system, very flexible and it's the one that is dominating the market. Why would anyone think that asking people to throw away their books for another alien product will be a selling point of 5e eludes me.

If people do not like 3.x/PF, well you can't please everyone. You just want to please a majority of people.



 Pathfinder could have been launched in 2007 as theres nothing stopping Paizo or anyone else doing exactly that in the OGL. I think the main reason PF done so well was the backlash against 4th ed, the compatability was a bonus. Whatever a large % of the 3.5 population wanted back in 2008, 4th ed did not deliver for them. Some companies did make d20 clones (rue 20, Conana etc) but they were not as popular as Pathfinder.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I think compatibility was THE factor. There are others, but that one is the crux of the success of PF.


I don't think so. Every PF game I've played in seems to be PF only and doesn't use 3.5 splatbooks.

PF is pretty much successful because it continued in the style of 3E and just tried to fix minor issues. There were few people who did't think 3E had problems, it was mostly the case that a lot of people thought 4E wasn't the proper way to fix those issues.
I like the potential simpllicity and flexibility of 5E skills, but I still prefer broader background based skills that speak of certain areas the character specializes in like miner, merchant, etc. and let the ability themselves establish a specific skills like climb, spot or hide. As to combat expertise dice, I agree bounded accuracy becomes a problem, but at the same time by allowing some of the basic maneuvers like push, grab, etc. be available to everyone, it offers the fighter a chance to use CS dice to boost strength based skills (to be useful outside of combat), but I would like it expanded to skills like intimidate, jump, or other ability checks.

I do not believe 5E has to emulate 3.5 closely, or go to the extent of other games like pathfinder, because we are discussing a core to take the best of all editions of D&D. It must be flexible. 
I think compatibility was THE factor. There are others, but that one is the crux of the success of PF.


I don't think so. Every PF game I've played in seems to be PF only and doesn't use 3.5 splatbooks.

PF is pretty much successful because it continued in the style of 3E and just tried to fix minor issues. There were few people who did't think 3E had problems, it was mostly the case that a lot of people thought 4E wasn't the proper way to fix those issues.

My impression is that it was a factor initially, and was part of what drew interest initially. It's also part of the reason it exists - Paizo wanted to publish a game that their existing adventure paths would be compatible with. After it (quickly) became clear that PF was just a straight-up superior version of 3.5, most groups I know just went straight Pathfinder, at most splashing in things that have no PF equivalent - but even that is very rare. PF's continued success, at least based on "Lesp looking at things", which is not the most reliable indicator of anything, has little to nothing to do with its 3.5 compatibility, but I think it played a role in getting it off the ground to start with. If anything, given my choice I'd smush Pathfinder around in ways that make it less compatible with 3.5 (well, less cleanly interconvertable) but which would fix up some of the game's issues inherited from 3.5. (Monks: The world's least mobile combatants!)

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Main reason for Pathfnders success IMHO.

1. Its better than 3.5.
2. Its not 4th ed.

 If you don't like 4th ed its your best option IMHO, YMMV.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Main reason for Pathfnders success IMHO.

1. Its better than 3.5.
2. Its not 4th ed.

 If you don't like 4th ed its your best option IMHO, YMMV.



It's also the most familiar system for the ones that got into PnP RPG out of those computer RPG such as Neverwinter Nights and even KOTOR...
Main reason for Pathfnders success IMHO.

1. Its better than 3.5.
2. Its not 4th ed.

 If you don't like 4th ed its your best option IMHO, YMMV.



It really is this simple.  As a player you always want to use the most updated version of your favorite thing, so 3rd edition players switched to 3.5 and 3.5 players switched to Pathfinder because these systems where basically improved versions of the same thing.  4th edition was not in that progression, it was D&D but it was very very different.  NEXT will have the same problem unless its like 4th edition, people will not switch to it unless it represents a progression from Pathfinder or from 4th edition. I'm not sure where it currently sits at, but my take based on opinions of 4th edition players is that it is not an update to their style of play, so I think in its current form it will be rejected by 4th edition players.   Looking at it myself, I would say that its not an extension of Pathfinder, in fact, Pathfinder is still a better system than NEXT is today as of the latest packet.

This begs the question, who is NEXT actually for as it looks today?    

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

Sign In to post comments