You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 12:15:14 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: DND 5.0 remake  (Read 8499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

DND 5.0 remake
« on: January 09, 2012, 11:37:58 AM »
Annnnndddd... here we go..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/arts/video-games/dungeons-dragons-remake-uses-players-input.html?_r=3&hpw

About 2 years earlier than I thought it would start though.

They took a leaf from Paizo though.. asking for gamer input.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 11:39:45 AM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Aiden

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2012, 11:53:07 AM »
About fucking time, 4.0 was garbage.

I am an MMO player but I play MMO's for a reason, when I get to DnD, I want to customize my own shit not follow a path like a video game.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2012, 12:00:22 PM »
About fucking time, 4.0 was garbage.

I am an MMO player but I play MMO's for a reason, when I get to DnD, I want to customize my own shit not follow a path like a video game.

Please.. don't start the hate warz. (though I do agree that 4e was VERY MMO-ish)

I'm curious to see how long they keep up the 'looking for Gamer' input outlook given they did a lot at the beginning of the 4e release train to ignore them (cutting FLGMS out of the loop and giving folks like WALMART a 50% cut on the unit cost of the books).

I think the boys and girls at Wizards want to do this but the Masters of Business Atrocities at Hasbro might overrule them eventually though.

Hasbro is looking to make the GOBS of cash they were shown at the purchase time back at the beginning of this Century. Face it..the guys at Wizards showed them the books for the year or so before the purchase and they have been chasing THAT pay off ever since.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2012, 12:11:14 PM »
2.0 had three years of player development and groups testing the rules and a two decade run.

3.0 -> 3.5 screwed me over after buying the first rules set alot.

4.0 -> 5.0 didn't bother going there.

There are plenty of other options pathfinder, the basic fantasy rpg (my fav) and other retro-clones of the older "dnd" system with some like hackmaster having their own following. Not to mention the 2nd Edition which I find superior to the rules used 3.0 and after in some ways.

The fact is if you want a fantasy rpg there are ample other options oop and in print and free options and most are close enough to "dnd" to be as good as the system if one wishes to rp in that environment.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2012, 12:21:27 PM »
well I know Ed Greenwood is still running a 2e game (and from what I've heard.. still using the 3/3.5e version of the Realms for it), and I know a LOT of designers still use 2nd or 3rd in their own games. Very few actually use 4e from what I've heard.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2012, 01:45:05 PM »
I think 4.0 could have used a better name than the Fourth Edition. That comes with standards.

Now if they called it Basic v2 or something that would be okay. I like 3.5 and I'm dabbling with Pathfinder, but 4.0 had a lot of potential for introducing new players to the larger game. That's just my opinion though.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2012, 07:29:04 AM »
4.0 was a great game on its own merits, for all that I don't like it personally. But it wasn't 3.5, and it wasn't 3.5 to such a amazingly significant degree that it almost certainly permanently fractured the fanbase forever. If WotC/Hasbro means to recapture their entire market, they're doomed - Paizo scooped up the disgruntled 3.xers, and has more-or-less treated them well. So a 5.0 edition will have to be at least superficially in the 4E style, otherwise it'll end up losing players to no additional gain.

The 4.0=MMO argument was always nonsensical grognardian garbage. The real worry we need to care about is 5.0=CCG, with worrisome precursors like the random Power Cards that Essentials introduced, or the pay-per-month model of D&D Insider/Dragon Magazine (the only really MMOish element of 4E's sales structure).

Offline Chris Brady

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2012, 12:45:12 PM »
Don't forget, 3e was a Diablo video game for the tabletop, which would doom D&D into obscurity.  (This was the argument used back then.)

If anything, 4e is closer to Disgaea.

One thing they really need to do for 5e is cut back on the Hit Points.  3e made them explode exponentially, into stupid levels where save or die effects became mandatory, which of course, only Wizards and other casters had access to.  At about level 10, you'd start facing things in excess of 100 HP.  And most melee/non-caster classes were useless against.  Hell, most monsters could easily bypass the front line, most of the time they didn't was because GMs played nice.

4e didn't really change that.

Personally, I think that Fighter types should do much more damage from the outset, that way they are a threat, as equal to the casters.

Either way, I've signed up for the 5e beta test, so I shall see what's new on the table.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2012, 01:05:21 PM »
I did the same, though I disagree with 3e/'Diabloing'.. and my outlook on the whole '4e commerce' model isn't where I get my MMO outlook, that came from reading the  players handbook and terms like 'CC', 'tank', 'Buff' coming to mind as i read through the roles and then reading about how you enchant things by 'disenchanting' other items for 'magic powder'.

I dislike the whole e-scription thing for Dragon/Dungeon.. I was a loyal subscriber of the dead tree books from like.. Issue.. 28 on. Then they took all the PDFs off the market, one a 2 day notice that occured while I was on deployment. So I lost like 200 bucks worth of pdfs I will never get back.

I don't blame the folks I bought the pdfs from.. I blame the MBAs who are stuck in an old model. Their current 'e-scription' stuff is crap. 

Offline Brandon

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2012, 01:49:25 PM »
I was actually expecting this to come out soon after having a hint dropped by a friend but you know what? I dont think I really care all that much. I was hyper hating on 4E for a lot of years and especially on WotC for what they did to dungeon and dragon magazine (let alone the IMO crummy way they treated Paizo) but for 5.0...I just really dont care.

If anything can be said its this, I enjoy pathfinder and Ive long since stopped caring about the D&D name. I wish them well but they will not be getting my business, not because its D&D but because its Wizards of the coast, the same people who screwed us gamers over years ago

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2012, 02:02:10 PM »
I was actually expecting this to come out soon after having a hint dropped by a friend but you know what? I dont think I really care all that much. I was hyper hating on 4E for a lot of years and especially on WotC for what they did to dungeon and dragon magazine (let alone the IMO crummy way they treated Paizo) but for 5.0...I just really dont care.

If anything can be said its this, I enjoy pathfinder and Ive long since stopped caring about the D&D name. I wish them well but they will not be getting my business, not because its D&D but because its Wizards of the coast, the same people who screwed us gamers over years ago

It wasn't Wizards taht screwed everyone.. it was HASBRO. Wizards was playing fair till they were sold to Hasbro. That was when '3.5. was suddenly sprung on everyone, and the sudden (and repeated) downsizings (Wizards got infamous for letting folks go before the holidays.. class act folks). What they did to Paizo was another 'classy' move by the folks @ Hasbro. I mean they had a publishing contract and killed it to be 'online only' despite the fact that a LOT of folks didn't want to lose their dead tree copies.

Then they burned Paizo, and Drivethrurpg by yanking EVERYTHING e-pub based that belonged to Wizards.. It was their right.. but come one.. TWO days isn't fair.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2012, 02:02:50 PM »
The games I've been a part of have all been 2e homebrews.  I chalk it up to being more interested in playing than wasting time and money buying all new rulebooks and learning the new system.  ;D

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2012, 02:04:29 PM »

Personally, I think that Fighter types should do much more damage from the outset, that way they are a threat, as equal to the casters.

Either way, I've signed up for the 5e beta test, so I shall see what's new on the table.

That was what the Tome of Battle did, though, and I don't think the entire 3E line had a book more prone to causing flame wars and arguments. What fighter-types need more than straight up damage boosts is flexibility, ways to contribute that don't amount to 'I hit it with a sword/axe'. Casters dominate not just because they can end fights with a single spell (often one that doesn't even allow a save) and reshape entire battlefields with area denial, but because they can bring the perfect tool to any situation in or out of combat, where only the Rogue of the non-casters can make real contributions outside fights. Reinvent the fighter as a leader-of-men with diplomacy abilities and teamwork-related group buffs, make the paladin an avatar of good with class features past 5th level, and for the love of all that's holy give the poor monk some actual synergy with itself.

Personally, I'm going to be giving Legend a good shot - I'm semi-acquainted with the developers, and have watched the entire playtest and development period up to an awesome end product.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2012, 02:11:17 PM »
That was what the Tome of Battle did, though, and I don't think the entire 3E line had a book more prone to causing flame wars and arguments. What fighter-types need more than straight up damage boosts is flexibility, ways to contribute that don't amount to 'I hit it with a sword/axe'. Casters dominate not just because they can end fights with a single spell (often one that doesn't even allow a save) and reshape entire battlefields with area denial, but because they can bring the perfect tool to any situation in or out of combat, where only the Rogue of the non-casters can make real contributions outside fights. Reinvent the fighter as a leader-of-men with diplomacy abilities and teamwork-related group buffs, make the paladin an avatar of good with class features past 5th level, and for the love of all that's holy give the poor monk some actual synergy with itself.


Pathfinder does some work on that. .Fighters get some really good options (depending on your design), Rogues get some out of combat enhancements and BOTH have reasons to stay with them for many levels past the 6th level range (which is where you normally saw both classes go looking for a prestiege class (or three) to make themselves relevent)

Personally I think the Pathfinder monk still needs a bit of loving but overall every base class got something.

But that is my take on the system and results may vary

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2012, 02:13:55 PM »
The PF fighter didn't get anything except bigger numbers, though the Rogue did get some neat tricks, yeah. They actually made the core Monk worse by removing its ability to take TWF and Improved Natural Attack, though a Hungry Ghost archtype monk can be a real beast. I did like the way they built classes to encourage staying in them, though.

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2012, 02:19:35 PM »
The PF fighter didn't get anything except bigger numbers, though the Rogue did get some neat tricks, yeah. They actually made the core Monk worse by removing its ability to take TWF and Improved Natural Attack, though a Hungry Ghost archtype monk can be a real beast. I did like the way they built classes to encourage staying in them, though.

I thought so too.. till my freind pointed out that you can add in things like Critical Focus (and its' offspring feats) and maneuver feats. Yes, it'f fairly easy to hammer in with more and more damage or alternate between damage and 'move' feats.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2012, 02:24:49 PM »
I thought so too.. till my freind pointed out that you can add in things like Critical Focus (and its' offspring feats) and maneuver feats. Yes, it'f fairly easy to hammer in with more and more damage or alternate between damage and 'move' feats.

Those are still combat-only things though, which is my point. Outside of combat, the Fighter is just a lump of meat whose utility is 100% dependent not on the character, but the silver-tongue of the player.

Offline Brandon

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2012, 02:30:56 PM »
With the change in skills I disagree. A fighter can be anything they want to. A fighter can choose to be conversation focused or choose to be stealth focused. With the right feats a fighter can even make magic arms and armor.

However I think that avoids the other problem where very few classes have utility outside of combat in the first place

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2012, 02:31:47 PM »
Those are still combat-only things though, which is my point. Outside of combat, the Fighter is just a lump of meat whose utility is 100% dependent not on the character, but the silver-tongue of the player.

The same could be argued about the monk, paladin and such. I find it depends on how the player (and to an extent DM) thinks things up. Skills are pretty tricky considering you come out with fewer than casters. My favorite character for a long time was a 'security' expert (fighter) who had skills in Animal Handling, Craft (Traps) and Perception as his big skills. He had a trio of dogs that he used to held guard merchants, traps he built to give alerts to folks who came looking for them and such.

How? By working with the DM on the campaign. Fitting his guy into the game backstory. (I like the Paizo adventurer's paths for that sort of thing. Right now I'm playing a Rogue in a Kingsmaker game on RPoL.. pretty fun)

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2012, 02:37:07 PM »
And note that I did also call out the monk and paladin as being desperately in need of fixes. If a player and DM have to go outside the rules to make a character useful, that's highlighting the failure of the rules to make them useful on their own.

Don't get me wrong, I play and enjoy Pathfinder. It fixed more than it broke or left alone, and more importantly, it kept the 3.X brand alive when WotC wanted to let it starve. But it wasn't the panacea it was advertised to be, and the things it didn't fix were some of the biggest problems I had with 3.5. Thus, I'm hoping Legend picks up as a decently popular alternative, because I like a lot of the things it did to the overall structure of the rules.

Offline Brandon

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2012, 03:45:46 PM »
And note that I did also call out the monk and paladin as being desperately in need of fixes. If a player and DM have to go outside the rules to make a character useful, that's highlighting the failure of the rules to make them useful on their own.

Don't get me wrong, I play and enjoy Pathfinder. It fixed more than it broke or left alone, and more importantly, it kept the 3.X brand alive when WotC wanted to let it starve. But it wasn't the panacea it was advertised to be, and the things it didn't fix were some of the biggest problems I had with 3.5. Thus, I'm hoping Legend picks up as a decently popular alternative, because I like a lot of the things it did to the overall structure of the rules.

I still dont understand how a character is not useful when the skills system allows for all manner of specialized and unique characters and its largely used as utility outside of combat.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2012, 04:07:35 PM »
I still dont understand how a character is not useful when the skills system allows for all manner of specialized and unique characters and its largely used as utility outside of combat.

Because they need skill points and a good skill list to get skills. PF helped by greatly homogenizing skill ranks, but most non-caster classes are given an abysmal 2+Int, points per level, and only the Fighter has any incentive (Combat Expertise feat chain) to boost his Intelligence with his creation points. Due to how D&D's scaling skill DCs work, the only skills that matter are the ones you have maxed out, and most mundanes don't have the skill points necessary to max more than two or three skills.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2012, 05:07:50 PM »
What I found so funny about the 4e = MMO meme that people parroted was that I could, personally, map the four basic classes in 3e to WoW and EQ equivalents much more easily.

High Armour, low Damage?  WoW Warrior in Protection, or 3e Fighter.  Unless you went Power Attack+Greatsword, then you were an Arms Warrior.

Positional High Damage, medium Armour?  Rogue.  Rogue.  (At least in the beginning, most of the rogues massive damage in WoW was from behind.  And SA in 3e only works in certain situations.  Some of which is DM's call.  Not that anyone actually paid attention to that part...  Other than me...)  Hell, the term Rogue meaning stealth based fighter with thief skills came from 3e.

High Damage, low Armour?  Wizard and Mage, they also both have a lot of utility 'crowd control' effects too.

The Cleric used to throw me for a counterpart in WoW, although EQ's was pretty analogous.  Then I realized that a true D&D style Cleric was a Holy Paladin!  Heavy Armour, able to Heal, and do obscene amounts of damage?  Even had some Crowd Control in there!

So to ME, this 4e is a WoW-clone BS, was just that.  If anything, 3e should have gotten that label.  Except that...  WoW came after it.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 05:10:06 PM by Chris Brady »

Offline Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2012, 05:17:15 PM »
What I found so funny about the 4e = MMO meme that people parroted was that I could, personally, map the four basic classes in 3e to WoW and EQ equivalents much more easily.

High Armour, low Damage?  WoW Warrior in Protection, or 3e Fighter.  Unless you went Power Attack+Greatsword, then you were an Arms Warrior.

So to ME, this 4e is a WoW-clone BS, was just that.  If anything, 3e should have gotten that label.  Except that...  WoW came after it.

What got me was the powers. Daily, encounter, ct. They are COOLDOWNS. Gone were any utility spells for mages.  And enchanting required 'magic dust' you got from disenchantment things. And you were (initially) stuck on a very tight set of choices and tiers that set you on a specified career path.

And multiclassing was majorly broken.

Offline Brandon

Re: DND 5.0 remake
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2012, 05:33:48 PM »
That makes them "not as useful" not "Useless". Quite a big difference between the two meanings. The other problem with your argument is thats how you play the game, not how everyone does. Some people like to play ultra smart characters just like they prefer to play ultra strong or sexy characters. Playing intelligent characters with a large variety of skills is its own reward in games where GMs use skills a lot (like me).

I still dont see why a GM cant artificially increase said skill points were level if the game requires it. I do it by giving players an additional 2 every level and I use skill checks a lot. I even make it a point to try and use every skill once over the course of a level so players odd choices can be rewarded.