Community

Personally I've always felt that every major iteration of D&D has been an overall improvement over past editions. I think 2nd was better better than 1st, 3rd better than 2nd and 4th better than 3rd. Of course none of the systems are perfect, I can point out some things in every system I didn't like, but overall I find the game keeps the things that work, revises things that don't work and adds new things that seem to be good ideas. So not surprisingly I'm optimistic that this 5th edition will be the best edition yet overall, give or take some minor details. I also enjoy trying new games so I'll almost certainly be getting 5th edition just to give it a whirl and see how it goes. If it stinks, so be it, but so far the buzz and vague outlines of things they're working on sound positive.


As far as 4e goes, as I said it's my favorite edition of the game, especially from a DM standpoint. I love how the rules are organized, I like the unique monster abilities and how relatively easy it is to balance out encounters compared to other editions and I really, really love the online Compendium and character builder for 4e as well as the systems for modifying and creating new monsters and making elite or solo versions of existing monsters. I also like how all the classes are generally balanced for combat effectiveness at all levels of play so no matter class what you play you know you'll have plenty of chances to show off to the other players no matter what level you are.  The main thing I don't like about 4e is that combat can get a little bogged down in tactical movement and interrupt/reaction powers so combats seem to take 75 or 80% of every session, compared to around 50% of every session in say 3rd edition. And while it's possible to play mapless 4e combat it just doesn't work as well and a lot of abilities involving shifting and forced movement, etc, get the short end of the stick without a map. Skill challenges are ok, but not great, and rituals are a neat idea in principle but in practice hardly seem to get used in our groups for some reason. And while I really like at-will powers and such I do kind of miss the abilities for a wizard, say, to at least attempt to trip an opponent or do something else unconventional without having a specific power that allows them to do it.


Looking at 5e I was glad to read they're looking at "minds eye" combat as the basic combat system and including a "tactical combat" rules module for DMs who want to use miniatures combat. To me that will be a great compromise, since it will allow DMs like me to do simpler, quicker combats while letter other DMs who love battle map combats have additional content specifically for that. It also sounds like they're making it so every class will still have access to at-will, encounter and daily style abilities by selecting the appropriate options or feats, but if you're looking for more bare bones basic style that's possible too. It sounds like, for instance, if you want a 3e wizard who has weak at-will and basic attacks but a good number of daily spells you can do it, or you can tweak him to have some at-will spells and not quite as many dailies. Likewise they talk about similar things for fighters and other classes. Again, a very good sounding compromise between the systems provided that the classes remain relatively balanced in overall effectives at each experience level.   And the talk about more open, roleplaying style action and minds eye combat adds back in that bit I missed from prior additions.


Anyway it's way too early to tell exactly how everything is shaping up, but bottom line is that unless they do something REALLY stupid in 5e I'll definitely be trying it out. And at least so far I haven't seen anything I'd consider really stupid in development.