Article here:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109
My takeaway is the subject line; WotC isn't declaring 4e a failure because they brought in new blood. But they recognize Pathfinder taking away the classical playerbase as a sign that they screwed up (or that their design changes were just a bit too much for some of the crowd). Now they're reaching out and asking players what they want to see in 5e.
My suspicion is that they'll get a lot of good feedback, but not shift the game much towards Pathfinder as opposed to the relatively well balanced (if uninteresting, to me) system they've come up with.
Thoughts?
My suspicion is that the grognards will come out to play, and WotC will find themselves forced to choose between listening to their "fans" who want all the bad old things from 3.5E or 2E or whatever, or ignore the "fan input" and be seen as insensitive to their player base.
Or, as the Something Awful goons labeled it, "Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition: Whoever Wins, We Lose (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3459576)".
Jon, that's ... kind of potentially offensive to people who still enjoy those systems. Fans of D&D are fans of D&D, not "fans" because they like a different version number. The article seemed to me to be specifically about WotC trying to mend bridges and repair things.
I realize it's easy to point at the effort and say, "Well, this is just going to fail!" but isn't that (at this point) somewhat premature?
More optimistically, from my PoV:
It'd be hard for them to screw up worse than they did by creating 4e in the first place.
I'll certainly check out 5e when it comes out, despite the fact that I'll probably never play it(not saying I'd be unwilling to, just that I'd likely have no opportunity to. My wife doesn't like learning new systems).
Quote from: Brian on January 09, 2012, 01:33:13 PM
Jon, that's ... kind of potentially offensive to people who still enjoy those systems.
That's not what I meant... I think even if you enjoy a particular edition of D&D, you can acknowledge there are parts of the system that are, at best, sub-par. For example, 4E is my favorite system, yet it's obvious that it's much weaker than 3.5E when it comes to having rules for non-combat things. I'm talking about folks coming out of the woodwork to say "Intuit Direction should never have been cut in 3.5E; bring it back!"
Quote from: Brian on January 09, 2012, 01:33:13 PM
It'd be hard for them to screw up worse than they did by creating 4e in the first place.
Pot, kettle.
5th edition will get a look from me. I'll hop on the 'they can't screw it up worse than 4e' train.
Quote from: Jon on January 09, 2012, 01:19:05 PM
My suspicion is that the grognards will come out to play, and WotC will find themselves forced to choose between listening to their "fans" who want all the bad old things from 3.5E or 2E or whatever, or ignore the "fan input" and be seen as insensitive to their player base.
Or, as the Something Awful goons labeled it, "Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition: Whoever Wins, We Lose (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3459576)".
See, this I object to. If the fans want something, it makes sense for the company to give it to 'em. No matter what you think about 4th edition, it splintered the fanbase and given Paizo a serious lifeline. They'd be fools not to try and mend that rift.
Quote from: Anastasia on January 09, 2012, 01:52:39 PM
See, this I object to. If the fans want something, it makes sense for the company to give it to 'em. No matter what you think about 4th edition, it's splintered the fanbase and given Paizo a serious lifeline. They'd be fools not to try and mend that rift.
Indeed, but in any business, there's some customers it's not worth the effort to try to serve. In a business like RPGs, there's a lot more of those than you'd find in, say, investment banking. I certainly agree WotC needs to try to mend the rift, but I'm not optimistic they'll do it properly.
Quote from: Jon on January 09, 2012, 01:58:28 PMIndeed, but in any business, there's some customers it's not worth the effort to try to serve.
Diplomacy check, roll 1d20....1. Failure. I like how you're implying that people who want things from earlier editions aren't worth trying to serve.
That's my thought.
Quote from: Jon on January 09, 2012, 01:42:32 PMQuote from: Brian on January 09, 2012, 01:33:13 PMIt'd be hard for them to screw up worse than they did by creating 4e in the first place.
Pot, kettle.
Yeah, that was intentional. You came into a thread and decided, "From reply #1, I'm going to be insulting to people who don't like what I did." I even disclaimed that it was specifically from my PoV instead of leaving it a blanket statement that could be considered pretty rude/derisive towards people who had different opinions.
I guess I'm not allowed to respond in kind? Well, I'll keep that in mind for the future. :|
I didn't enjoy the 4e changes at all. They changed the system too much and it felt alien to me. I was willing to give it a shot, but local gaming group politics kind of destroyed that before it got off the ground. Can't play it single-player, really.
Secondly, lets go on the topic of 'bad old things'. I think those were the second edition, significantly more Gygaxian tables where things just went crazy all over the place, and a roll of 00 was almost always inevitably 'GM's choice'. Come on ... if I wanted to make the choice, I wouldn't have rolled in the first place!
There are issues and flaws with the old system, but I think it's better to call them the sacred calves of the D&D universe -- things that escape really good, sensible balance mechanics because they're 'staples of D&D'. Things like Polymorph, which actually has received a lot of refinement over the years.
If you want to look at specifics-- Let's do that, instead of just implying them. We got a whole discussion thread, here. :)
Quote from: Anastasia on January 09, 2012, 02:01:22 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 09, 2012, 01:58:28 PMIndeed, but in any business, there's some customers it's not worth the effort to try to serve.
Diplomacy check, roll 1d20....1. Failure. I like how you're implying that people who want things from earlier editions aren't worth trying to serve.
That wasn't my intent, and I'd thought I'd specifically communicated that. I guess I didn't. Sorry.
I'll stay out of this thread from here on.
So, to drag this back onto a less antagonistic topic, I am interested to hear if anyone here has anything in particular they do hope is added to 5e?
The one thing that will really get my attention is if they move a bit back from the "you have to have minis and a map to play" style of 4e. I like minis, I like maps, I play with them when I can. But I can't wrap my head around how anyone plays 4e online without some kind of mapping program that, for me at least, is way more effort to use then it's worth. I game both irl and online, and thusly appriciate a system that lets me do both with equal ease. That...probably qualifies as something from 3.5 that I want to return rather then something new, but it's still one of my biggest concerns.
Oooh, good point; yes, I'd like to see more 'easy to use for online play' changes in 5e, too.
Quote from: Gatewalker on January 09, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
So, to drag this back onto a less antagonistic topic, I am interested to hear if anyone here has anything in particular they do hope is added to 5e?
A more segmented approach to D&D. They mention a modular approach to gaming and I think that's the best thing they can do here. Start with a light, simple base and make everything else optional, mix and match rules. 2nd edition did that to a larger degree, and while it was of middling effectiveness there, I think this is the best track they can take now. A streamlined core game and all the complex options as opt-in rules to make the harder-core players happy.
Interesting. It's rare that I hear a call for "smaller core, more splat", it's usually the other way around. One of the biggest complaints I see about 3.x was the whole "weighed down by too many splatbooks" thing.
Quote from: Gatewalker on January 09, 2012, 02:19:22 PM
Interesting. It's rare that I hear a call for "smaller core, more splat", it's usually the other way around. One of the biggest complaints I see about 3.x was the whole "weighed down by too many splatbooks" thing.
I think that was a strength of 3.5. Core had problems, but the later material was generally better balanced and introduced more options.
I don't mind if they design with maps/grids/minis in mind again, but they really need to have a virtual tabletop available that's easy to use and free. For 4e, they had planned to have one and then they either killed the plan for it or were planning to make it a 'for paid subscribers only' thing.
I'd prefer a format that doesn't require them, but if they do keep them, then I really, really hope they don't do what they did with 4e's virtual tabletop.
I'd like to be able to multiclass/mix-and-match again. I looked at the 4e version and tended to think "what's the freaking point?"
Balancing multiclassing being useful and neat without being dominating is hard. I think PF does a fair job of it? But I haven't seen high level PF yet and how multiclass chars compare to single class there.
Quote from: Gatewalker on January 09, 2012, 02:24:33 PM
Balancing multiclassing being useful and neat without being dominating is hard. I think PF does a fair job of it? But I haven't seen high level PF yet and how multiclass chars compare to single class there.
From casual knowledge single-classing is superior to multiclassing in Pathfinder, but both can be serviceable.
Hey Jon:
This is with the mod hat on. It kind of fits badly as I haven't been given real reason to do this in a long time and it disappoints.
Don't do that. Pretty much nothing you did in this thread was in the vein of a friendly hangout. I know you have zero filter between mind and mouth, but really, this was ridiculous. Pretty much from entrance to exit in this thread, you treated it like it was a Something Awful thread, where snarky meanspirited lines are fine. We're not Something Awful, and largely we try and keep a pleasant philosophical tone to our RPG discussions.
I'd like you to take a break from RPG discussions and threads for a while. I'd mentally say 'try about six months', but instead let's go until I say otherwise. You can feel free to ask first if you really think it's worthwhile. If you wish to join a game, private message the person running to ask. You may continue participating at the rest of the boards.
If I see you not taking a break, I'll elevate to a ban.
For the rest:
Please don't feed the fellow unintentionally trolling. There's no reason to rise to it.
Truthfully, I think a little weighting toward Single Classing is actually better. Personal preference there though, but I largely think when I see a character with 3 or 4 or 5 classes that I'm instead seeing something that has become disassociated with discussing 'what this person is, knows, and does'. Not that there isn't very cool results from multi-class, but I think 3.x (both versions) were too far down the line of not having robust interesting single class routes compared to elaborate splat driven "a pinch of this, a hint of that".
Personally, I like the 1 class -> Prestige class direction, but many of those often require 2 or 3 classes.
I was recently reading http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1941/roleplaying-games/playtesting-4th-edition-part-1-combat which someone linked in one of the rooms and puts me in an interesting mindset as far as considering a 5th.
4th did do interesting things, but I think that they did indeed provide a solid ground for other companies to eat money in a place that they had dominated. I don't know how profitable 4th ed has been (It's been 4 years, so probably not impressive figures since they're already moving but then they could just be being proactive too?). That's something that WotC would be wise to keep an eye on as not providing fertile ground for competition pays dividends that are far larger than just the profit of keeping customers around. If good competition doesn't have a good chance to set up consistent money lines, then they won't have the funding to produce more content that competes head to head for timeshare with D&D offerings. Paizo has a very solid community now that it was poor step providing the space for that to happen in.
On one hand, it's kind of encouraging seeing them go. I don't think a return to old is what is needed, but 4th ed all-together wasn't a right direction either. Pathfinder is closer, but as we've mentioned a number of times: There really needs to be better core mechanics from the get-go. Other than that, what happened with 3rd was actually quite acceptable.
I am...doubtful. The one at the front of their design crew is Mike, and from what I've seen, there's no far level eye for probability and balance there. My doubt is less in the community and more in the steering insight of those in charge. But then, you never know.
I always noticed that with the single-multiclass weighing, too. While, conceptually, multi-classing *should* be the 'better in the long run' route, it rarely is. It seems like the concept has fallen into a weaker 'you're this class, but with tricks from this class' pit fall.
I've been wondering if something like the skills synergy concept might help. After all, if Diplomacy can give you a basic, functional understanding of Intimidate, then why can't being a fighter give your experience/ability as a thief a benefit to the thief BaB, Fort save, STR based skills, or a different set of tactics? Similarly, your experience as a thief or fighter should give your sorceror a leg up in agility/stealth or on defensive/offensive abilities. A thief-sorceror should be better at stealthy and misdirection magic (like invisibility or mirror image) and a fighter-sorceror should, logically, be better at offensive stuff.
How to do this, I don't know. Maybe something like adding your fighter class level to your caster levels for access to spells or something. It just seems to me that there should be some sort of benefit to certain skills/abilities that relate to your 'past' experiences from your original class.
Again, that may just be me.
I'm going to disagree on the concept of multiclassing should be better than pure classes.
To me, that's the creators effectively saying, "Here's your bases, and it's up to you to surpass their limitations." Feels like they're being lazy and not bothering to support what they created if they go that route.
Multiclassing should in no way be 'better' than a pure, or else you end up in the (to me) 3.5 rut of, "Which kind of one-trick pony did you decide to be?" I'm talking about 'My build is all around me destroying things with my one special move' classes, not, 'I'm a melee type' or 'I'm a caster' -- both of those give you multiple 'tricks'. Multiclassing just to stack +damage to fire (or whatever) is fine, but if your +fire damage surpasses anything the pure class can do in every way, and you're just as defensively viable as a pure class? Well-- You've not enhanced the value of multiclassing, you've made it mandatory, and now there's a 'pure' penalty.
I hate that design-- And that's why I love Pathfinder actually bringing respect and support to the core classes instead of throwing them out with a disinterested, "This is what you'll wade through before getting to be your prestige class of choice." Multiclassing is (and should be) the new Bard. More versatile at the expense of being not-quite-as-good. If you want to make up the difference, multiclass only to qualify for a prestige class.
Don't implement something that's going to come across as a penalty for people who fail to play in a specific way; the game is about having fun, right? Make flexibility fun, not required.
You know, that's a great way to put it.
Multiclassing comes with an inherent benefit: Flexibility, Uniqueness, and Customization. When not blocked by large walls *eyes some classes* it can be 'not as strong' while still naturally being an interesting option. Gish builds dominant because they are simply better in 3.5, instead of coming out naturally under the 'Hey, it's interesting having a fighter who can cast a spell in a pinch, or can turn his sword ablaze to fight trolls!'.
Variety is a strength into and of itself, even when the numbers are lower.
I like capable base classes. No player should be a 'fool' because they're just picking one of the core concepts and going all the way with it.
Edit:
I think as well that 3.5 introduced the notion that 'Multiclass builds must deliver powerful benefits' alongside with the notion of blocking them by producing feat, training, and quest requirements. Even though a starter at a prestige class was usually not mechanics-wise different from the core for quite a few levels in, they had to have worked their build around it for some time. This returns with making the blend a Reward powerup for picking up the related requirement pack.
Mmm, now I'm blending multiclass and prestige class freely. I'm gonna go have my fondue instead.
the Base -> PRC style is one I generally endorse as well. Or Base -> Base -> PRC for ones that combine the two base classes(Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist being my favorite example of course~). I am generally a fan of finishing out PRCs instead of dipping in to grab a couple things and back out as well, so making that more attractive as an option would be nice.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons
Another article.
Quote from: that articleOther than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
This time it will be different.
/me froths at the mouth a little.
Haaaaaaaate when companies call something a beta test when it's really just a free demo. I had no idea about this, but it sure does make me grit my teeth even more at WotC. That's straight up Steinwinder-level-jerkassness! "Play our game! Give us feedback! (We don't actually want feedback; we know our game is perfect. This is really just a free sample of what you will learn to love~! :D)"
Ughughugh.
Really hope they do better this time around. -_-
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/
Another article. This one mentions that Pathfinder is outselling 4th edition (and all other RPGs) for the past two quarters. No wonder 5th edition is coming.
Quote from: Brian on January 09, 2012, 06:59:28 PM
Quote from: that articleOther than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.
This time it will be different.
/me froths at the mouth a little.
Haaaaaaaate when companies call something a beta test when it's really just a free demo. I had no idea about this, but it sure does make me grit my teeth even more at WotC. That's straight up Steinwinder-level-jerkassness! "Play our game! Give us feedback! (We don't actually want feedback; we know our game is perfect. This is really just a free sample of what you will learn to love~! :D)"
Ughughugh.
Really hope they do better this time around. -_-
As a developer, that stuff offends me. Playtests aren't cheap. They cost, at minimum, dozens of manhours. Tossing away the feedback sight unseen is a monsterous waste.
Re Ana's comment:
Yeah, I couldn't find the numbers, but that sounds reasonable. 4th Ed is in a way officially being declared a failure. It doesn't matter if it was profitable or they got commercially saavy fans, it was the first D&D that hasn't lasted even 5 years before being thrown out.
Problem? They're too late. Even if they work hard at this, they got 2 years minimum to really polish a strong competing product and playtest it. Pathfinder is gonna be an even mightier beast when that happens.
Winning move:
D&D5 can also be d20 compatible, so you can import Pathfinder stuff.
Where'd it say it would be d20 compatible, out of curiosity?
I'm not sure. I don't see it in the thread.
Or did you think I was making a definitive statement, instead of just a supposition?
Quote from: Brian on January 09, 2012, 09:41:12 PM
Winning move:
D&D5 can also be d20 compatible, so you can import Pathfinder stuff.
That would be a fascinating gambit for them to pull, if nothing else. Try and co-opt Pathfinder's backwards compatibility claims, eh?
It might corner the market, but... I don't think I'd like it, at least. d20's been done to death. A system that's close enough to the current iterations to be easily1 backwards compatible doesn't seem like it'd be different or innvoative enough to be actually worth buying.
1: this is important, because it's one thing to port stuff over (e.g. converting certain 2e things to 3e, like say the wild mage table or certain magic item tropes) and another thing to just reprint the same set of rules.
Backwards compatibility is a mess. Technically Pathfinder and 3.5 are backwards compatible but that's generally a bad idea and I'm pretty sure everyone here has encountered at least one reason why. There are a lot of nasty problems in 3.x, 3.5 and also probably still in pathfinder.
Pathfinder's strength isn't it's backwards compatibility. It's the fact that the system is 95 percent a system people already know and like. So even though I don't think most people go into pathfinder with a 'let's pull in this splat from D&D that I like' they instead have 'hey, I already almost know the rules, so even if I'm wrong on some fine details, I can start playing!'
It'd be a plus certainly (It's nice sometimes), but what would be a real coup is a mechanical setup that is familiar, easy to learn, with good world-side association and limitations that leave everyone in good shape for long haul dungeon crawling without "Okay, going Supernova here."
Let me think of a couple things I'd like to see...
>logarithmic power curve. As levels get higher, the difference between them should get smaller; to me this means a very deliberately slowing of some of the fundamentals, like HP growth/saves/attack bonus/etc. At the top end, there should be less in terms of raw power gains and more in terms of breadth of skill.
>someone paying attention to the action economy. The best way to approach breaking this game (any almost any game!) is to figure out how to take more actions than the other guy. I swear this is true in almost every RPG I've played. Remember old Haste? Or, say, Celerity, to WW guys out there? Yeah. Design guidelines need to think about this. (And do fun things with it instead of have a really rigid 'act once, only!' ethos.)
>mechanics+abilities reflect world. Some abstraction is always necessary, but ideally, I should be able to look at most actions/abilities, see the mechanics, and infer what's actually happening from that.
>Less class, more feat. I'd rather have a small set of classes and a large set of feats (or feat-like things; I'd count skills as a feat-like thing, or perks/merits/whatever.) I think when you have lots of both, the interactions between them get very unwieldy. Feats are compact, easier to design and deploy. And I am okay with class-specific feats!
>attn. to the marvel vs. capcom 2 school of balance: It's better for everything to be broken than everything to be boring. (But easy on the viper beams.)
That is an excellent post, Sirrah Carth. *claps*
I will say "Categories" beat "Specific".
One of the better choices of 3rd ed was saying 'Hey, here are these magical bonus categories. Things should end up in one of them and they don't stack with each other'. It meant every time something new got made, it generally fit into that framework.
"Requires Fighter level 4" = BOO. "Requires Martial Class level 4" = Yay. Why? Because the moment they publish a splatbook revealing a Swashbuckling Pirate, Raging Samurai, or other type, it can just be dubbed 'hey this is a martial class. All those feats labeled martial? They can be bought'.
Pathfinder's typed base class (You are a Monk, which is one of these seventeen classes that share 50 percent or more of their design) is a pretty good route for this as well, but I prefer type tagging really as it is more flexible and clear. Pick a few simple types and let them get slapped onto classes to grant access to feat categories (Iron Heroes played around with this kind of notion but buried it under giant trees).
I'd like to see a few of the things that I think Pathfinder and 4e did well.
-Incentives to staying with the base classes. I really like the idea of the paladin, but I don't think there's anyone on this board who would consider a build with more than 5-6 paladin levels to be worthwhile. Even in gestalt. Just what does it say about the coolness of your base class if no one wants it after a few basic levels?
Pathfinder does this by giving you bonuses. 3.5 basically punished you via an XP penalty if you deviated from your favored class, no one liked it and people tend to ignore it. Pathfinder rewards you for sticking with it by giving you +hp or +skills or +spells known and a variety of other thematic bonuses you can pick from your class/race/general list.
4e gives you an incentive as well by having your powers grow with your level. Having dynamic powers is a lot more fun, and it gives you something to look forward to.
-More versatility. I think Drac's onto this with the whole requirements part in the post above, and I remember Rat going about how he wished regular melee classes got the ability to rededicate their fighting feats (say weapon focus: lance) like ToB allows. Casters have more vesatile options than melee types, and there's only so many ways you can hit a dude with your sword.
Pathfinder helps fix this by streamlining the 'special attack options' mess and adding new ones (I actually think the new ones are boring, but it's a step in the right direction). If looking up the goddamn grapple rules doesn't pause the game for half an hour, it's now a viable option! And since Pathfinder reduces size bonuses and introduces a variety of item-boosted bonuses (like say deflection to your defense against these maneuvers), everyone can now do this! ...except they can't. Because while, unlike 3.5, you no longer need a specialized build with a zillion to your roll to beat the other guy, you still get hit with AoOs. Still, if there is a change so that an AoO doesn't disrupt your attempted maneuver and you only take damage, it really will become viable.
4e does this by immediate interrupts. I think those make the game more interesting, once you get used to them. Rat was talking about how extra actions make breaking the game easy. I suppose it's possible to abuse this as well. But if you have a reserve of finite blocks or dodges that you can deploy at the last moment as a base mechanic instead of, say, a Devotion feat or a spell or an item, I think it would enhance the gaming experience.
-Let's make hero points or whichever they're called a core mechanic, because they're fun. No need to have any feats or abilities tied to them. Those distract from the innate coolness of these dignity points.
-More basic versatility for casters. Yes, this. I'm not talking about being able to teleport twice as much per day, but geez, how are you an epic wizard if you can only use Mage Hand five times a day? Were you dropped on your head as a child? You can reshape natural order more than that in a day. Also, wizards with crossbow, plinking away uselessly at the lower levels after they run out of their spells. That's boring, so just give them their poor cantrips for free.
-More feats. In fact, I'd split feats into mechanically-useful feats and into flavor feats, and just give people a lot of the latter. If you need to choose between Power Attack and Arcane Strike or that feat that gives you better diplomacy with elves, which one will you pick as one of your seven? ...yeah. Let's change that, be decent at what we do AND have our rich fun cultural background! It's dumb to make you choose between being able to SPOT DANGER and representing your old profession as a farmer. The game is supposed to be fun, I don't see how choosing to be true to your backstory and, inadvertantly, worse mechanically as a result is any sort of fun. 2e had two pools to draw skills from, so something like that is a good start?
Quote from: Corwin on January 10, 2012, 11:38:51 AM4e does this by immediate interrupts. I think those make the game more interesting, once you get used to them. Rat was talking about how extra actions make breaking the game easy. I suppose it's possible to abuse this as well. But if you have a reserve of finite blocks or dodges that you can deploy at the last moment as a base mechanic instead of, say, a Devotion feat or a spell or an item, I think it would enhance the gaming experience.
I think the point wasn't 'breaking the game' as much as, "'I do this' guy gets 50 actions while you only get one. Who's playing more?" Game breaking is an afterthought to the 'well, this isn't fun,' aspect.
Quote from: Corwin on January 10, 2012, 11:38:51 AM-Let's make hero points or whichever they're called a core mechanic, because they're fun. No need to have any feats or abilities tied to them. Those distract from the innate coolness of these dignity points.
All the cool GMs houserule it anyway, so yeah -- this makes a great deal of sense to me. Hero points are fun!
Quote from: Corwin on January 10, 2012, 11:38:51 AM-More feats. In fact, I'd split feats into mechanically-useful feats and into flavor feats, and just give people a lot of the latter. If you need to choose between Power Attack and Arcane Strike or that feat that gives you better diplomacy with elves, which one will you pick as one of your seven? ...yeah. Let's change that, be decent at what we do AND have our rich fun cultural background! It's dumb to make you choose between being able to SPOT DANGER and representing your old profession as a farmer. The game is supposed to be fun, I don't see how choosing to be true to your backstory and, inadvertantly, worse mechanically as a result is any sort of fun. 2e had two pools to draw skills from, so something like that is a good start?
What? Second edition had proficiences-- Oh, I see. Weapon Proficiencies and Non-Weapong Proficiencies.
So you'd like to see feats split into, 'Combat Feats,' and 'Non-Combat Feats'? I do like the idea-- I can see several issues with it, but they almost all boil down to 'dungeon crawlers will argue to trade their NCFs for CFs.' The second one is, 'what about feats that can legitimately apply to both?' (I don't feel those are insurmountable.) I think that idea is a solid one for (at the very least) an optional rule. I'd use it, absolutely!
In your example above, if you get 7 feats, you're probably going to dump them all in +to combat. But if the GM says, 'pick 5 combat feats and 2 non-combat feats', then it's a different ballgame.
Strongly agree. :)
Quote from: Brian on January 10, 2012, 12:50:25 PMQuote from: Corwin on January 10, 2012, 11:38:51 AM-Let's make hero points or whichever they're called a core mechanic, because they're fun. No need to have any feats or abilities tied to them. Those distract from the innate coolness of these dignity points.
All the cool GMs houserule it anyway
Dune doesn't! Are you saying he isn't cool? ;p
I do like hero points also, as an aside.
Quote from: Merc on January 10, 2012, 02:12:32 PMDune doesn't! Are you saying he isn't cool? ;p
I do like hero points also, as an aside.
As much as I like Dune, we have nearly diametrically opposed views on some aspects of gaming. Plus, I'm not sure you really need hero points if you're already going gestalt. >_>;
Quote from: Brian on January 10, 2012, 02:55:42 PMPlus, I'm not sure you really need hero points if you're already going gestalt. >_>;
Blasphemy. When dealing with Hatbot, one ALWAYS needs hero points.
I use both! It works out fairly well. But usual disclaimer about my games largely being solo games and thus not really counting.
Quote from: Brian on January 10, 2012, 02:55:42 PMAs much as I like Dune, we have nearly diametrically opposed views on some aspects of gaming. Plus, I'm not sure you really need hero points if you're already going gestalt. >_>;
Eh. They are mildly less useful in gestalt, though I don't think that would mitigate using them if you like them.
Yeah, I know I don't agree with most here about hero points. I'll spare you to the grognard-esque bitching about 'em.
Quote
I think the point wasn't 'breaking the game' as much as, "'I do this' guy gets 50 actions while you only get one. Who's playing more?" Game breaking is an afterthought to the 'well, this isn't fun,' aspect.
This is also a good point, although I really was thinking of the way multiple actions are horribly unfair (since often, effects that give you +actions do not really detract from the power of individual actions as much as they should.) Online gaming spoils us a bit since taking many actions can actually be done fairly quickly, with the real bottleneck to a turn being how fast a guy can describe things.
D&D is all about combat, so it occured to me that if people wanted this, the non-combat options could easily be placed under a sort of 'social combat' umbrella, for lack of a better term. It could be entirely optional, and build up on skill challenges. I'm not sure precisely how far this should be taken, but I do know no one actually finds the social skills useful as written (diplo, bluff/feint, etc) and that always makes me wonder why they're even there. With such mechanics divorced from normal combat ones (yes, talking is a 'free action', but I buy you delivering an impassioned speech to your army in 6 seconds even less than you slashing at him 6 times in a row) they won't directly interact, and people who prefer to stab things would just interrupt it easily if they wished.
I think the problem is really less Combat/Non-combat and more Cultural versus Inherent Value.
Non-combat is a place where value is still a big deal. Diplomacy stuff, for instance.
But whereas +2 to init is something that is always inherently valuable, +2 to init, lore, listen, spot versus local goblin tribe is not and gives tremendous RP flavor as well. Yes, it's a slight gain in a very specific area, but even if it comes up, its not a big deal, and most the time it won't come up. +2 to diplomacy with <Wealth-level> <race> is another example. Knowledge: Farming +2 is another example.
These things show up every so often but usually have to compete with real value adds and so are both specific and Strong in their specific, rather than weak or are totally overwhelmed, so you either are: Twinking or choosing between having things that represent your background and being effective. How many young nobleman fighters really take knowledge nobility with their handful of skillpoints? They know it'll never be rolled and when they're running low on their 3 skillpoints...
Quote from: Corwin on January 11, 2012, 03:24:29 AM
D&D is all about combat, so it occured to me that if people wanted this, the non-combat options could easily be placed under a sort of 'social combat' umbrella, for lack of a better term. It could be entirely optional, and build up on skill challenges. I'm not sure precisely how far this should be taken, but I do know no one actually finds the social skills useful as written (diplo, bluff/feint, etc) and that always makes me wonder why they're even there. With such mechanics divorced from normal combat ones (yes, talking is a 'free action', but I buy you delivering an impassioned speech to your army in 6 seconds even less than you slashing at him 6 times in a row) they won't directly interact, and people who prefer to stab things would just interrupt it easily if they wished.
I gotta ask one thing. How is feint a social skill? That's for tricking your enemy so you can strike them flatfooted, last time I checked.
You're right about the implication that six second rounds are dumb, though. I'm more and more tempted to houserule that for my D&D games, no matter how much rebalancing it requires.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see the significance? Combat takes place in arbitrary time-units called 'rounds,' not anything approaching real time anyway. Unless-- I, I see. I think you're arguing speech duration, but I'm almost actually positive that the ruleset for 3.x doesn't say, "You can talk as much as you want," even though talking is a free action. I'm pretty sure there was some text in there about how you could really only say fairly brief things in a round (like barking commands), which is perfectly reasonable.
In fact, I thought the 'in combat penalty to diplomacy' rule was to represent the difficulty of trying to get your statement to fit in a single round of combat, anyway. The fact that players/GMs might let this go further is kind of on them more than the ruleset, unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible). If I'm wrong, then-- Yes, that's incredibly stupid and it should be fixed/houseruled.
I think (IIRC), feint is based off bluff -- but this does touch on one difficulty of the idea of trying to separate things into combat/non-combat feats. What about feats that govern things in both domains? Skill focus: Bluff, in this instance.
I'm not positive, but I'm thinking that combat feats are fine if they also provide non-combat aspects, but the inverse is not true -- or else minmaxers will only ever choose 'non-combat' feats that provide combat bonuses anyway. Or will the game be damaged by trying to prevent that from happening?
Would the alternative to be to create a tier system for feats, so they had multiple levels/types? You get a 'lesser feat' every <quantity> levels, (+2 to a skill, a minor background element, something like a penalty reduction to something that doesn't apply to combat), a 'greater feat' every <less often> levels (combat effects or major non-combat skill bonuses, maybe things that let typically non-combat skills have in-combat effects)?
Hmmm.... Strikes me as interesting, but a huge pain to balance/do _well_.
I played a bit of 3rd, and read but never played 4th. The fact that 5th seems to be coming out so quickly does strike me as an admission that 4th has not done as well as they'd have liked it to.
I honestly liked some of the ideas behind 4th, which stemmed from the Star Wars Saga Edition iirc, that had classes that actually built on themselves in logical ways and filled the roles a little better, it's just that from what I saw D&D still seemed to suffer from Linear Fighters / Quadratic Wizards to a degree.
I could be way off the mark, but the largest issue has always been party balance, since it's ultimately a game that aims to entertain a group of people that have diverse tastes when it comes to what they like to play. If 5th can achieve a balance between classes to a further degree than any other edition then I'm all for it (although truth be told I'm more of a White Wolf fan anyways... cough)
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I see the significance? Combat takes place in arbitrary time-units called 'rounds,' not anything approaching real time anyway. Unless-- I, I see. I think you're arguing speech duration, but I'm almost actually positive that the ruleset for 3.x doesn't say, "You can talk as much as you want," even though talking is a free action. I'm pretty sure there was some text in there about how you could really only say fairly brief things in a round (like barking commands), which is perfectly reasonable.
Nah, all I'm saying is that I dislike the six second round. It's too fast for my tastes; I preferred 2nd edition's one minute per round. For a round to happen in six seconds, everything is on insane amounts of speed. I've never really messed with it before, since buffs are keyed to round durations, so this makes changing it a tricky proposition.
QuoteFor a round to happen in six seconds, everything is on insane amounts of speed.
And it gets even faster with haste and combat reflexes!
"So you hit him how much? Well, six times with my left sword and seven with my right. In six seconds. So roughly..."
I agree with thinking of it as arbitrary time personally.
Not that a minute is bad with the statistical life of combat being 5 rounds. 5 minute fights.
Potential derail; we may want to threadsplit (unsure).
Quote from: Anastasia on January 12, 2012, 01:23:00 AMNah, all I'm saying is that I dislike the six second round. It's too fast for my tastes; I preferred 2nd edition's one minute per round. For a round to happen in six seconds, everything is on insane amounts of speed. I've never really messed with it before, since buffs are keyed to round durations, so this makes changing it a tricky proposition.
Okay -- I totally misunderstood.
I seem to recall (this is way back when for me, now) an explanation that while players/monsters are in melee range, they're assumed to constantly be exchanging blows, but parrying/armor/shield blocking, etc. You only roll for significant attacks. I believe that was actually in 2nd edition, too, which would match up with the 1 minute rounds.
OTOH, looking at (say) the Lord of the Rings movie000000000000, a typical example of the epic fantasy adventure -- Aragorn and Legolas are dispatching Orcs left and right. I suppose from a technical standpoint, you could argue that they're mooks and it's actually just the special effect for cleave, but there, dispatching foes goes pretty quickly.
Moving back to minute rounds, getting six attacks means one ('effective') attack every 10 seconds, which seems fairly slow. OTOH, giving a full
minute to diplomancy/bluff/combat instructions seems like an awful lot. I guess I just don't have a problem with D&D's six-second rounds -- it's probably that number just for the convenience of ten rounds in a minute.
I guess I just don't have a problem with actions being as fast as they are; this is fantasy, and the typical adventurer is assumed (I thought) to have better than average stats compared to the mortals who make up the vast majority of the population. A level ten fighter should be really rare compared to a level one figther, and he gets three times the attacks -- for being an order of
magnitude more experienced. Haste magnifies that, but that's magic, which (IMO) gets a pass.
Combat reflexes are attacks of opportunity -- and unless you've got a pretty good dex, you won't really be getting an ungodly number of them until higher level anyway (when you can argue super-man level heroic abilities (what are 'feats' otherwise?) and magic bonuses). Strikes me as reasonable.
Really, I'd :\ more at 1 minute rounds. You can only move 30 feet a minute as a level one human in medium or light armor? (Though, it's possible that movement distance may be unreasonably
high for six seconds -- I'd argue for 10 second rounds, personally.)
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2012, 02:05:09 AMI seem to recall (this is way back when for me, now) an explanation that while players/monsters are in melee range, they're assumed to constantly be exchanging blows, but parrying/armor/shield blocking, etc. You only roll for significant attacks. I believe that was actually in 2nd edition, too, which would match up with the 1 minute rounds.
That's correct as far as I recall.
QuoteMoving back to minute rounds, getting six attacks means one ('effective') attack every 10 seconds, which seems fairly slow. OTOH, giving a full minute to diplomancy/bluff/combat instructions seems like an awful lot. I guess I just don't have a problem with D&D's six-second rounds -- it's probably that number just for the convenience of ten rounds in a minute.
I guess I just don't have a problem with actions being as fast as they are; this is fantasy, and the typical adventurer is assumed (I thought) to have better than average stats compared to the mortals who make up the vast majority of the population. A level ten fighter should be really rare compared to a level one figther, and he gets three times the attacks -- for being an order of magnitude more experienced. Haste magnifies that, but that's magic, which (IMO) gets a pass.
Combat reflexes are attacks of opportunity -- and unless you've got a pretty good dex, you won't really be getting an ungodly number of them until higher level anyway (when you can argue super-man level heroic abilities (what are 'feats' otherwise?) and magic bonuses). Strikes me as reasonable.
Really, I'd :\ more at 1 minute rounds. You can only move 30 feet a minute as a level one human in medium or light armor? (Though, it's possible that movement distance may be unreasonably high for six seconds -- I'd argue for 10 second rounds, personally.)
I do agree with that too. I'm not quite saying to go back to 1 minute rounds. The way 3.x is structured, it leads to the problems you noted. I've toyed with 12 second rounds and 18 second rounds; I feel they make more sense and allow more flexibility to what happens within a combat round. On the other hand, it really does screw with some of the basic underpinnings of durations. A spell measured in rounds has its duration doubled or tripled, while a spell that is measured in minutes per level has its effective battle time duration reduced. 3.x is keyed to the six second round from the ground up, lots of little things need adjusting if you change that.
I use 10 second round. It doesn't really make much mechanical difference besides for 1 minute duration abilities like Devotions and such. Which I'm fine with only lasting 6 rounds instead of 10.
Quote from: Gatewalker on January 12, 2012, 02:56:45 AM
I use 10 second round. It doesn't really make much mechanical difference besides for 1 minute duration abilities like Devotions and such. Which I'm fine with only lasting 6 rounds instead of 10.
Yeah, Devotion feats are good enough to where a soft nerf doesn't seriously impact their usefulness.
Well, that and most combats aren't more than 5 rounds anyway.
www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-assassins-wizards.html
More info on 5th edition.
Bumping this up since there's a playtest now. Has anyone read or played it? If so, any opinions?
The discussion thread on slashdot was basically flooded with a post-mortem on where 4th ed went wrong, and a general consensus that Pathfinder is the spiritual successor. Kind of curious to hear more, though.
Edit: My guess is that fans of 3.x find the 4th ed nods to still be too much, but I don't have any data to back that up.
Quote from: Brian on June 01, 2012, 06:28:18 PMThe discussion thread on slashdot was basically flooded with a post-mortem on where 4th ed went wrong, and a general consensus that Pathfinder is the spiritual successor. Kind of curious to hear more, though.
I've seen the other side and it isn't any prettier. The main forum I follow is (rabidly) pro-4e and thinks 5th edition sucks.
QuoteEdit: My guess is that fans of 3.x find the 4th ed nods to still be too much, but I don't have any data to back that up.
I wouldn't be surprised. Pathfinder has had years to establish an identity and brand loyalty. Unless 5th edition is exactly what 3.x/Pathfinder fans want, I doubt there will be many conversions now. If anything, I'm wondering if WotC is going to manage to alienate both groups.
That actually seems the most likely, to me.
We witness in our time, The Death of Dungeons and Dragons. How they successfully buried a literally 40 year old franchise.
Meh, I wouldn't go that far. The D&D name has enough oomph to recover from a bad edition, I think.
Dramatic much? I think people will still be playing it for a while <_<
To be fair, what we consider the 'spirit' of D&D isn't attached to the name anymore. Pathfinder is the spiritual successor, and my suspicion is that it'll be too much of a haven for the 3.5 crowd to stick with over 5th ed. Net result, probably not actually get many of the 3.5 fans back, risk alienating some 4th ed fans....
It would have been smarter for WotC to try and buy Pathfinder and just maintain two gaming lines. As it is, I don't think that 5th ed is going to be a failure to the point that D&D 'dies', but I don't expect it to be the success that they need, either.
You know, I find it funny given that nobody in the last page of posts here plays any content or ruleset that D&D has been part of in the last 4 years, and equally mods the shit out of the 3.5 version that is played. Others are looking to pathfinder to make their future games.
Taking a bit of fun data.
3.5 folks: Split between continuing where they are and pathfinder. Possibly can be hooked.
Pathfinder fans: Long gone for the most part. How bad? Pathfinder has been winning the sales battle for over a year and also over the last year taken over the majority for convention spaces as well (Source ICv2).
4.0 folks: So far looking fractured/unhappy at the move.
New audience: Well always a hope.
Yes, I'm bein' a horrible troll. Growl. :P But really, 4.0 was a mess, breaking over a decade long dominance of sales charts and showing the first real decline and fracturing of the audience since 3.0 came out. 5.0 isn't coming out in a void. It's coming out in an environment where their dominating sales figures are evaporating and instead of it being folks waiting for the next 'big thing', it's actively being consumed by another company that is making their fortune off of it. And voting with our dollar or our time, not a single one of us is saying we believe in the current vogue of D&D.
They're not facing palladium or white wolf eating their sales figures. They're facing effectively an improved and polished version of one of their most popular systems to date that's been providing a clear transition path for folks instead of them having a vast switch needed. Sure, D&D is an amazingly strong brand, but it's still entirely possible for them to make it irrelevant if they follow 4th Ed with something wishy-washy.
And attempting to appeal to every fan ever and accept every piece of literature ever is really the heart of being wishy-washy about your design.
Anyhow, still could be a strong product that draws back customers, but the evidence isn't seeming in that direction at the moment and D&D as a product/brand is the most vulnerable its been in over a decade. I know, sacred cow and all, but just because something historically is amazingly famous and culturally ingrained doesn't mean it can't become irrelevant (Kodak, Xerox).
Hopefully it will be a strong product. Better to see it that way. But the opposite is entirely possible too.
Not strictly related, but not unrelated either.
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2F4news%2F20120625
A 3.5 reprint? I have a very difficult time seeing value in that this late in the game.
Maybe they're trying to see how much support the classic system had? You'd think they'd just look at Pathfinder and figure it out from that, though....
That and seeing what parts of 3.5 are the most popular. Could be good 5e research.
Maybe. Feels like a desperation move in any case. >_>
That sounds...expensive and foolish.
Amen to both.
Bump.
Has anyone been following the Next playtests at all?
Not in the least.
A little. It's hard to judge anything without playing it, though.
(clerics are still the best, reportedly)
I'm rezzing this thread to provide a link to the playtest (http://dndplaytest.wizards.com/), which anyone can apparently join.
That is all.
So D&D Next is coming out this summer. Anyone interested in it or have an opinion yet? How's it looking?
I've not looked at it at all while it was playtesting, so not a clue or thought really given to it for the most part. Amusingly, I did glance at the release dates in my favorite board game store this weekend and went to look at the playtest, only to find it was over. Alas!
From what I saw, PHB is releasing Aug 19, MM is releasing Sept 30, DMG is releasing Nov 18. There is a starter set also releasing earlier on July 15.
I'd normally say that it's perplexing that DMG is releasing four months after PHB...well, actually, I still think it's perplexing. That said, typically D&D games are games where you can do just fine if all you have is the PHB. Still weird not to release a core set together, or closer together at least.
I find that odd too, but I suppose all the core playing material is in the PHB. I figure the DMG will be all that modular stuff they talked about.
Hopefully it's not as boring as 4th ed
We shall see. I suspect it'll be a counter to 4th edition in the same way 4th was a counter to 3rd edition.
4th edition wasn't actually a bad system, it just relied heavily on grids, and borrowed mechanics from MMOs at a time when the market was being oversaturated with them.
It was a system that would have sold much better in the late 80s through mid 90s, before the internet or its early days.
I honestly think 4e would have done better if it wasn't attached to D&D. I don't meant that as a slight to either side, just that it tried to mix a lot of things up that parts of the fanbase didn't want changed.
The other issues are secondary to that, at least to me. It had to stand as a D&D game instead of on its own merits.
That's a good point as well. It had a lot of people comparing it to 3.5e because of the D&D name, and that didn't help it at all. If it had just been a new system by WotC shipping alongside 3.5e, it could have done better because then people would have been curious about an alternate system by the guys that did the D&D games.
At the least, they wouldn't have lost so very many players toward Paizo's work. The dramatic 2nd to 3rd ed shift worked I think largely as 2nd ed was long in decline and desrepair by the time it came out. I also think 3rd was solidly an improvement and fourth was more a parallel track, but that could just be personal perspective.
Quote from: Dracos on July 03, 2014, 11:56:00 AM
At the least, they wouldn't have lost so very many players toward Paizo's work. The dramatic 2nd to 3rd ed shift worked I think largely as 2nd ed was long in decline and disrepair by the time it came out. I also think 3rd was solidly an improvement and fourth was more a parallel track, but that could just be personal perspective.
I'd say 4th's problem is 1. It was different and 2. It really took a hatchet to a lot of things the fanbase liked.
I think a lot of 4th's problem is that the developers didn't feel like fans of D&D, insofar as D&D was 30 years of development, world building and plot. In addition to the system shift, 4e played fast and loose with settings to change things as well as cram them into the points of light theme. You don't like large parts of D&D and want to build something in the same frame of reference about that? Cool. By all means. But don't put those people in charge of the main product. It's crappy to do to all the people who like those things.
It's why I think 4e would have made a great fantasy game without D&D's trappings. It could've fulfilled its vision without having to work around and massacre parts of D&D that the fanbase likes. Instead it worked in a field that introduced far more complications than boons.
4th ed did have some impressive narrative art as I remember.
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2Fbasicrules
These were posted recently. It looks like D&D 5 is almost a return to 3.5
Characters are more sturdy now, like in 4e they get +2 to two stats, instead of +2/-2. And it looks like dead levels only exist on spellcasters (though given they still get spells, they're not really dead), right now only fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric are shown.
Saving throws, skills and attacks are all simplified, as now you get a proficiency bonus (starting at +2) that increases based on your level, and depending on your class you get certain proficiencies with armor/weapons, saving throws, skills. You can gain proficiencies in skills and tools based on your background, which are similar to bonuses humans sometimes get in other systems to make them more diverse. Proficiency bonus seems to start at +2 and goes up to +6, and it seems to go up at the same levels for every class shown so far.
Classes typically gain "Ability Score Improvement" ability every couple of levels, typically you increase an ability score by +2 (or two by +1), but you can choose a feat instead. Feats are an optional system however, and not shown in that link.
Multiclassing also exists, but all the tables needed to see how it works for proficiencies interacting from different classes aren't shown. It seems to generally work about the same as 3.5 however.
Saving throws are ability score specific, with you class granting you a bonus to two ability scores (so Fighter gets a bonus to saves against strength and constitution for example). They don't scale with level, just with your proficiency bonus.
Initiative is just dexterity rank based, with only ties requiring rolls.
AoOs exist again.
Spellcasters get fewer spells/day, and bonus spells from high ability score still exist, but rather than based on a chart, you just get a number equal to your bonus score. And they can be of any level you have access to, so more flexibility.
Spells/day is actually Spell Slots, which replenish after a long rest, but given that's 8 hours and you can only benefit from it once per 24 hours... it comes out to essentially the same thing.
That's basically the main things I noticed. It looks like a strong return to 3.5 style of play, while trying to simplify/remove need for charts and a lot of addition to generate a character. Given that Pathfinder has been going strong though, will going back to a popular 3.5 style system do much for WoTC at this point? Guess we'll see.
I actually enjoyed the combat of 4th edition, when it came to playing with people who aren't interested in the deep mechanics of every single feat, racial and other modifier that gets slowly layered into 3.5.
I haven't really played with any diehard tabletop players, ever, though (I have always been the most interested player in the group), so 4th edition kept the game moving and made it so that being a simple fighter more interesting than "I hit it with my sword, deal x damage. next person go."
That said, some of the intensive roleplaying aspects I have seen from 5e make me wish I could really get into gaming again. And it looks like WotC is really trying to move more into the mainstream of open minded-ness (http://www.themarysue.com/basic-rules-dnd/) that some portions of the gaming culture I have seen dearly need.
Quote from: Dracos on July 04, 2014, 02:46:42 AM
4th ed did have some impressive narrative art as I remember.
Oh yeah. I liked 4e's art a lot. It had some downsides, but there were several pieces I liked. In particular, I like the dragon art I saw.
Quote from: Ergoemos on July 05, 2014, 12:17:58 PMThat said, some of the intensive roleplaying aspects I have seen from 5e make me wish I could really get into gaming again. And it looks like WotC is really trying to move more into the mainstream of open minded-ness (http://www.themarysue.com/basic-rules-dnd/) that some portions of the gaming culture I have seen dearly need.
Deep roleplaying can be a lot of fun, especially when you get a group that's really into it. It can be tough when you're the one really into it with the group and the others aren't, so hang in there and good luck.
"Okay, I'm a dwarven historian named Brun. Nice to meet you, Lawerance. And you guys are? Are? Hello?" *cricket cricket*
Disconnects on level of narrative and social engagement are super easy to have in games, much like in life.
Idle curiosity here, but is anyone getting the PHB, DMG or MM?
Prolly will pirate it and read at some point, but I don't feel an immediate buy need.
Same as Drac, probably. I haven't really seen much that would make me go "You know, I think this looks more fun to play than Pathfinder or 3.5e" so far.
So did anyone end up buying the PHB? How is it?
It hasn't come out yet. Next week, Aug 19th, Dune =p
Quote from: Merc on August 13, 2014, 09:44:14 PM
It hasn't come out yet. Next week, Aug 19th, Dune =p
Huh. I'd seen a lot of reviews around for it, so :I thought it already released. Nevermind then!
Well, I'd imagine gaming magazines and the like got early copies for that very purpose. Or could be some game store that has a review blog and started reading before it gets put on shelves?
Anyway, I'd posted release dates for the books somewhere in the last page of this thread.
The whole PDF has been uploaded already, of course. (why would I buy a game unless I've read the pdf)
It looks sorta neatish. Chargen seems a little neater, and flatter numbers across the board. Definitely more reminiscent on 3e than 4e. Toying with running something short this September.
Quote from: Carthrat on August 14, 2014, 06:08:51 AM
The whole PDF has been uploaded already, of course. (why would I buy a game unless I've read the pdf)
That explains a lot.
QuoteIt looks sorta neatish. Chargen seems a little neater, and flatter numbers across the board. Definitely more reminiscent on 3e than 4e. Toying with running something short this September.
Oh? Got something in mind, Rat?
Maybe a three-session or so game to try out new stuff in the system. I'm thinking of sending people to explore a giant, hollowed-out tree.
I should have time since I think my usual saturday game will be paused through September. Not sure what's happening there, though.
That's probably workable. I figured, assuming the party's back home soonish, that I might fill time during Cor's absence with any side stuff people might be interested in, but that wouldn't necessarily need to adhere to the usual timeslot if you want to use it for something else.
Will you play, Cid? Willya?
Quote from: Carthrat on August 15, 2014, 10:21:32 AM
Will you play, Cid? Willya?
You should make a bulletin board post about it, see if you can garner a few people.