5e announced!

[Jester of the FoS]

I hate the "frost giant has str 20" thing. Since a Frost giant's armor probably weights about as much as the maximum load for str 20. A storm giant would have trouble getting out of bed or a chair. That's how weak they are compared to their weight.

Well, we all know my thoughts on the subject:
http://5mwd.blogspot.ca/2012/11/comic-might.html

[Mortavius]

At this rate, 5E looks like a new rules system layered over top of a 2E/3E game.

Weeell... that's what most of us wanted Mortavius. Pathfinder or "pay for a slightly updated 3.5 edition again" sold more than 4E.

I don't know if I'd use the term "most of us" but, I understand your point.

I get what Jester says too, some people liked the changes, some didn't. I loved the 4E Titans, because to me before that, Titans were just these big, Greek/Roman looking guys who were known for having powerful magic and strength, and not much else.

By expanding them, and making it seems like Giants were descended from the Titans, and there were many different kinds, that worked for me.

But I understand that some might not like them.

But I think my original point still stands; all these monsters are pretty much the same as they were in 2E/3E. At least, in 4E, they tried new stuff. Maybe it didn't work for everyone, maybe you liked some changes and not others, but they tried NEW stuff.

This just seems like I could pull out my old 3E MMs, paste the new stat blocks over top of the old ones, and I'd be ready for 5E, in terms of the monsters.

That's what I mean when I say this 5E system seems to be a new rules set pasted on top of an old edition. I know they said they were going back to previous editions for inspiration, but it also seemed to me they were saying they wanted to take the best stuff from *all* the editions. So far, I haven't seen much from 4E make it in except the odd rule here and there.

I know this makes me sound like I hate 5E; I don't. I like a lot of what they've done. But I'm disappointed with what they're doing with monsters; I feel like they're intentionally trying to "play it safe" so as not to offend anyone, and appeal to the lowest common denominator. And in my opinion, that makes for a lackluster game.

[alhoon]

The "most of us" means that Sale's wise, 3E still sells more than 4E, so I guess the public didn't welcome the changes.
As you said, with 4E WotC tried new things. And... it turned out badly. So they run back to what people prefered over 4E which was... 3E As you said, they're playing it safe because when they treid to play bold, they got burned. I really prefer the 5e way of "the monster you know, new stats" saves me from having to learn the monsters again. For example it never sit well with me the 4E Duergar or gnolls. I am a stasist; I prefer things as I knew them.

I actually see stuff influenced from 4E even if there are few rules handed down. I dearly miss Skill challenges for example and I'll certainly add them in my games. I don't understand why they were left out.
I also miss (and I mentioned it in the last playtest) the "Each level you gain something important!" aspect of 4E. Now, there are levels that you gain next to nothing. Sure you get 1d10+2 hp more. And that's it. No maneuver, no feat, no BAB. You're exactly like you were 4 encounters before, but you can take 1 more hit.
While it makes for a greety game and more believable character progress is also... kinda dull.

[steveflam]

The "most of us" means that Sale's wise, 3E still sells more than 4E, so I guess the public didn't welcome the changes.
As you said, with 4E WotC tried new things. And... it turned out badly. So they run back to what people prefered over 4E which was... 3E As you said, they're playing it safe because when they treid to play bold, they got burned. I really prefer the 5e way of "the monster you know, new stats" saves me from having to learn the monsters again. For example it never sit well with me the 4E Duergar or gnolls. I am a stasist; I prefer things as I knew them.

I actually see stuff influenced from 4E even if there are few rules handed down. I dearly miss Skill challenges for example and I'll certainly add them in my games. I don't understand why they were left out.
I also miss (and I mentioned it in the last playtest) the "Each level you gain something important!" aspect of 4E. Now, there are levels that you gain next to nothing. Sure you get 1d10+2 hp more. And that's it. No maneuver, no feat, no BAB. You're exactly like you were 4 encounters before, but you can take 1 more hit.
While it makes for a greety game and more believable character progress is also... kinda dull.

Possibly. I prefer the way a pc advances and is not boosted in 2nd edition. No feats, no skills.

[Mortavius]

The "most of us" means that Sale's wise, 3E still sells more than 4E, so I guess the public didn't welcome the changes.
As you said, with 4E WotC tried new things. And... it turned out badly.

You're possibly right alhoon, but I don't have access to any sales figures, so I prefer not to make any judgement calls on what perceived majorities do and don't want. I find whenever I do, I get proven wrong, so I've tried to err on the side of caution, and just say "I don't know why 4E failed, but I suspect it's cause the majority of folks didn't like it."

I wouldn't say that 4E turned out badly. I believe they've got 5-6 years of sales (to some extent) out of it, so I wouldn't call that a complete failure. I've seen people on message boards who absolutely LOVE 4E; they're not wrong, although they might not be the majority.

My wife and her friends who have tried D&D actually liked 4E better than 3.5E, because 4E was easier and more straightforward for them to learn. Thankfully, it looks like 5E is trying to keep things simple, at least in that regard.

I agree with you on the level issue; I liked how every level was interesting in 4E. I immediately didn't like it when I saw the playtest packet had 10 levels, with almost nothing changing at each. In such a system players start looking for gear to represent the changes to their characters, and that sort of flies in the face of the idea that you won't need magic items.

I think it's just a question of opinions. You liked the previous incarnations of the monsters, and I liked some of the changes. Thankfully, we both can incorporate the changes we liked easily enough (at least, it appears that way).

I think my biggest gripe is just how they present a monster how it's always been, and then ask "Does that look like the monster to you?" Well of course it does. You didn't change anything.

They should be presenting different options and changes and asking "Which of these do you folks like?" Instead of showing giants the way they did, they could have said "Which do folks like more? 3E Giants or 4E?" To me, that seems like it would have gotten more useful feedback. The way they did it, it just seems like the decision has already been made, and they just want to make sure that everyone agrees with them, without presenting other options.

[Jester of the FoS]

I get what Jester says too, some people liked the changes, some didn't. I loved the 4E Titans, because to me before that, Titans were just these big, Greek/Roman looking guys who were known for having powerful magic and strength, and not much else.

By expanding them, and making it seems like Giants were descended from the Titans, and there were many different kinds, that worked for me.

I dug the idea, but a lot of Realms fan didn't like Primordians being shoe-horned into the lore, and others didn't like titans being changed from their more mythical roots.

4e is based around a single core. Everything reflected the main game and was changed to match the base setting.
5e is based around the idea they're presenting a core than can be changed and modified as DMs see fit to fit their games.

If you like the elemental titans... add them! I'm sure WotC will have "lesser primordials" eventually that do the same thing.

But I think my original point still stands; all these monsters are pretty much the same as they were in 2E/3E. At least, in 4E, they tried new stuff. Maybe it didn't work for everyone, maybe you liked some changes and not others, but they tried NEW stuff.

I'll take needed changes. Elemental Chaos was excellent stuff. Some monsters needed a slight tweak or refocusing. And sometimes it's all about presentation like the Pathfinder goblins.
But too many of the 4e changes seemed like changes for no other reason than the writers having carte blanch to make changes. Like aasimar becoming deva. The idea of celestial counterparts to tieflings was good, as was mortals descended from angels, so the idea of deva all being fallen angels locked into a cycle of regeneration was, frankly, unneeded. It was cool but didn't fill the niche like it should.

This just seems like I could pull out my old 3E MMs, paste the new stat blocks over top of the old ones, and I'd be ready for 5E, in terms of the monsters.

I still love going to my old 2e Monstrous Manual when I need an idea for a monster or need some lore. New editions should change the mechanics, not the story.
One of the lines about new editions and having to buy all the books again is that "WotC is not making you throw away all your old books". But if the lore and mechanics change that's pretty much what they're doing. I can still use my 2e campaign setting books and monster mythology books for 2e, 3e so they still have value. If the game world changes though, those stop having value.

That's what I mean when I say this 5E system seems to be a new rules set pasted on top of an old edition. I know they said they were going back to previous editions for inspiration, but it also seemed to me they were saying they wanted to take the best stuff from *all* the editions. So far, I haven't seen much from 4E make it in except the odd rule here and there.

Anecdote here. The DC Comics mega-event Crisis on Infinite Earths erased the Justice Society from existence, but the writer of that mini series never killed any of those characters on screen. He refused. He said that he wasn't going to kill a character that had been around before he'd been born.
D&D lore is a bit like that. The writers should been very carefully in changing lore than might have been around for three editions and 35 years. With story that old, every monster is someone's favorite.

Heck, as an example, by WotC canon, the setting of Ravenloft cannot exist. Each setting has its own separate Shadowfell with its own domains of dread. There cannot be a patchwork Core or clusters.
Likewise, placing Ravenloft in the shadowfell raises questions. Can you feystep in Ravenloft? Do shadow-travel rituals still work? Where do the dead go?

[Jester of the FoS]

I wouldn't say that 4E turned out badly. I believe they've got 5-6 years of sales (to some extent) out of it, so I wouldn't call that a complete failure. I've seen people on message boards who absolutely LOVE 4E; they're not wrong, although they might not be the majority.

Four years of sales: 2008 to 2012, with 5e announced 3 1/2 years in.

Sales were never amazing. They started out strong, but not as good as 3e which was a once-in-a-generation peak coming at the right time. In 2009 WotC pulled PDFs for fear of piracy, and likely after poor sales of the PHB2.
They launched Essentials in late 2010 in an attempt to bring in new players to the game, trying to save the edition with that line and banking on its success (all their products for six months were tied to Essentials). But this didn't work and Paizo's Pathfinder passed 4e in sales that same year.
They cut products in 2011 to save money and started work on Next. All but abandoning 4e whose last product came out early this year.

[Jester of the FoS]

I also miss (and I mentioned it in the last playtest) the "Each level you gain something important!" aspect of 4E. Now, there are levels that you gain next to nothing. Sure you get 1d10+2 hp more. And that's it. No maneuver, no feat, no BAB. You're exactly like you were 4 encounters before, but you can take 1 more hit.

Classes are actually closer to 4e than other designs. You get all your class features in one big dump and after that you just get additional powers (read: spells or maneuvers). Plus skills and feats.
There are some dead levels, but they've acknowledged them but said fixing those is a late-stage process.

[alhoon]

Well, in 4E every even level you would gain a +1 to AC, F, R, W and hit rolls.
At most odd levels you would get powerzzz
And also there were feats added in the mix.

Of course, powerzzz and feats were ... kinda weak. I remember not actually being to expectant to gaining more powers after a certain lvl because power-wise I was all set. You had 4 encounter powers. OK you dropped one that did 2d6+6 damage and you got one that did 2d6+6 damage but also pushed the target back 2 squares.
Yeah, it's not that it was THAT much of a difference.

Anyway Mortavious, as Jester said, WotC more or less abandoned 4E after 3-3 1/2 years. I believe it's pretty sure to say they weren't thrilled with the sales.

As for classes being closer to 4E, I respectfully disagree 100%.
First thing first, classes don't have "paradigms" anymore. A fighter can be a very, very good striker or a very good defender.
The wizard can be a (not good) striker or a (mediocre) controller. Aside of flaws in the design that make wizards underpowered, they can have both roles.
Aside of that, both Wizards and clerics are the "problem solvers with magic". We get a smattering of ways to solve problems that were more or less removed from 4E as sacrifices to Balance.

Second and also very important the Hp. A cleric in 5E with like 9-10 starting hp, that at 3rd lvl would have 20-22 hp. In 4E we had a starting cleric with ... I forget now but like 25 starting hp and then +5/lvl.

Third, powers have different mechanics; Rogues/warriors/monks get maneuvers (which are at will powers) at certain levels and increase hit roll faster. Spellcasters get new spell levels every 2 levels. In 4E we had the abominable "you all increase at the same rate". We had same rate for BAB, AC, defenses, 1 encounter power at 1st lvl, 1 at 3rd 1 at 7th etc.

So... we have classes designed with different goals in mind, with different progression from each other, different mechanics and that (again) at 1st lvl are 1-hit-down.


PS. Since many years ago, in my games (3e and I'll do it in Next it seems) I gave chars an extra HD worth of hp just because they started with low HP. I.e. a fighter at 1st lvl would have 10+1d10+2xcon mod hp.


CHANGES FOR THE BETTER I WOULD HOPE TO SEE AGAIN:
- Elemental chaos instead of Limbo+Elemental planes. Touchy for many people but I think it works better.
- Devils being corrupters and Demons being destroyers. And yes, Succubus should be a devil.
Heck, I'll say it: Fiends should be like in VRGttFiend!
- I can say that Fey-wild / Shadowfell works IMO kinda better than the ethereal. Still, not sure.

The above were changes that IMO made sense even if they were contrary to 35 years of lore.
Changing gnolls to make them infernal servants... was not.

[Mortavius]

I guess it's up to individuals what's a "needed change" and what's not. I think the changes to Titans and Giants were needed, but not everyone shares my view.

Alhoon mentioned Gnolls being infernal servants. I thought that was actually cool, because we always had this demon lord (Yeenoghu) who goes all the way back to the original days, who looked like a Gnoll. Why? There was never an explanation. Why not an Orc? Human? Ogre? At least, by making a lot of the race demonic servants, it makes sense why Yeenoghu would look like a Gnoll.

But again, a matter of taste.

I see what you're saying with the one world vs. many Jester. I was never irked by the Primordials in every world (in fact I thought the backstory was awesome where Dark Sun was concerned) but I can see that others would be.

I think the sales thing on 4E is a bit of semantics. For example, I would never say that WotC abandoned 4E until the last 4E book comes out. I think there was one in July or something? Don't know.

I just have read too much on economics to automatically assume that because two things are related, they are connected. For example:

I used to play 2E for a few years. Then I played 3E for eight years. Then I played 4E for about 3 years. Going by that, you could assume that 3E was my favorite edition. But in reality, I moved seven hours away from where I used to live, left behind all my 3E players and friends. I also lived at home during that time and had a part time job. Now I'm married, have a career, and don't have many people or time to play any D&D. So in reality, it's all those things that are contributing to me not playing anymore, and nothing to do with the editions.

That's why I don't assume that it was because of poor sales that 4E ended. I think it probably was, but I don't kid myself into thinking that there may not have been other factors at work that I am not aware of.

[alhoon]

The PDF-killing also had a large part to play. I had to wait 40 days to buy (With a shipping fee) my books for 4E. That was insane.

Anyway, you said married, career.
Well, it seems 4E (especially heroic levels) is better for you then. Easy, relaxing, you play a full session with combat and RP in 2-3 hours and call it a nice adventuring day. I used a platform for online-table for playing 4E on the net with friends, talking through skype. It helped IMMENSENLY. It wasn't too expensive and it took care of ongoing effects, save ends, rolling the "recharge" abilities etc etc. Really made use of all the "Short" mechanics for 4E. We could have a session with 2 battles (and story/description inside) in like 2-3 hours.

[Jester of the FoS]

Well, in 4E every even level you would gain a +1 to AC, F, R, W and hit rolls.
At most odd levels you would get powerzzz
And also there were feats added in the mix.

But the whole “add 1/2 level” thing just inflated the numbers without any real change, as the monsters progressed at the same rate. It was a treadmill: lots of running just to keep at the same place.

Of course, powerzzz and feats were ... kinda weak. I remember not actually being to expectant to gaining more powers after a certain lvl because power-wise I was all set. You had 4 encounter powers. OK you dropped one that did 2d6+6 damage and you got one that did 2d6+6 damage but also pushed the target back 2 squares.
Yeah, it's not that it was THAT much of a difference.

4e feats were pretty spectacularly lame for the most part. By design, as they wanted powers to be the focus. But, yes, there was a lot of “meh” powers. You had a choice but most of the options were poor, or didn’t fit your build.

As for classes being closer to 4E, I respectfully disagree 100%.
First thing first, classes don't have "paradigms" anymore. A fighter can be a very, very good striker or a very good defender.

True. Roles are dead. Thank goodness.

Second and also very important the Hp. A cleric in 5E with like 9-10 starting hp, that at 3rd lvl would have 20-22 hp. In 4E we had a starting cleric with ... I forget now but like 25 starting hp and then +5/lvl.

The difference between 4e starting hitpoints and other hitpoints was adding your Con score not your con modifier, which usually meant adding 10-ish extra hitpoints. Hitpoints really varied by 4-6 between classes, which wasn’t that much given the damage creatures were doing.
The result of higher hp was either battles took longer (wheee!) or monster did more damage resulting in the same effect as lower hp. Higher starting hp just means inflated monster damage.
If you start with lower hp then you can choose to add more hp easily as an option, but without needing to have high damage monsters as a baseline.

Third, powers have different mechanics; Rogues/warriors/monks get maneuvers (which are at will powers) at certain levels and increase hit roll faster. Spellcasters get new spell levels every 2 levels. In 4E we had the abominable "you all increase at the same rate". We had same rate for BAB, AC, defenses, 1 encounter power at 1st lvl, 1 at 3rd 1 at 7th etc.

True, but this is more a change in advancement. They changed the psion arrangement of power and powers gained in Essentials but it was still very much 4e.

So... we have classes designed with different goals in mind, with different progression from each other, different mechanics and that (again) at 1st lvl are 1-hit-down.

But in 4e and 5e characters start with all the class features they’ll ever have. Unlike 2e or 3e where a class will award something extra held back for higher levels, you never get anything new. You start fully loaded and just get better or more options.
That’s the design I was referring to. A 5e fighter doesn’t get weapon specialization at higher levels, the rogue doesn’t get trap sense, and the like. The classes have a chart of extra class features that is almost universally a “-“ excluding the extra attack fighters get.

CHANGES FOR THE BETTER I WOULD HOPE TO SEE AGAIN:
- Elemental chaos instead of Limbo+Elemental planes. Touchy for many people but I think it works better.

Agreed, but they’ve already discussed how they’re handling planes: they’re going to describe a couple options and leave it to individual DMs to decide how they want the planes set-up in their world.
Which I love. They completely ruined the unique planar layout of Eberron squishing it into the template of the core world. I prefer being able to describe my own unique cosmology.

- Devils being corrupters and Demons being destroyers. And yes, Succubus should be a devil.
Heck, I'll say it: Fiends should be like in VRGttFiend!

I agree. Incidentally, the demon/devil poll is up on the WotC site. Go vote and add a comment.

- I can say that Fey-wild / Shadowfell works IMO kinda better than the ethereal. Still, not sure.

I like all three. We need an ethereal that serves as a “spirit world” that overlaps with the material world. For both natural and unnatural spirits. The shadowfell is a lovely “underworld” that’s essentially the deep ethereal. I don’t see it so much as an echo or reflection as people make it a reflection.
The feywild (read: faerie) is equally awesome and I adore it.

I guess it's up to individuals what's a "needed change" and what's not. I think the changes to Titans and Giants were needed, but not everyone shares my view.

That’s the catch... everyone has monsters they hate and love, and sadly few people have equal opinions. The 4e changes had their good and bad.
Paizo’s first adventure path was all about making certain types of giant cool and giving them a shared backstory.
I loved the devil/demon changes because I was never a fan. I got into the game in 2e during the ta’anir and batazua era and could never tell them apart or see what made them interesting (until I found out they were supposed to be devils & demons). Yet, the removal of Neutral Evil and ending of the blood war pretty much killed the Yugoloths.

Alhoon mentioned Gnolls being infernal servants. I thought that was actually cool, because we always had this demon lord (Yeenoghu) who goes all the way back to the original days, who looked like a Gnoll. Why? There was never an explanation. Why not an Orc? Human? Ogre? At least, by making a lot of the race demonic servants, it makes sense why Yeenoghu would look like a Gnoll.

This is actually a good example of it done well. Gnolls were always meant to be demonic and worshipped a demon lord not a god, but this was often downplayed or a lesser part of gnolls. 4e took an underplayed element and brought it to the forefront to make the gnolls distinct. It doesn’t change one word of the lore but works so very well.

I think the sales thing on 4E is a bit of semantics. For example, I would never say that WotC abandoned 4E until the last 4E book comes out. I think there was one in July or something? Don't know.

It was May. “Into the Unknown: the Dungeon Survival Guide”. They’ve had products since, but all were mechanic-free. June 2008 to May 2012.
But keep in mind the year development time. It would have been written in the summer of 2011, so WotC stopped really writing content then. And, really, all the books of 2011 were written by freelancers. So WotC employees and staff stopping writing 4e content themselves early in 2011 and started outsourcing their books.

That's why I don't assume that it was because of poor sales that 4E ended. I think it probably was, but I don't kid myself into thinking that there may not have been other factors at work that I am not aware of.

Making a new edition is freakin’ expensive. Especially the way WotC is doing it.
When they made 4e, they stopped having in-house staff write books for some of 2006 and all of 2007. So the company doubled staffing costs: they were paying for the in-house teaming writing and working on the new edition and the freelancers making the books that were being sold for that period. And, once the announcement of the new edition was made, any 3e books still in the pipe were Dead on Arrival, guaranteed to have lower sales. They were getting into substantial debt in the hopes that 4e sales would be high enough to make up for the multiple-year development costs.

Likewise, 5e is costly. The announcement in January meant the two or three 5e books released after were going to sell poorly. And there’s the same staffing costs, only now they’re three years rather than two given the two-year playtest. And during the playtest they’re releasing far fewer books to sustain the company.

This is a HUGE financial sink that they would not do if they didn’t have to. If they were making sustainable money off 4e, even if it wasn’t a runaway success, if they were making adequate funds and not losing money it would be cheaper to keep supporting that edition.

[alhoon]

Well, aside from 4E not selling very well, it was also that... Core 4E was more or less finished like 1 year ago or more. We have books for the planes, supplements for the classes, PHBs, MManuals etc. We also got supplements for the underdark and equipment.
All that remained to flesh out was IMO the Far Realm (unless they did and missed it). If you want something from 4E, there's 90% a book for it already. They... ran out of things to write for. Happened in the days of 3E too BTW. We had weird stuff like magic of Incarna-whatever etc. Perhaps those books were good (Binders were cool, book of 9swords was awesome), perhaps they were bad, perhaps they were OK. Thing is that 3E was finished. 4E is also finished. They went into essentials for example.

Non Core-4E wise, people were using their past books from 3E since for more, it suited the campaigns better. A book of "Dragons of the Realms! 4E!" couldn't really compete with things like Martial Power or Arcane Power that expanded on classes for everyone.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Thing is that 3E was finished.

I've heard this argument before, but Pathfinder seems to have no problem coming up with new and interesting 3e stuff even now. Why could Paizo make neat stuff like the Gunslinger class, the Cavalier class, Traits, Chases, Archetypes, Haunts, and Words of Power, and WotC couldn't?

[alhoon]

Thing is that 3E was finished.

I've heard this argument before, but Pathfinder seems to have no problem coming up with new and interesting 3e stuff even now. Why could Paizo make neat stuff like the Gunslinger class, the Cavalier class, Traits, Chases, Archetypes, Haunts, and Words of Power, and WotC couldn't?

I don't think gunslingers and Cavaliers were needed and I wouldn't pay for them. I would include them in the "10%" and new area. If they worked, so much the better for them. But if they never published them, it wouldn't be that there will be a hole in the game.
I have no idea what Chases, Arhetypes and Haunts are, and Words of Power? Are they PWKill etc?

IMO the following could comprise 80+% of my needs for a D&D based RPG
PHB, DMG, 2 MManuals.
A book about extra options for character powers (including feats, tons of spells and alternative class features)
A book about the cosmology like 3rd edition's manual of the planes (breaking it to 10 different books is kinda )
A book about the underdark, sea, deserts and other parts of the prime material. (Like combining Underdark, Frostburn, Sand-whatever, strom-whatever etc)
A book about psionics.
A book about equipment including traps, alternative rules for DReduction from armor, magic equipment, castles, ships etc.
A book about the core races.


That would be it. 10 books that would cover most of what I needed to know, and I could easily make the rest and change what I didn't like. Yes a book about mindflayers and beholders would be cool, interesting and I would buy it and also probably use it. But if they never published it, I would still be content.