| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 09 Jan 2012 : 15:00:35
Charting the Course for D&D Your Voice, Your Game |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zireael |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 20:00:21
quote:
Orc Berserker, level 3 warrior
XP 300
HP 28; Bloodied 14
AC 21; Saves +5
Melee Flaming battleaxe +9 (1d10 + 5 fire damage; crit 15 + 1d8 fire damage in a 10' burst)
Ranged masterwork Javelin +6 (1d6 + 5)
Berserker Rage The orc berserker can make two flaming battleaxe attacks when he becomes bloodied (loses 1/2 his total HP) and gain resist 5 to all weapon-based attacks
Abilities Str 20, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 11
Skills Athletics +12, Intimidate +9, Perception +7, Stealth +8
Possessions breatplate, flaming battleaxe, javelins x3, ratios (7 days worth), torches x3, oil x2, 89 gp.
Like it. I'm aiming for the similar type (short and to the point) in my homebrew system. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 18:44:49
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And I think simpler stat-blocks are better than long winded ones. And when you have a word or page limit for that book, it doesn't need to be filled with off the wall stats of some NPC you might never use.
If you do something like crazedventurers did (minus the appearance of a run-on sentence), I think it'll be easier to use overall with possible aspects that can be added on to the character. These options provide more complex abilities without forcing them, so to speak.
-That is my point: there is no real difference between presenting stats in long form, with everything written out word for word, detail for detail, and presenting stats in short form, with the basic essentials written out, and the extra details presented as add-ons in side-bars or where ever else. Given that nothing is forced on people- as in, they have to use them- nothing is really being changed except perception. Generally speaking, a page-and-a-half complete write-up of a character listing their skill point distributions, feats, items, spells, whatever else is different only in how it looks than a short blurb that has as sidebars or online content, or whatever other formats, the character's skill point distributions, feats, items, spells, and whatever else stats have, I don't even know anymore.
-This is why I laugh when it gets brought up by 4e/5e/Pathfinder designers (and any other rule people, I am sure, but I never followed any other games) as being something new, special, and different from rules/games before it. It's more of a pushing of a different perception, rather than any kind of real, meaningful change when you get down to it. In the Forgotten Realms 4e transition, for example, the same thing was done, this time in terms of everything being chock-full of information. The common refrain was that there was too much, it interfered with people's abilities to make games, and so on. Bumping up the timeline and presenting a fairly radically different presentation of the world did wipe the board to some degree, but when you get down to it, all the really changed at a fundamental level was perception. The depth of information that turned people off from it whenever is still there. The 25+ years of accumulated products are still in play, and still count, where information hasn't been changed/amended in setting- Halruaa is very different, for example, though the 25+ years of accumulated products about Halruaa is still in play, albeit in more of a historical way now. The perception was just pushed as being different, as being less encyclopedic if you will, and many responded.
-In the end, though, I do agree with you, because listing all fifteen thousand skills, spells and items that Elminster has at any point in time is a waste of space, in terms of books having limited word counts. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 10:41:33
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But lets take an example such as Elminster's stats from the FRCS....whoa, there are a LOT of spells there. Not to mention feats that could be used in combat, skills important to combat, features important to combat, attacks, saves (modifiying saves, spells that change saves), AC, class levels, yadda-yadda. The stat-block was huge
And I think simpler stat-blocks are better than long winded ones. And when you have a word or page limit for that book, it doesn't need to be filled with off the wall stats of some NPC you might never use.
I agree 100% with this. I do not want to see 3.x style stat blocks in D&D next. Keep them short and simple and if folks want to add other options for their game then great. It is easier to add than take-away and gives DM's the ability to introduce 'advanced' rules/options onto an NPC which then surprises the players and keeps the game fresh ("he just did a quickened spell? huh?").
Sometimes less is actually more
Cheers
Damian |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 06:14:15
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Heh, I just posted in a different thread on this exact thing. Is it really that revolutionary, or groundbreaking to, when presented with a page full of stats, pull out what you need/want, and ignore everything else? I guess I must've been ahead of my time back when I DMed using 3e, and when writing down the stats of a monster I was going to have the party fight, I only copied down HP, AC, Initiative, Attacks/Damage, Special Powers and ignored basically everything else (generic feats, skill points, other stuff I can't think of off the top of my head, winging it when those things might have been important if the players did something that necessitate me knowing those things) and treating that ignored stuff like add-ons, side-bars, or whatever else, to be used when/if I felt like it. Not to be dismissive of people, but...
Revolutionary? No. Helpful when it comes to useing stat-blocks in published adventures and monster books? Yes. But lets take an example such as Elminster's stats from the FRCS....whoa, there are a LOT of spells there. Not to mention feats that could be used in combat, skills important to combat, features important to combat, attacks, saves (modifiying saves, spells that change saves), AC, class levels, yadda-yadda. The stat-block was huge (and Larloch's was even bigger). Compare that to the 4E one and you could see there was a LOT less reading involved without the requirment for in depth knowledge of spells, feats, and class fatures. And I think simpler stat-blocks are better than long winded ones. And when you have a word or page limit for that book, it doesn't need to be filled with off the wall stats of some NPC you might never use.
If you do something like crazedventurers did (minus the appearance of a run-on sentence), I think it'll be easier to use overall with possible aspects that can be added on to the character. These options provide more complex abilities without forcing them, so to speak. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 05:06:07
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
But I'll agree with you about the stat-blocks. In 3E and 4E they got a bit to carried away with their mechanical presence in print. I do think this was a much bigger problem in 3E than in 4E, but I digress. If they do make them more simpler, hopefully we'll see more side-bars or add-on blocks one can use if so desired.
-Heh, I just posted in a different thread on this exact thing. Is it really that revolutionary, or groundbreaking to, when presented with a page full of stats, pull out what you need/want, and ignore everything else? I guess I must've been ahead of my time back when I DMed using 3e, and when writing down the stats of a monster I was going to have the party fight, I only copied down HP, AC, Initiative, Attacks/Damage, Special Powers and ignored basically everything else (generic feats, skill points, other stuff I can't think of off the top of my head, winging it when those things might have been important if the players did something that necessitate me knowing those things) and treating that ignored stuff like add-ons, side-bars, or whatever else, to be used when/if I felt like it. Not to be dismissive of people, but... |
| Jakk |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 04:51:45
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
4E is more backwards compatible than you think. And by this, I mean taking stuff from 4E and turning it into stuff for 3E or Pathfinder or possibly even 2E/AD&D. And it's even easier converting from older editions to 4E. I just did a conversion of a deep dragon named Phazeuroth (Drow of the Underdark) for my wife's up-coming campaign. It literally took 30 minutes to take a pre-existing level 13 Purple Dragon (Deep dragon) and up-grade it to 14th with some additional stuff the v3.5 one had. And it's even easier with PCs.
I've seen that with your recent post on converting the multiclass feats to 3.x (link here for others' benefit; the specific post in question is the fifth one down the scroll), and as I mentioned there I suspect I'll be looking at the 4E material again for things I can reverse-engineer for 3.x and Pathfinder. Many thanks for that post!  |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 19:41:00
Hi Diffan
Lets have another look at the orc berserker.
Orc Berserker AC 14 (AC 5) (chain mail); HD 3; HP 18; 1 att 1-8 dam (battleaxe); save:F2; Move:20; LE; special: orc berserkers gain +1 to hit when damaged in combat; 1d6sp
there you go!
all monsters have a to-hit bonus that equals their HD (to a maximum of +15) so +3 in this case
There are 2 AC's: the first is ascending AC the second is descending. I much prefer ascending so have no problem with WoTC ignoring descending AC in the stat blocks.
For the save either save as Fighter 2, or better yet put their save target in there (16)
Short sweet and to the point
Cheers
Damian |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 15:26:46
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It literally took 30 minutes to take a pre-existing level 13 Purple Dragon (Deep dragon) and up-grade it to 14th with some additional stuff the v3.5 one had. And it's even easier with PCs.
One hopes that D&D Next is more friendlier in terms of conversion time. I am not sure that spending 30 minutes converting one monster is a valuable use of (my personal) playing time. Short sharp and clear stats that quickly sum up the monster is my preferred choice rather than the large stat blocks of 3.x & 4E.
Mayhap the modular nature of D&D Next will fulfil this ability for all gamers with a 'basic' monster stat line: AC, HP, Attacks, Damage, Special attack that is easy to read and a more detailed stat block with skills/feats/manoeuvres etc if that is the prefered playing style instead?
Cheers
Damian
I should've prefaced my above post with the fact that I am a perfectionist when it comes to customizing monsters. At first I was just going to re-name the Adult Purple Dragon to Phazeuroth, hit the level up buttons to 15 and be done with it. The v3.5 version was a CR 15 and the 4E version is a 13th level 'Solo' (meaning he's a tough problem all by himself). But then I started to change all the powers he had from "the purple dragon does XYZ" to "Phazeuroth does XYZ". I then added more languages. Then I perused the compendium for a healing power or two because the v3.5 version had magical means to heal himself. Then I adjusted the Skills and what-not. All of this wasn't necessary and he simply could've worked by just the name change and adding two levels. I made the process longer on purpose for more thorough mechanical representation.
But I'll agree with you about the stat-blocks. In 3E and 4E they got a bit to carried away with their mechanical presence in print. I do think this was a much bigger problem in 3E than in 4E, but I digress. If they do make them more simpler, hopefully we'll see more side-bars or add-on blocks one can use if so desired. For example:
Orc Berserker, level 3 warrior
XP 300
HP 28; Bloodied 14
AC 21; Saves +5
Melee Flaming battleaxe +9 (1d10 + 5 fire damage; crit 15 + 1d8 fire damage in a 10' burst)
Ranged masterwork Javelin +6 (1d6 + 5)
Berserker Rage The orc berserker can make two flaming battleaxe attacks when he becomes bloodied (loses 1/2 his total HP) and gain resist 5 to all weapon-based attacks
Abilities Str 20, Con 14, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 11
Skills Athletics +12, Intimidate +9, Perception +7, Stealth +8
Possessions breatplate, flaming battleaxe, javelins x3, rations (7 days worth), torches x3, oil x2, 89 gp.
It's small, it gives a person an understanding of how he works, and it's functional. But then you can have different aspects that he can use such as a bigger attack maybe 1/encounter that deals more damage, or a power that allows him to daze or knock prone a PC, or something that gives him extra vitality (in the form of Temporary Hit Points). |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 12:49:25
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
It literally took 30 minutes to take a pre-existing level 13 Purple Dragon (Deep dragon) and up-grade it to 14th with some additional stuff the v3.5 one had. And it's even easier with PCs.
One hopes that D&D Next is more friendlier in terms of conversion time. I am not sure that spending 30 minutes converting one monster is a valuable use of (my personal) playing time. Short sharp and clear stats that quickly sum up the monster is my preferred choice rather than the large stat blocks of 3.x & 4E.
Mayhap the modular nature of D&D Next will fulfil this ability for all gamers with a 'basic' monster stat line: AC, HP, Attacks, Damage, Special attack that is easy to read and a more detailed stat block with skills/feats/manoeuvres etc if that is the prefered playing style instead?
Cheers
Damian |
| Diffan |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 06:11:13
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
For the most part, I agree. My one note of dissent is with regard to classes. The last report I heard suggested that we would see every class that was present in the original PHB from every edition. This would give us about 15 classes: assassin, barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, (illusionist?), monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, warlock, warlord, wizard. I put illusionist in parentheses simply because I don't know if it would be separate on its own, in a section for all specialist wizards, or simply included with the wizard class as an option. Anyway, hopefully this is what they'll do, and I wouldn't object at all if they added the cavalier from 1E Unearthed Arcana (the same book that originally introduced the barbarian). But we'll see... that's a lot of classes, especially if they're going to handle the skills/feats/powers options the way you suggest (which is good, but it requires a lot of rulebook real estate). Personally, I wouldn't object to minimal interior art if it gives us more core mechanics options. I pay for a core rulebook for crunch; I pay for a campaign setting book for lore. Here's hoping that we see a return to that kind of separation, as we saw in the 1E/2E era; even 3.x FR had too much crunch, but the individual books were large enough that it wasn't as noticeable, because we still got a good pile of lore in each one.
I think the illusionist would be a sub-set of the Wizard, as well as the Cavalier being a sub-set of Paladin. But that is apretty hefty class list you've got there. Here's to hoping they put that many out with the PHB. It'd be nice to see that sort of complexity with 1 PHB instead of spread out amongst 2 or 3. As for the crunch, I hope they put most of it in One book. Setting "crunch" is fine with me, as long as it pertains exactly to that setting and it has reasons for that setting. Now, don't take this to mean that it can only work in that setting, just have good flavor there.
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
And I concur with nearly all of what you say subsequently. We need something new, not a rehash of something old, if they follow through on their plan to re-release the older material. They're not going to get anyone to buy the same thing twice... or if they do, it's not going to happen more than once, even if they update the mechanics in the old setting-specific titles.  This is why they need a system that can convert easily to older editions, and why I think the biggest mistake of 4E was eliminating backward compatibility. 
4E is more backwards compatible than you think. And by this, I mean taking stuff from 4E and turning it into stuff for 3E or Pathfinder or possibly even 2E/AD&D. And it's even easier converting from older editions to 4E. I just did a conversion of a deep dragon named Phazeuroth (Drow of the Underdark) for my wife's up-coming campaign. It literally took 30 minutes to take a pre-existing level 13 Purple Dragon (Deep dragon) and up-grade it to 14th with some additional stuff the v3.5 one had. And it's even easier with PCs. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 05:44:27
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I actually don't think it'll be that formulaic. I think they'll have a Stat and initial character creation chapter. In this chapter, it'll detail several ways to generate stats and other aspects of your initial character phase. This might be roll 3d6 in order, 4d6 and drop the lowest in any order, elite stat arrays, and point buy.
Chapter two might have the races, starting with the most basic ones (elf, dwarf, human, halfling and possible a few others Gnome, half-Orc, half-elf and then a few exoitc ones like Dragonborn, Tiefling, Minotaur, etc. There might be rules for using additional stuff such as Racial Powers and even options to change the flavor of classes.
Chapter 3 will probably be classes and it'll go over the basics of each class. Don't be suprised to see more than 8 or 10 classes in here. I have a strong feeling we'll see the classic 4 plus the paladin, ranger, warlord, warlock, sorcerer, monk, druid, barbarian, and bard. They want to have these options open at debut, no doubt from the initial fallout "OMGZ! THERE IS NO BARD GNOME IN THE PHB!! WTF??!" reaction they got with 4E. I expect a pretty robust class list right out of the gate.
Chapter 4, 5, & 6 could be additional options with Skills, Feats, and martial/divine/primal powers or maneuvers. These are the optional aspects of the game, allowing a player to choose between them or even swap class features of their base class for these options. But who knows? I'm just guessing at this point.
For the most part, I agree. My one note of dissent is with regard to classes. The last report I heard suggested that we would see every class that was present in the original PHB from every edition. This would give us about 15 classes: assassin, barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, (illusionist?), monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, warlock, warlord, wizard. I put illusionist in parentheses simply because I don't know if it would be separate on its own, in a section for all specialist wizards, or simply included with the wizard class as an option. Anyway, hopefully this is what they'll do, and I wouldn't object at all if they added the cavalier from 1E Unearthed Arcana (the same book that originally introduced the barbarian). But we'll see... that's a lot of classes, especially if they're going to handle the skills/feats/powers options the way you suggest (which is good, but it requires a lot of rulebook real estate). Personally, I wouldn't object to minimal interior art if it gives us more core mechanics options. I pay for a core rulebook for crunch; I pay for a campaign setting book for lore. Here's hoping that we see a return to that kind of separation, as we saw in the 1E/2E era; even 3.x FR had too much crunch, but the individual books were large enough that it wasn't as noticeable, because we still got a good pile of lore in each one.
And I concur with nearly all of what you say subsequently. We need something new, not a rehash of something old, if they follow through on their plan to re-release the older material. They're not going to get anyone to buy the same thing twice... or if they do, it's not going to happen more than once, even if they update the mechanics in the old setting-specific titles. This is why they need a system that can convert easily to older editions, and why I think the biggest mistake of 4E was eliminating backward compatibility. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 19:11:39
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
It wont work Diffan as players naturally gravitate to a preferred playing style in a gaming group. So the DM/players will agree on what 'options' they want to use from the D&D Next PHB (and the probable expansion books that come later) and the game will be run using those rules. So for instance Chapter 1 will be roll 3d6 in order + 4 basic classes, Chapter 2 is chapter 1+expanded classes and skills, chapter 3 is 1+2 + expanded races and feats etc
I actually don't think it'll be that formulaic. I think they'll have a Stat and initial character creation chapter. In this chapter, it'll detail several ways to generate stats and other aspects of your initial character phase. This might be roll 3d6 in order, 4d6 and drop the lowest in any order, elite stat arrays, and point buy.
Chapter two might have the races, starting with the most basic ones (elf, dwarf, human, halfling and possible a few others Gnome, half-Orc, half-elf and then a few exoitc ones like Dragonborn, Tiefling, Minotaur, etc. There might be rules for using additional stuff such as Racial Powers and even options to change the flavor of classes.
Chapter 3 will probably be classes and it'll go over the basics of each class. Don't be suprised to see more than 8 or 10 classes in here. I have a strong feeling we'll see the classic 4 plus the paladin, ranger, warlord, warlock, sorcerer, monk, druid, barbarian, and bard. They want to have these options open at debut, no doubt from the initial fallout "OMGZ! THERE IS NO BARD GNOME IN THE PHB!! WTF??!" reaction they got with 4E. I expect a pretty robust class list right out of the gate.
Chapter 4, 5, & 6 could be additional options with Skills, Feats, and martial/divine/primal powers or maneuvers. These are the optional aspects of the game, allowing a player to choose between them or even swap class features of their base class for these options. But who knows? I'm just guessing at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
What will be interesting is how WoTC plan to run their convention games (chapter 1 only PC's, chapters 1&2 PC's allowed etc) and how future releases will support different playing styles - would a monster book have 3 entries per monster dependant on how 'advanced' your game is? Same for modules? I suspect lots of sidebars on how to scale the monster/encounter for different styles?
I think the sidebars will be pretty prevalent throughout the Monster Manual, but I think most monsters will have aspects in their descriptons that signify how strong or advanced you want them to be. So a 5th level challenge Dragon might have just one or two attacks and a breath attack. But there are alternative options that add complexity such as spell-like powers, an Opportuinity Attack ability, or even magical gear. Hopefully the scaling system will be SUPER easy as it was with 4E. I mean, adding X levels should be a simple bump to stats without over-much worry about Skills and Feats and the like (such as with 3E).
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I think it is very apparent now that the initial blurb about D&D Next being 'compatible and playable' with any ruleset was a major PR mistake as all the latest columns are seriously back tracking on this saying it will allow gamers the 'feel' of earlier editions and that backward compatibility is probably not feasible (the last bit is me reading between the lines).
WoTC offered an olive branch to gamers with a supposed Rosetta Stone ruleset for all editions, but what I am reading now and seeing in the polls they are conducting suggests that the olive branch got dropped early and quickly. If WoTC were to pick up the olive branch again and offer PDF's of their back catalogue that would be a positive step forward.
I can't find any quote from Monte, Bill, or Mike about backwards compatable with other rulesets. Monte had mentioned that a player who enjoys a 1e character feel can play alongside someone who likes a 4e character feel. They can have their respective style of character at the same table. This does not mean, nor has it be inteded to mean, that you can pull out your 1st Edition Player's Handbook and roll up a character while I pull out my 4E PHB and roll out a character and have them work simultaneously at the same table. How this "feeling of characters" is achieved is still yet to be seen. Personally, I don't think they'll ever be able to re-create the level of character complexity 4E offered or 3E versatility and still remain balanced with character that choose to ignore those options.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I hope that D&D Next is a stable and fun rule set and encourages lots of new players into the hobby making it successful and profitable for many many years to come. However, I suspect I wont be buying the new rules or much of anything else they offer up as I have enough rules, supplements and modules to run several lifetimes worth of campaigns already, the notable exception to this will be Ed's Guide to the Forgotten Realms which will be bought 'sight unseen'.
Cheers
Damian
Well, I've been playing ever edition of D&D from AD&D/2E on through now and I plan to give D&D:next a fairly good try. I hope the playtest will be a strong indicator of what is to come, much like Pathfinder's Beta was and shows a lot of what the system can do and how they can expand on it. What we don't need is another slew of books that cover the same stuff just recently coverd. That means, as a group, we don't need another Planar book or a book about Drow and the Underdark or a book about the Feywild or Faerie or about the Shadowfell (Plane of Shadow) or a book about Dragons. They need to establish STRONG ADVENTURES right from the get-go. They need to establish a robust ruleset that allows for multiple applications to the genre. That mean it can support Steam-punk, high-sorcery, low-level gritty, heavy undead themes, planar campaigns, etc. IF the game can support these aspects well and have published adventures that showcase these attributes, I think it'll take off like a Grand-Slam.
We'll see. |
| crazedventurers |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 09:14:20
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
An additional question, how can someone work well with bare-bones mechanics of BECMI along side someone who enjoys Feats and Maneuvers? Again,
It wont work Diffan as players naturally gravitate to a preferred playing style in a gaming group. So the DM/players will agree on what 'options' they want to use from the D&D Next PHB (and the probable expansion books that come later) and the game will be run using those rules. So for instance Chapter 1 will be roll 3d6 in order + 4 basic classes, Chapter 2 is chapter 1+expanded classes and skills, chapter 3 is 1+2 + expanded races and feats etc
What will be interesting is how WoTC plan to run their convention games (chapter 1 only PC's, chapters 1&2 PC's allowed etc) and how future releases will support different playing styles - would a monster book have 3 entries per monster dependant on how 'advanced' your game is? Same for modules? I suspect lots of sidebars on how to scale the monster/encounter for different styles?
I think it is very apparent now that the initial blurb about D&D Next being 'compatible and playable' with any ruleset was a major PR mistake as all the latest columns are seriously back tracking on this saying it will allow gamers the 'feel' of earlier editions and that backward compatibility is probably not feasible (the last bit is me reading between the lines).
WoTC offered an olive branch to gamers with a supposed Rosetta Stone ruleset for all editions, but what I am reading now and seeing in the polls they are conducting suggests that the olive branch got dropped early and quickly. If WoTC were to pick up the olive branch again and offer PDF's of their back catalogue that would be a positive step forward.
I hope that D&D Next is a stable and fun rule set and encourages lots of new players into the hobby making it successful and profitable for many many years to come. However, I suspect I wont be buying the new rules or much of anything else they offer up as I have enough rules, supplements and modules to run several lifetimes worth of campaigns already, the notable exception to this will be Ed's Guide to the Forgotten Realms which will be bought 'sight unseen'.
Cheers
Damian |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:35:18
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Matt Hi there. Not sure how 1st edition can stand with 4th edition with all characters compatible in 5th Edition. A noble goal I am sure, however seeing AD&D to BD&D, etc. in RC makes it appear unlikely character conversion will work, even with best effort.
From what I've read, nothing about D&D-Next will be compatable with older edition material, at least, stuff with direct mechanical bearing. 'Porting' a character directly from 1E and/or 4E into D&D-Next most assuredly will not be possible wholesale. The character "idea" or what makes the character "feel" unique might be possible, but mechanically speaking....No. The idea is that many 1e players like simplicity in their character design. They want to know the stats, what to add to hit, the DC of spells (or whatever), and play. Meanwhile, a 3E or 4E character might want to grab feats, some skills, possibly a combat maneuver or power and even a Theme then play.
And I agree with Jakk about the mechanics, it can't be 4E re-hashed (frankly, you can't perfect what's faultless ) because there'd be little reason for those of us who like that edition to switch over. And the same goes for a gearing towards 3E/PF, because they certanily won't get them back. No, what they need is something fresh that combines each and every 'like' that has been presented to the game over the last 30+ years. And that's from basic BECMI stuff to advanced min/maxing of 3E to the powergamers of 4E and everything in between. By boiling down the mechanics to a distilled D&D, they can use that as a framework to add-on as need be. The main question is, what's bare-bones enough that can be added on yet still resemble D&D to the collective majority?
An additional question, how can someone work well with bare-bones mechanics of BECMI along side someone who enjoys Feats and Maneuvers? Again, I think this has a lot to do with Player Envy and the understanding of your choices at character creation. If your decision is to go basic, with no feats or any of that stuff, and stick to simplicity.....well that's cool. But you can't then complain when someone who's being the same class or style is pulling off 'Maneuvers' and 'Powers' a turn after you. As long as people at the table are OK with Fighter (A) using one swing for his career and Fighter (B) using a variety of weapons that, through an add-on capability, can swap weapons and powers all the time then they can pull this off. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:15:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Maybe we can discuss what we hope for in a new ruleset without this turning into yet another gripefest about the 4E Realms?
Apologies, Wooly... and I agree... this should be about the ruleset, not the Realms... and personally in that regard, I hope we do see a completely new set of mechanics from the ground up. If WotC does anything too similar to 3.x, it will be immediately sized up against Pathfinder, and anything too similar to 4E will be turned down by those who were disappointed in that ruleset. So it's either a completely new system or a hybrid of the good things about 3.x and the good things about 4E... and try finding a sizable group that agrees on what those are. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:10:33
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I think the Spellplague was a slap into the face of intelligence to begin with, and unless I am mistaken most people thought and think so. In order to make good lost ground on the Realms customer front there are, in my opinion, two things that need to be done:
1) Re-establish product identity by moving away from the D&D logo and putting the Forgotten Realms logo back where it belongs.
2) Get rid of a change the majority of the fanbase abhors, namely the Spellplague.
If they were to implement those changes, WotC would have regained me as a customer. And I am pretty sure many, many others feel the same way.
-And arbitrarily erase the going-on five years of world development that directly ties back in to the world before the Spellplague? What is the Spellplague defined as? Is it the event itself? The lead-up to the event that the developers began inserting into the setting in the waning days of the 3e era? If so, how far back? Do the generally non-embraced events that took place during that period that were independent of the Spellplague (ie, the trimming of the Drow pantheon) get considered part of the Spellplague and deleted as well? Is so, which ones?
-No, retcons never were, and still aren't the answer.
I agree completely. Which is exactly why they should get rid of all the retcons that were made in the transition to 4e. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:09:44
Maybe we can discuss what we hope for in a new ruleset without this turning into yet another gripefest about the 4E Realms? |
| Jakk |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:06:32
quote:
Originally posted by Laeknir
With 4e, they basically said "we no longer want your money" and if they choose not to fix this now while they can, it's on them.
As a (former) customer of WotC, I agree entirely. That being said, I'll definitely buy Ed's book on Elminster's Realms, having received enough assurances from people who matter that it will not be edited for consistency with 4E... or any other edition of the published Realms, for that matter. This will be Ed's Realms, and I'd like the book to sell as many copies as it takes for WotC to ask Ed for a whole bunch of sequels. If they don't do this, well, it's their loss, because I have Pathfinder and Golarion. In other words, yes, I do understand Markustay's sentiments completely, but I have every reason (based on past experience) to believe that, if WotC had been in charge of the Star Trek franchise (to continue Mark's analogy), Spock would have been the only character NOT to survive the original pilot, instead of the only character carried forward, as he was. Maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I hope I'm wrong, but I've found it's easier to expect the worst, because I like my surprises to be pleasant. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 03:24:20
Hmph 
Wasn't it Mr.Spock who said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?
And HE got a retcon. 
But I am sure we won't see any sort of retcon - I think I know what 5e will be.
|
| Laeknir |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 02:30:58
Sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but I would gladly dump ALL the 4e lore, rewrites, "reveals" and retcons in the wastebasket. If it meant everything post-1375 is erased and invalidated, that's a tiny price to pay for saving the Realms. I'd pay it gladly, happily, immediately, and would feel zero remorse.
If they retain it all, I'm done for good. No more novels, nothing.
With 4e, they basically said "we no longer want your money" and if they choose not to fix this now while they can, it's on them. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 23:17:39
Matt Hi there. Not sure how 1st edition can stand with 4th edition with all characters compatible in 5th Edition. A noble goal I am sure, however seeing AD&D to BD&D, etc. in RC makes it appear unlikely character conversion will work, even with best effort. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 23:05:14
I'm with Lord Karsus. Perhaps I am being selfish, but all of the Realmslore I designed for the past couple of years shouldn't go to waste. It was already a fairly big smack in the face when a member of the site told me my work doesn't really count and shouldn't count. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 15:49:37
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I think the Spellplague was a slap into the face of intelligence to begin with, and unless I am mistaken most people thought and think so. In order to make good lost ground on the Realms customer front there are, in my opinion, two things that need to be done:
1) Re-establish product identity by moving away from the D&D logo and putting the Forgotten Realms logo back where it belongs.
2) Get rid of a change the majority of the fanbase abhors, namely the Spellplague.
If they were to implement those changes, WotC would have regained me as a customer. And I am pretty sure many, many others feel the same way.
-And arbitrarily erase the going-on five years of world development that directly ties back in to the world before the Spellplague? What is the Spellplague defined as? Is it the event itself? The lead-up to the event that the developers began inserting into the setting in the waning days of the 3e era? If so, how far back? Do the generally non-embraced events that took place during that period that were independent of the Spellplague (ie, the trimming of the Drow pantheon) get considered part of the Spellplague and deleted as well? Is so, which ones?
-No, retcons never were, and still aren't the answer. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 12:19:00
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
It was my position five years ago, and it still is, that that handling any kind of "reset" like that would be...very negative. Though I don't like 75% of the lore that I've read regarding the post-1375 DR Forgotten Realms, to have it all be a dream would be a slap in the face to our intelligences, to be honest. It accomplishes removing the majority of changes that people didn't particularly like, but there are definitley better ways to do that.
I think the Spellplague was a slap into the face of intelligence to begin with, and unless I am mistaken most people thought and think so. In order to make good lost ground on the Realms customer front there are, in my opinion, two things that need to be done:
1) Re-establish product identity by moving away from the D&D logo and putting the Forgotten Realms logo back where it belongs.
2) Get rid of a change the majority of the fanbase abhors, namely the Spellplague.
If they were to implement those changes, WotC would have regained me as a customer. And I am pretty sure many, many others feel the same way. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 06:16:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
They won't do a timline split - they've already made clear their key desire this time out was to unite the fanbase under one banner.
I guess now is not the time to point out that was the precise same plan with 4e? 
-From reading the thread about it (though, the lines between what's been said, speculation and desire seem to cross a lot, causing blurring in my understanding), isn't that what they said they were going to be doing: supporting multiple eras, similar to how Star Wars handles their books/products?
-That causes all sorts of headaches in and of itself, though- What will the overarching eras be? What will the specific years products in those eras take place be? Will stuff that was specifically included to lead up to future events be included (and this then opens the problematic doors of alternate dimensions and stuff- not that authors haven't used alternate dimensions in the Forgotten Realms already), or will they be retconned/altered away? |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 01:01:13
One Canon, One Realms... |
| Markustay |
Posted - 16 Feb 2012 : 21:31:58
They won't do a timline split - they've already made clear their key desire this time out was to unite the fanbase under one banner.
I guess now is not the time to point out that was the precise same plan with 4e?
|
| Jakk |
Posted - 16 Feb 2012 : 05:30:31
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Whatever their new rules might be, they still need some kind of time travel MegaPlotDevice to erase the Spellplague, Abeir, and all of that associated nonsense.
Better yet, get rid of it with a Bobby Ewing moment. Make it all a fever dream that Manshoon is having, after drinking the blood of a diseased Calishite tiefling.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could say that Manshoon is our Bobby Ewing?
An RSE to remove RSEs!
-It was my position five years ago, and it still is, that that handling any kind of "reset" like that would be...very negative. Though I don't like 75% of the lore that I've read regarding the post-1375 DR Forgotten Realms, to have it all be a dream would be a slap in the face to our intelligences, to be honest. It accomplishes removing the majority of changes that people didn't particularly like, but there are definitley better ways to do that.
I agree... I have already proposed one such way to Paul Kemp in his scroll here... let's just say that it involves Mask and the end of Shadowrealm... if you haven't read the Twilight War trilogy, you should... or at least read the epilogue of the final book.
There are also other ways, possibly involving Mystra or even your namesake... there's a lot of lore regarding Karsus that hasn't seen the light of day yet...
As for myself, I'd prefer just to see a timeline split; those who like the Spellplagued Realms can keep them, and those who don't can have the PCs succeed in the big end-of-3e Realms adventure trilogy and stop the Spellplague. I've already proposed that elsewhere, so I'm being a bit redundant here. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 16 Feb 2012 : 01:04:19
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Whatever their new rules might be, they still need some kind of time travel MegaPlotDevice to erase the Spellplague, Abeir, and all of that associated nonsense.
Better yet, get rid of it with a Bobby Ewing moment. Make it all a fever dream that Manshoon is having, after drinking the blood of a diseased Calishite tiefling.
Wouldn't it be cool if we could say that Manshoon is our Bobby Ewing?
An RSE to remove RSEs!
-It was my position five years ago, and it still is, that that handling any kind of "reset" like that would be...very negative. Though I don't like 75% of the lore that I've read regarding the post-1375 DR Forgotten Realms, to have it all be a dream would be a slap in the face to our intelligences, to be honest. It accomplishes removing the majority of changes that people didn't particularly like, but there are definitley better ways to do that. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Jan 2012 : 23:33:56
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Apparently (going by the teensy bit Matt inadvertently revealed), 5e will be a 4e backwards-engineered for older players to capture the feel of the eras/editions they liked.
The current ruleset will not be abolished - it will simply be 'expanded upon' with new options to capture the old feel.
At least, thats the vibe I'm getting now.
I don't have a problem with that; I always said it was 'over-engineered', so sticking some stuff back in that they took out should be a no-brainer.
I'm not really sure how you came to that conclusion but I have a feeling D&Dnext will have rules all for itself with little backwards compatability. What Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have been saying is that it'll "feel" like playing X-edition character, not X-edition rules will work with D&Dnext. |
|
|
