D&D 5E Discussion

[J1M]

I want to like this, but I don't know if I will.

 

[DarthBehemoth]

Never liked the 4E, but willing to give this a try

 

[Excidium]

It is nothing like 4e so you might like it.

 

[Caim]

What was the main difference between 4e and 4.5e (the Essentials version) anyway? As far as I can tell 4e gave you new attacks while you leveled while 4.5e made your basic attacks more badass. Is there anything else, or is that it?

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

Are they gonna include solo versions?

 

[Spectacle]

What was the main difference between 4e and 4.5e (the Essentials version) anyway? As far as I can tell 4e gave you new attacks while you leveled while 4.5e made your basic attacks more badass. Is there anything else, or is that it?

Not exactly. Some of the essentials classes are based around basic attacks, while others get new powers as they level. The progression doesn't always follow the established pre-essential patterns though.

 

[Alchemist]

Are they gonna include solo versions?

I don't think D&D has ever had any considerable amount of solo-oriented content, maybe a few modules at most. You might look into Tunnels & Trolls which does have a bit more in that vein, I hear.

 

[Ebonsword]

I wonder if we'll get a new series of board games?

The Castle Ravenloft games had potential, but never quite developed into something all that fun.

 

[Grunker]

Board games are popular currently, so might happen.

 

[J1M]

Have they announced anything regarding the licence for 5th edition?

I think extending the OGL would be the best thing for D&D all-around, but I don't expect it. I expect something different than 4E license, but with similar pitfalls and an effort to monetize online content (and hopefully a loophole that allows more CRPGs than 4E).

That reminds me, did anyone get around to extending the OGL to represent 4th edition rules, the way people have used it to create new material for "1st edition"?

 

[Grunker]

I don't know for sure, but there was a lot of talk of different OGL solutions. When I was last in the US, the WotC people I know talked about the effect of the OGL on long-term sales and the failure of 4th Edition being a closed circuit. Most of them work on Magic though, and obviously, they're R&D and not business-people.

 

[Ulminati]

I'll probably end up picking the PDFs and running a test scenario for my regular group. I doubt it'll sway them away from the holy trinity of Pathfinder, Burning Wheel and Shadowrun. But I've been wrong before. Ultimately most systems Much as 4E sucked, it would've made for an awesome ToEE style CRPG. The rules just had too many status effects and too much HP bloat, turning combat into a slow and clunky affair on the table.

It is pretty obvious WotC intended for it to be played using their digital dungeon or whatever the online virtual table app was supposed to be called. They just forgot to hire programmers to actually make the application.


I'd be willing to play or GM a codex one-shot adventure in rptools or a similar online solution once it's out to figure out how the final product plays in practice.

 

[Stompa]

It's not that they forgot to hire programmers, the guy who managed the online part of 4E shot himself shortly before launch.

 

[J1M]

It's not that they forgot to hire programmers, the guy who managed the online part of 4E shot himself shortly before launch.

Right, because when management is removed from the situation, the product has to be deleted, and it was "totally done for real" before that.

 

[Stompa]

It's not that they forgot to hire programmers, the guy who managed the online part of 4E shot himself shortly before launch.

Right, because when management is removed from the situation, the product has to be deleted, and it was "totally done for real" before that.

The guy was important enough it set them back, so online and virtual tabletop compontents weren't ready for 4e's launch. Apparently even shit that's currently available on DDI was a struggle and plans for VTT just fell through. Here's the link to full-ish story http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online

 

[J1M]

It's not that they forgot to hire programmers, the guy who managed the online part of 4E shot himself shortly before launch.

Right, because when management is removed from the situation, the product has to be deleted, and it was "totally done for real" before that.

The guy was important enough it set them back, so online and virtual tabletop compontents weren't ready for 4e's launch. Apparently even shit that's currently available on DDI was a struggle and plans for VTT just fell through. Here's the link to full-ish story http://www.examiner.com/article/the-murder-suicide-that-derailed-4th-edition-dungeons-dragons-online

Can we get this guy a dumbfuck tag?

Think for a second about what you are saying. You are stating that the suicide of the guy managing the Virtual Table Top software at the end of July, 2008 prevented the VTT from releasing with the 4E core rulebooks on June 6th, 2008. Also, this one person's death made it completely impossible for a multinational corporation to complete the (as you claim, nearly complete) work on the VTT in the following 5 and a half years.

 

[tuluse]

If WotC knew what they were doing (and I don't think they do). They would do something similar to the OGL, but have an online marketplace/sharing portal where users could sell, buy, and rate each others' supplements. They should also copy what Epic does with the Unreal license, up to X number of sales is free, after that you owe WotC a percentage of each sale. Of course using the marketplace would mean they would get their cut from that too.

If they get anything actually worthwhile, they could even do a physical release "best community supplements of 2014" or something like that.

Using the Unreal style license would stop what happened with Paizo and Pathfinder (WotC would be getting a percentage of each sale), while still being friendly to average joes.

 

[Ulminati]

The real tragedy is that some people made a framework for RPTools that did everything the WotC VT was planning to do and metter. The only problem was it was somewhat buggy and retardely resource hungry due to being a third-party script running on an already bloated java application. If WotC had hired a proper coding team, a good Virtual Tabletop would have been a ckaewalk to produce.

 

[Alchemist]

USA Today put out a new article about the 40th anniversary of D&D which has some D&D 5th ed info, including info about a storyline involving Tiamat:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2014/01/23/dungeons-dragons-anniversary/4713259/

Mobile and console games confirmed, as part of the multi-platform experience... here's a snippet:

For the first time in six years, gaming fans will roll the dice with a new set of rules for the iconic role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons.

Publisher Wizards of the Coast will launch this with the fresh story Tyranny of Dragonsthis summer, the latest chapter of the role-playing game first launched 40 years ago.

The next chapter for Dungeons & Dragons will spread across multiple modern platforms, including a new tabletop adventure, and similar experiences for console video game systems and mobile devices.

"This is a huge year for us," says Nathan Stewart, brand director for D&D at games publisher Wizards of the Coast. "At the heart of Dungeons and Dragons, it's adventure."

Tyranny of Dragons pits players against throngs of dragons, led by their five-headed queen Tiamat, who has appeared in D&D lore as a key villain since the mid-'70s.

"It's really epic in terms of scale," says Stewart.

 

[Athelas]

console video game

I don't know if I should be excited or horrified.

 

[Caim]

So instead of intelligent races VS the encroaching wild of 4e has been replaced with murderhobos VS dragons.

I... I fear for this edition.

 

[m_s0]

intelligent races VS the encroaching wild of 4e has been replaced with murderhobos VS dragons.

I have no idea what you're talking about here since I wasn't following any news on 5e, but they should market it with this sentence instead of going for multiplatform experience extravaganza.

Besides, the most exciting thing about the 40th anniversary is that documentary that's supposed to be out in May, I think:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewpascal/dungeons-and-dragons-a-documentary

I love this kind of stuff.

 

[J1M]

intelligent races VS the encroaching wild of 4e has been replaced with murderhobos VS dragons.

I have no idea what you're talking about here since I wasn't following any news on 5e, but they should market it with this sentence instead of going for multiplatform experience extravaganza.

Besides, the most exciting thing about the 40th anniversary is that documentary that's supposed to be out in May, I think:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewpascal/dungeons-and-dragons-a-documentary

I love this kind of stuff.

He is probably referring to bounded accuracy in a really stupid way. Basically, if a level 1 character shoots an arrow at a dragon, there is still a good chance it will hit. Relative damage numbers provide the distinction between power, so a dragon could still easily kill the entire town's guard, but with enough archers you can take it down.

 

[J1M]

I few days ago I went and read the last 2 years of the Legends & Lore column that chronicles the design and development of D&D 5e:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/archive.aspx?page=0&category=all&subcategory=legendslore

The rules and changes presented were sounding pretty good until about 6 months ago. At that point, they took a step back from bounded accuracy and started to bake number progression back into the character level. They had other options, such as the rules they are using for stuns on legendary creatures like dragons, so the decision came off as lazy.
(Ref: "Bounded accuracy" http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604 )
(Ref: "Mathemagical" http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130729 )

I like the direction they are going with feats and skills, but I haven't had a chance to fully read the final playtest package to see if the intent made it to the ruleset.
(Ref: "What is a feat?" http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130415 )
(Ref: "The latest on skills" http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130916 )

About half of the articles are just fluff and attempts to include the whole fanbase in 5e. The rest have meat to them and explaining their design process or why they made certain decisions; some could easily start entire threads here.

 

[Keldryn]

What was the main difference between 4e and 4.5e (the Essentials version) anyway? As far as I can tell 4e gave you new attacks while you leveled while 4.5e made your basic attacks more badass. Is there anything else, or is that it?

Essentials was intended to be an alternative entry point to the game that had more streamlined options and was a self-contained set of books (the Essentials books would reference each other, but not anything outside of the line). It wasn't really a 4.5 edition; it was mostly just alternative takes on classes. There had been incremental adjustments and revisions to the 4e rules since it launched in 2008, although Essentials did compile those in a physical product.

The warrior-type classes (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, etc) featured new sub-classes that abandoned the until-then-universal progression of at-will/encounter/daily attack powers. Instead, these classes focused on basic attacks which could then be modified by at-will stances (fighter and ranger) or movement tricks (rogue). Fighters and rangers also got an encounter-based Power Attack ability, which could be expended to add an additional 1[W] damage on a successful basic attack. This more or less allowed players to create their own encounter attack powers on the fly. The classes generally had greater accuracy with their attacks than the PHB classes, so their damage output was more consistent but moderate, as they didn't have the daily attack power damage spikes.

The "caster" classes in Essentials were more similar to their PHB counterparts, but usually got some extra abilities and were generally more flavorful. Mages specialized in enchantment, illusion, or evocation spells and didn't get rituals (rituals are entirely absent in Essentials).

The classes in the Players Handbooks got a set of class features at first level, and everything else afterwards came via feats and powers. All of the Essentials classes have a more structured progression and gain new class features at specific levels (often with a choice between 2-4 options).

The Essentials Monster Vault was in many was a revised 4e Monster Manual, with mostly redesigned takes on the classic monsters. They were a lot more interesting in combat and were also far less grindy (especially the solos).

Overall, Essentials is a different set of options for playing the game and is more newbie-friendly. An Essentials character can co-exist in a party of core 4e characters with no problems at all. It's not a revision to the rules the same way that 3.5e was.

After saying all of this, I still don't actually like playing 4e very much. I think it's a very well-designed game, and a lot of its design appeals to me. Unfortunately, it just plays too slow at the table for my liking.