5e announced!

[Mortavius]

The position of WotC was that it was Core and non-optional. And even things like the campaign settings were assumptions.
But, more tellingly, how many optional rules can you name? How many variant rules? How easy is it to modify the rules for other setting or non-standard play styles?

Well, as I said Jester, I was looking at it from a book perspective.

For example, in 4E, you can play the game just as well with or without Martial Power 2. Or Arcane Power. Or the PHB3.

It's true (as I said) I wasn't considering individual rules within those books. And yes, you are correct, if you look at it that way, there isn't much in the way of variant rules and options.

But that's not how I was considering it when I said D&D has always been modular.

And frankly, I don't care what WotC considers modular or not; to me, if you can play without it or with it, without completely changing your game, then to me, it's modular.

[Jester of the FoS]

In 4E it was easier to alter the rules than 3E I think. It's just that the game was so board-gamish that we didn't bother.

What Gonzoron said about Monopoly.

I always found 3e much, much easier to design for. There were fewer assumed spells/options to check for duplicate effects, fewer feats, and the like. But, more importantly, as balance wasn't so rigid you could just aim for "good enough" not "perfect". Plus there was Unearthed Arcana offering some nice options and tweaks and the wealth of 3PP to plunder for inspiration and mechanical ideas.

[alhoon]

That's why I found 4E more modular. 3E it was quite easy to go off balance with Weird-feat X and variant rule Y combined with virtually-unknown prestige class feature Z. So "good enough" was harder.

4E was so chockingly balanced that from "So balanced it's not worth playing" to "good enough" you didn't have to worry at all.
You wanted fighters to get a feat or something at 3rd lvl that gave them 2W extra in one attack/encounter, so that combined with an encounter power they would do 4W? No biggy. The monsters have SO MANY hp, that 10 extra damage 1/encounter wouldn't matter. After all, 4 monsters with 50hp each won't go down that much easier because of that.
You wanted to give the wizard a crazy daily at lvl 5 that did 5d12+int+whatever fire damage to blast 5?
Yeah OK, the wizard would drop 2 or 3 at most monsters out of the 4-5 in the encounter to 1/3rd of their hp. Now, you had 3 more encounters to deal with.

[Zilfer]

^Never played but probably also depends on the DM? As to what kind of creature's your facing. 5d12 sounds like it could be beastly, average of 6 * 5 = 30 damage. Plus whatever you add onto it.

[Mortavius]

I agree with Jester in that I found it easier to design for 3E rather than 4E. That's because of my outlook; I'm a rules-guy, and 3E has all sorts of rules for designing stuff. Sure, you can definitely combine obscure stuff and make weird things, but it's all laid out and structured.

4E I found had a much more free-form design. While this might allow for more creativity with some folks, with me it was overwhelming. Sure, if I want a monster to have ability X, I can just make it have that, but I'd rather have a rules set behind it, saying why the monster has ability X, ala 3E.

But I fully realize this is more of an opinion piece than anything. Someone who isn't as rules-oriented as I may easily find 3E daunting.

[alhoon]

^Never played but probably also depends on the DM? As to what kind of creature's your facing. 5d12 sounds like it could be beastly, average of 6 * 5 = 30 damage. Plus whatever you add onto it.

5d12+intel modifier + whatever at lvl 5 would be like 38 damage on average.

Most monsters at that level have 62-66 hp. There are some that have 50-54 hp and some that have 74-78 hp. Because that's the range for normal (non-elite) monsters. not 4d8+8 or something. And PC powers at that level usually deal like 15 damage on average, except of "damage dealing" classes that would do like 20 damage on average. So yes, 38 damage is pretty insane with 4E standards for a non-damage dealing class at those levels.

Keep in mind that a balanced encounter for those levels is 4 such monsters with 65 hp for a party of 4 characters.

[Zilfer]

>.> i seem to remember playing at level 1 and throwing multiple dice from daily powers/ encounter powers..... <.< Which 15 on average.... that's what a level 1-5 does in my 3.5 game. If not more.... Hell if I took my hardest hitting tank back to level one. He double hands an ax for 1.5 strength mod which gives him +6 to a D12 roll. Average 6 on the dice brings it up to 12 damage, he took power attack which with a +4 str mod loosing -1 from his Bass attack is nothing since he'll have a +4 just from str alone. That adds another 2 damage making his "average" damage up to 15. (heaven forbid he critical something with this attack and roll above average than a 6 on a 1d12)

O.o' I've admittedly only played 1 session of 4.0 but there's got to be things that do more than that on average if we are talking a higher level party. 15 damage is the high range of level ones. <.<

My rogue at level one (if he hit)did around 6-12 damage average with 2 shortswords. (obviously ambidex'd for only -2 on each hand.)

So my main question is it really that low O.o' of damage in 4.0???

[alhoon]

>.> i seem to remember playing at level 1 and throwing multiple dice from daily powers/ encounter powers..... <.< Which 15 on average....

So my main question is it really that low O.o' of damage in 4.0???

In 4E, The difference in damage between a power at 1st lvl and 5th lvl is about 2-3 damage.
So yes, in 1st lvl your rogue would deal about 16-17 damage on average and at 5th lvl 20 on average.

And yes. Damage in 4Edition was very low compared to monster HP. In 3E, a damage dealer (like the fighter you described) could kill a CR1 monster with one hit. In 4E, a damage dealer would need 1 encounter power and a couple at will power hits to kill a 1st lvl monster.

[Zilfer]

Damn, that sucks... o.O'

and yeah CR is a little clunky in 3.5 to me. My group can be defeated by a lower CR monster, and defeat a much higher CR monster. I've had said person take on CR of the same level and win toe to toe. Sometimes it's been close and other times a landslide. I can push the envelope a lot of the time raising health or throwing some nasty things their way and they mostly come out of it. I haven't yet killed a PC permanently. (though that doesn't mean there aren't fates worse than death. xD)

So needless to say, kinda a whole different ballgame there. I'll stick to my 3.5 and now recently Pathfinder books for now. I look forward to 5.0 but I don't think i'll be switching to it when it first comes out. After awhile maybe. Might 'steal' a few things from them if i find anything interesting in it. For now I'll stick to learning the differences in Pathfinder.

[Jimsolo]

Yeah, I also think the CR system is a bit clunky, but once you get in the groove, it gets easier. There's lots of aspects of the game that are tricky until you figure them out. While I understand that WotC and Hasbro aren't in this business for the warm fuzzies, they're in it to make a dollar and a dime, at the same time I can't afford to upgrade systems as frequently as they would like me to. I'm still playing 3/3.5 because the system isn't broken enough for me to need it fixed. Pathfinder keeps calling out to me, but I don't have the money to transfer over yet.

As far as 5e goes, I'm excited that the game is still around, and still profitable enough that they want to keep it going. By the same token, I can't get too excited about it. 4e was a major letdown for me, and I have very low expectations about 5e. If there is a 5e Ravenloft, I will definitely check it out, but largely in a 'casing the joint for later thievery' sort of light rather than out of any desire to convert over.

[Zilfer]

Yeah, I also think the CR system is a bit clunky, but once you get in the groove, it gets easier. There's lots of aspects of the game that are tricky until you figure them out. While I understand that WotC and Hasbro aren't in this business for the warm fuzzies, they're in it to make a dollar and a dime, at the same time I can't afford to upgrade systems as frequently as they would like me to. I'm still playing 3/3.5 because the system isn't broken enough for me to need it fixed. Pathfinder keeps calling out to me, but I don't have the money to transfer over yet.

As far as 5e goes, I'm excited that the game is still around, and still profitable enough that they want to keep it going. By the same token, I can't get too excited about it. 4e was a major letdown for me, and I have very low expectations about 5e. If there is a 5e Ravenloft, I will definitely check it out, but largely in a 'casing the joint for later thievery' sort of light rather than out of any desire to convert over.

Definately got some interesting differences for each of the classes. I find Pathfinder to be more Player Empowering but I haven't run any adventures with the Beastiary so I'm not 100% sure that monster's aren't harder, with the increase of PC power. (I will refrain from going deeper in this topic for fear of getting off the primary focus which seems to be 5e.)

On a side note how many of you think you will get it right when it comes out? And will you be reviewing it for us here? xD

[alhoon]

After 4th Edition, I'm not buying anything till it's a couple of months out and I've read reviews by RPG and D&D veterans instead of fanboys going "Woooowwww!" over their new shiny toy.

Yes, 5e seems promising, I am hopeful, but I've been burned once. I'm not giving them my money unless I'm very happy with what I see in the playtests (so far I am) and the game is fully out, and has been tested with a bit of time.

[Le Noir Faineant]

Between d20 and Dragon Warriors I really don't see why I need another system right now.
Unless 5e is really the best thing since the invention of dice, I am very likely going to skip.

[alhoon]

Between d20 and Dragon Warriors I really don't see why I need another system right now.
Unless 5e is really the best thing since the invention of dice, I am very likely going to skip.

And of course, there's that.
As LNF said many of my friends (we're all somewhat older now 25-35 group) say. "A new system? Oh, good for them I guess. I'm fine with my X books of 3.5 edition, I've made my investment and I'm content with the material I have. I don't see the need to buy something else"

I'm a bit different though. D&D next seems to be nearly as fast to play as 4E and they do away with many of my gripes with that edition.
So, for the "OK, how about a 3hour session because I work tomorrow morning?" I need something like 5E (else I will probably stick with 4E for that). For the "OK, 15 days of vacation. We will play for 30 hours the in following 3 days" I'll stick with 3.5


Point is, I will kinda miss 4E. I have fond memories from that game. But it can't stand up to 3.5 and 5e seems already better. 4E (after I cut monster hp in half) was good. It's just not good enough.

[alhoon]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120924



Many of the things I liked are under scrunity. There are some DMs that find 5e too ... complicated to DM. I would certainly not like it to become much simpler, it's as complicated as I like it at that point and I'm worried that simplifying it, would just lead to it being "dumbed down"
There's also concern about the backstab so they may remove it from the rogue and have it as a power he may select. Come on! Rogue without a backstab is not a rogue! Do some special variant that you can drop the backstab for the 1/100 rogues that don't need it.
Wizard's magic is considered also "inflexible" and people call for other magic systems to be included. Well, I don't mind the introduction of "traditions" as Mike suggests.