| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 14:08:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Vancian spell casting is part of the core of D&D for 30 odd years, its like saying priests can't cast prayers or fighters can't use swords. The 'fire and forget' system of magic users for me is a part of the game that must stay. It is what makes playing the wizard interesting, as a player has to actually think about their spell selection choice and make their scarce spells really count at critical moments in the game. Of course allied to that would be to remove the level caps on dice/damage on spells (why only 10d6 for a fireball when I am 15th level?).
(bolded for emphasis) This isn't a very good analogy. For starters, we're not taking away wizard's ability to cast spells (which is what your implying in the bolded text). Instead, we're just changing the "re-charge" times of their abilities. Prior to 4E, wizards were stuck with 3 to 4 1st level spells per day at 1st level....and then they had to resort to crossbows, slings, daggers, and staffs to contribute to any battle. It's known commonly as the 15 min. adventuring day. The point at which the party has to rest is often the result of spellcasting classes needing to replenish their spells. And when you have an encounter with monsters in which your spells are resisted, nullified, or simply miss it gets even worse.
This then turns into the "Dehydration Effect" (i'm coining this phrase). It's where spellcasting classes save their spells and analyze battles with such a critical eye for fear of a great encounter later on. So they hold off, effectively contributing little while putting your allies in jeopardy (you are squishy, no AC, and little HP after all). So like a thirsty man in the desert, you hold on to your reserves of water until you "really" need it (which experts say is the worst way to handle that situation). And by the time you use the spells it oftn is too little, too late. I don't think the game needs to go back to this.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I am not a fan of the all classes must be balanced against each other at every level that has happened in the rulesets in recent years, nor do I like the concept that classes 'cross over' each other in terms of abilities/skills/feats/insert other term here etc. For instance I want my fighter to be different to a thief, I want things that my fighter can do well to be specific to the fighter. I don't want a 'happy medium' that allows other classes to do some (any) of what my character does. I prefer traditional class archetypes to the more general classes and abilities we see in recent editions.
Does this mean your not a fan of the Multiclass, hybrid, or dual-class (or role) systems D&D has used since 2E? From my perspective, I just don't see how the classes are the same even from a 3E and 4E view. In 4E, Fighters get Con score + 15 for starting HP and often enough their Con is pretty high netting something like 28-30 or higher starting HPs. Rogues get Con score + 12 and their Con is often much lower, netting them approx 23-25 HP. Maybe that's not as much disparity as you'd like, but by comparison a 3E fighter often has 11-14 HP to the Rogues 7-10.
Then we get into more intracies such as armor proficiency, the paladin gets the best, plate armor at 1st level (finally) where as the Rogue gets up to leather.
As far as what they can do, Rogues are the only ones with Sneak Attack, Clerics are the only one with Healer's Lore, Wizards are the only ones with Implement Mastery, Fighters are the only ones with Combat Challenge, etc. (these are 4E terms in case your not aware). These aspects are a bit lessened in 3E where the Fighter had nothing definitive about him save a multitude of feats. Wizards got scribe scroll, clercis got turn undead, and rogues still got sneak attack. All 4 of these classes, in both editions, play and work differently. I just don't know how to make them more different from a mechanical standpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Each class should be unique with its own powers/skills/abilities or whatever other term people like to use and also with the 'pit falls' of things that it can't do (Hit points, choice of weapons, armour, spells etc). Making character classes similar to each other in 5E rather than distinctive would not be something I would want to see in 5E.
Just my thoughts
Damian
See above, but taking things further I feel the whole concept of Party Composition has changed over the years. At first, it was the signature 4 classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard). This trait really went through the game until about 3E. Here, we got classes that did similar things (but not as effectively) and were different flavors of the same ilk. The Favored Soul of v3.5 (Complete Divine) is just a cleric that uses Sorcerer mechanics without Turn Undead but with some focus on a specific weapon. It can't be as versatile, as good at healing, nor as diverse as the cleric but people REALLY love the spontaneous casting.
But generally 9/10 people are going to say during character generation "OK, who's gonna play the cleric?" because, for one, it's nuturing rule that not often directly affects combat. In 3E terms, no one wanted to be a "Heal-Bot" and have to spend your time healing people when you could be doing something more fun (bashing someone in the face) or cool (dismissing an extra-planar monster). 4E took that a few steps farther, giving multiple classes the same ability to heal as the cleric while providing a different feel overall. The warlord, by comparison can be a tactical genious that shouts orders for his allies to attack. Bards can do so many various things it's ridiculous AND they heal. Shaman heal with nature's power, summon natural spirits to aid your allies and harry your foes. Yet they all provide a central aspect that is equally important (they heal).
Now, this might come off as a "PRO-4E SPEECH!!" but I'm just highlighting certain aspects editions have done throughout the years and various reasons why they've changed for better (or ill, depending on view). Basically I inquire, what does 5E gain by using Vancian spellcasting? What is the benefit to purposefully putting in "Pit Falls"? Or keeping the disparity of spellcasting vs. non-spellcasting classes? Other edition of the game already do this, so does it need to be re-done?
Some questions to ponder. |
 |
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 14:19:27
|
quote:
4E took that a few steps farther, giving multiple classes the same ability to heal as the cleric while providing a different feel overall.
Wow. I really didn't know anything specific about 4E play, just general things like it was easy to pick up and do fast encounters. That's a radical departure that I wouldn't like, and I can see where it is failing and being revamped so quickly.
2nd Edition Clerics were pretty darn powerful and fun to play. They could heal, but wear plate and had the second best Thac0 after warriors, plus some evocation type spells like Flame Strike that made them nearly as strong as wizards in that regard. Creeping Doom could do 1,000hp of damage!
I never heard the term "healbot" until I played Everquest. And even then not until the game had become dated. Didn't realize it was a 3E term. |
Edited by - Seravin on 10 Jan 2012 14:20:56 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 15:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
quote:
4E took that a few steps farther, giving multiple classes the same ability to heal as the cleric while providing a different feel overall.
Wow. I really didn't know anything specific about 4E play, just general things like it was easy to pick up and do fast encounters. That's a radical departure that I wouldn't like, and I can see where it is failing and being revamped so quickly.
So forcing someone into a role thats paramount to party survival is a good thing, even if that role is something that maybe isn't what that player wants? I knew a guy that was not very religious and even with the proof of deities in D&D, didn't like the clerical aspect. I doubt he would play if he was required to be a pious, religious individual. At least additional choices gives players (like my friend) more ways to achieve the same goal without stamping down on their sensibiilties or RL-personal feelings. Also, the disparity of the "Leader" classes (ones that heal) is so varying that it's not like older versions of the cleric where domains/deities where the only varying factor.
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
2nd Edition Clerics were pretty darn powerful and fun to play. They could heal, but wear plate and had the second best Thac0 after warriors, plus some evocation type spells like Flame Strike that made them nearly as strong as wizards in that regard. Creeping Doom could do 1,000hp of damage!
I never heard the term "healbot" until I played Everquest. And even then not until the game had become dated. Didn't realize it was a 3E term.
Clerics, regardless of edition, have been armor-wearing individuals who cast mighty spells. That's been a given, but how they accomplish this is the crux of the issue. I don't want a cleric who spends the whole turn healing a guy that's just going to get hit again unless that healing spells is REALLY powerful. In a game like D&D where the action econmomy is the driving force of the game, players often don't want to spend it just healing people. It's a reason Pathfinder went with Channel positive energy or 4E's Healer's Word (minor action) abilities. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 15:33:48
|
Clerics have always been the most versatile and powerful class at lowest levels. Heal, hurt, stand toe-to-toe, blast from afar ... almost as hard to kill as fighters (same armor, plus defensive spells and bonuses), almost as damaging as wizards (plenty of offensive spells, even if they don't roll as many handfuls of dice), and to top it off they often gain access to a variety of granted powers and bonuses. During low-level play, my players oft complain that the cleric is stealing their thunder, they complain even more when he dares to prioritize anything else before healing their boo-boos.
Strange that nobody complains when the wizard uses utility magic or blasts away, when the fighter just charges in for hack-n-slash without bothering to even say hello, when the thief secretly pockets a few choice items as a "fee" for his services. I think this is another expression of class boundaries; it's nice to have access to special things only your class can do. 3E blurred the boundaries more than my tastes prefer, everybody multiclassed, sometimes handpicking 4 or 5 different classes. 4E "locks" the class roles more firmly in place, but in the end their various abilities are largely identical to each other, just given different names and flavour text ... so really, the boundaries are blurred again and players (who naturally powergame or min-max at least a little) all end up being different looking versions of the same class. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 15:50:15
|
quote:
So forcing someone into a role thats paramount to party survival is a good thing, even if that role is something that maybe isn't what that player wants?
Straw man. Don't force any player to play a cleric. There are personality types of players that gravitate towards healers, because they like to help people and feel important. If your gaming group has no one who plays that way, well they're going to need to hire a priest and pay for healing potions and be a lot more cautious.
I like distinct classes; to each his own. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 16:06:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Clerics have always been the most versatile and powerful class at lowest levels. Heal, hurt, stand toe-to-toe, blast from afar ... almost as hard to kill as fighters (same armor, plus defensive spells and bonuses), almost as damaging as wizards (plenty of offensive spells, even if they don't roll as many handfuls of dice), and to top it off they often gain access to a variety of granted powers and bonuses. During low-level play, my players oft complain that the cleric is stealing their thunder, they complain even more when he dares to prioritize anything else before healing their boo-boos.
Case in point, had a 9th level cleric (Cleric 5/Ordained Champion 4 of Tyr) in my wife's v3.5 campaign that literally did 3 people's jobs. I healed, very very well. I fought with impunity and didn't even burn that many spells being good at it. And I has utility spells (Darkway, Find Traps). Whether or not this go under other player's skins, I'm not sure of. I know the Scout in the party got mad because he was wasting ranks in Disable Device when it wasn't necessary and we didn't even have a fighter (didn't need one). I just don't think classes should be this powerful all by themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Strange that nobody complains when the wizard uses utility magic or blasts away, when the fighter just charges in for hack-n-slash without bothering to even say hello, when the thief secretly pockets a few choice items as a "fee" for his services. I think this is another expression of class boundaries; it's nice to have access to special things only your class can do. 3E blurred the boundaries more than my tastes prefer, everybody multiclassed, sometimes handpicking 4 or 5 different classes. 4E "locks" the class roles more firmly in place, but in the end their various abilities are largely identical to each other, just given different names and flavour text ... so really, the boundaries are blurred again and players (who naturally powergame or min-max at least a little) all end up being different looking versions of the same class.
Of course YMMV but I just never got this feeling from the past two editions. Pehaps it's because my memory of 2E/AD&D is really hazy but I felt that the differences were pretty stark. Some classes ovelap a bit such as the Barbarian and Slayer (fighter sub-class) because they both charge a lot or use the same weapon but when the Barbarian Rages or the Slayer pulls out some uses a stance that pushes people all over the place, it snaps back to "Wow, now THAH is a barbarian!"
|
Edited by - Diffan on 10 Jan 2012 16:08:09 |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 16:11:31
|
This article has been linked to on the Paizo forums, and since it is a very interesting read about the (surmised) goals for 4e, I share the link here:
4e originally meant to be a mmorpg? |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links 2ed Downloads |
Edited by - Ayunken-vanzan on 10 Jan 2012 16:12:30 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 16:15:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seravin
quote:
So forcing someone into a role thats paramount to party survival is a good thing, even if that role is something that maybe isn't what that player wants?
Straw man. Don't force any player to play a cleric. There are personality types of players that gravitate towards healers, because they like to help people and feel important. If your gaming group has no one who plays that way, well they're going to need to hire a priest and pay for healing potions and be a lot more cautious.
I like distinct classes; to each his own.
Distinct is in the eye of the beholder, it appears. My poing being that there should be other ways to accomplish a specific goal (being a good support character) without resorting 100% of the time to the default "Cleric". When he played 4E, he told me that his choice was a Bard and really enjoyed it. He used trickery, deceit, and charms/compulsions to great effect and it was fun too. AND this class still supported the same stuff the cleric did without resorting to something that he naturally didn't enjoy.
I'm not saying there has to be 100+ classes, with each single one a sub-division of other classes but the game shoud be modular enough to allow the sort of style a character wants to play without forcing them into a specific class with specific flavor. Unique character concepts are great and having a viable mechanical means makes it even better, but there is some room for imagination and creativity to allow both. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 16:57:02
|
I see many scribes marrying game systems to Realmslore. This is the only part that is upsetting. Someone bookmark my post. You will be pleasantly surprised in the not-too-distant future.
As it relates to why I get peeved. I've written a lot of Realmslore that stands post-Spellplague (as have many of my good friends). Even though it's not specific to me, when scribes write that anything after 1479 DR is garbage (my summation), I do take offense. I worked diligently to diverse the game system from the lore--and I know many others did as well.
Edit: Clerics have always been overpowered after a specific curve prior to 4e. In 3e, it was as soon as they got 4th level Cleric spells. They get exponentially ridiculous from there on. Wizards are not far off from this. The same holds true for 1e and 2e. In OD&D, they were more utilitarian. Plus, you were lucky if you lived past 3rd level :) |
Edited by - Matt James on 10 Jan 2012 17:00:37 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 17:43:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Instead, we're just changing the "re-charge" times of their abilities. Prior to 4E, wizards were stuck with 3 to 4 1st level spells per day at 1st level....and then they had to resort to crossbows, slings, daggers, and staffs to contribute to any battle. It's known commonly as the 15 min. adventuring day. The point at which the party has to rest is often the result of spellcasting classes needing to replenish their spells. And when you have an encounter with monsters in which your spells are resisted, nullified, or simply miss it gets even worse.
This then turns into the "Dehydration Effect" (i'm coining this phrase). It's where spellcasting classes save their spells and analyze battles with such a critical eye for fear of a great encounter later on. So they hold off, effectively contributing little while putting your allies in jeopardy (you are squishy, no AC, and little HP after all). So like a thirsty man in the desert, you hold on to your reserves of water until you "really" need it (which experts say is the worst way to handle that situation). And by the time you use the spells it oftn is too little, too late. I don't think the game needs to go back to this.
I suspect that this boils down to preferred playing styles and how people were 'brought up' playing the game. I have never played 4E so I cannot comment specifically on any mechanics of the game. I can comment of what others who have played the game have said and take my cues from what they have said.
In terms of the earliest editions of D&D, part of the adventure was the players skill in knowing when to cast their spell, drink their potion, charge headlong into combat etc. Good skillful players learnt by experience how to use their reserves/abilities effectively. Those skills are still needed in any edition of the game, but the later edition rulesets have become more generous in terms of how many times a day you get to use that ability (i.e. more spells/prayers per day based on stat score) in 1st Edition there was no bonus wizard spell a day for a high stat, you got one spell at 1st level so you had to make the most of it 
I personally prefer that style of play, not the style that has come in later editions of stats buffing up abilities, at will abilities etc, not just for wizards but for all classes. It is a personal preference for playing and not a bash against any version of the game.
I would prefer a back to basic approach to the game to encourage as many new people as possible to be able to sit down and roll a character up in 10 minutes and then get playing. The complications and rules can come later 
TSR ran D&D and AD&D side by side for many years, perhaps something similar could be thought about for 5E, a basic beginner box set (that will sell in chain stores not just FLGS) that will facilitate play for brand new players taking them from 1st to 5th level or so, with an advanced version of the game for those more experienced in roleplaying who do want more powers/abilties/rules etc?
I am unashamedly old school and prefer simpler sleeker quicker rules-lite roleplaying games over lots of rules and mechanics however, I am passionate about the D&D brand continuing to be popular and attracting new people into the game and them enjoying it. I suspect that Hasbro will struggle to meet the expectations of all gamers as they can't please all of us all of the time.
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 18:25:42
|
| Perhaps we can talk about expectations and desires for the new ruleset without arguing about opinions of prior rulesets? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
doctorbadwolf
Acolyte
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 18:55:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Hmmm... I am very tempted to say "I told you so, Diffan" even though I did not, in fact, told you any such thing when you raged across the quote of Margaret Weis's post... Nonetheless, if (and that is a big IF) they revert back to the good ole Realms, Wizards might (again a bigass might) win me back as a customer. Words, and even if there are sources that appear to verify those, are just words. They lied about 4e being in the works, they lied about the GSL being as "user-friendly" as the OGL... fool me once and all that.
I did sign up for the open playtest, as I hope many of us will, and I will be vocal about going back to the wheel, and Sigil, and a pre-Smellplague Realms. Bloody points of light was, in my opinion, the worst idea they could have come up with in the first place.
The next year is going to be rough...
I read this, thought about how opposite it is from what I want, and what I will be very vocal in telling WoTC that I want and just...dammit. :P Oh well, maybe the process will be fun, ya never know.
For the record, I'll be not just dissapointed, but mightily pissed off if they retcon the last 4 years of work, lore and gaming away with a wave of the hand.
And I swear...whatever they do with the FR cosmology, if they change the core back to that damned wheel....so much rage. The wheel was literally my least favorite thing about earlier editions, as far as fluff type stuff goes. I detest that thing. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:06:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Perhaps we can talk about expectations and desires for the new ruleset without arguing about opinions of prior rulesets?
Agreed. Hells, why don't we (Candlekeep community) just make our own darn ruleset that fits exactly with what we want for the Realms? I know there is SOO much talent here from all the great areas of the genre (novels, designers, rules-experts, loremasters) that with some collective thinking could do a setting specific system that pulls in all the great aspects of the game under one darn roof. That way, even as D&D changes there is always a default system specifically designed for the Forgotten Realms.
We could make it modular, as to help encompass the aspects of basic/light rules that crazedventurers might enjoy yet slowly build upont that with more "add-on" aspects that refelct a desire for more tactical abilities (like the 5-ft. shift or push/pull/slide effects). I'd vote to keep it level-based and used the d20 engine as I feel those are two biggest aspects that make D&D what it is.
I dunno if it's all the "hah, told you 4E would flunk" attitude i've recieved from differnt sites or the slowly sinking feeling of rolling out more $$ for yet another edition of the game that just wants me to play something that we (this site's community) can get behind without quibbles and "my wizard is better than your wizard" type of things going on....well for a long while.
I guess it's a pipe-dream but a guy can dream right? |
|
|
|
doctorbadwolf
Acolyte
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:17:14
|
Edit: Sorry. Disregard if you're not interested in discussing different systems. :P
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
so really, the boundaries are blurred again and players (who naturally powergame or min-max at least a little) all end up being different looking versions of the same class.
But that's not actually what happens. Having even a Cleric and a Shaman in the same party, those two characters will play very differently. Min/max both of them to your heart's content, they won't play the same. The shaman heals two allies for less each when it uses it's minor action heal, has fewer extra healing powers, more control powers, and a spirit companion that provides a whole suite of utillity the cleric doesn't have.
Teh cleric is a straightforward healing class that can also be a "lazer", and/or a front line tank. There is also the pacifist cleric, which very very rarely attacks anything, and instead focuses on healing and buffs/debuffs.
The Warlord grants extra attacks to allies, buffs and otherwise directly enables the abilities of the party.
The Bard is probably the least proficient at healing, but has amazing powers of buffing and debuffing that no other leader can touch, and is one of the most versatile classes in the game. (unlike in previous editions, the Bard is a good choice even in a combat optimized group)
Artificers...that's a whole thread. Those guys are crazy, and play like nothing else in the game.
And that's just the leaders.
Compare any of them to any non leader and the difference is much wider. A rogue simply is not similar to a fighter, in 4e. The rogue is far more mobile and sneaky. They are the two most tactical versatile of the melee classes, so some similarity of powers naturally occurs, even a DPR focused fighter isn't going to play all that similarly to a rogue.
The rogue can't take the same punishment a fighter can, and while the fighter is going to have to use charging and big weapon dice to get big damage numbers, the rogue is using sneak attack (and thus combat advantage, which is like being flat footed) and non standard action attacks. Those two strategies play even more differently than they read in a forum post. Then, the rogue has all those neat tricks. Utillity powers to sneak at full speed without penalty, disable devices or open locks more quickly than the rules normally allow, etc.
Even the Rogue, Assassin and Monk, all of whom are dex based mobile strikers, all play very differently. I'm not going to double the length of this already long post to explain all the ways in which they are different, but they are as different as any two of the leaders I've already talked about. |
Edited by - doctorbadwolf on 10 Jan 2012 19:22:38 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 19:32:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Perhaps we can talk about expectations and desires for the new ruleset without arguing about opinions of prior rulesets?
I think we are WR - we are comparing what we like from previous editions and hoping to see them in 5E - obviously what I like is not what others like and vice-versa, it about finding some middle ground that pleases most of the people most of the time.
I do like Diffan's idea of a Candlekeep ruleset however I suspect that Candlekeep with not host it due to its reluctance to publish anything 'official and new' due to the WoTC fansite policy as evidenced by no compendiums over the last few years, even though Canonfire, Dragonsfoot et al have continued to publish material for all editions.
I would agree that the d20 mechanic is the way forward, much simpler for new folks to pick up and work out (even I have abandoned THACO and descending armour class etc)
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 00:08:46
|
At the current rate of accelerated velocity, 6e should be about 2 years out. We should all save our money for that.
No seriously... six months after that 7e, then 8e, then 9e (that sounds kinda cute!). Eventually, editions will appear on shelves mere nanoseconds after previous ones. There may even come a time when future editions begin to appear before new editions, in which case 47e may actually appear just prior to Gary Gygax being born.
Or not.
I expected this, so other then my usual sarcasm above, I can't say I have an opinion either way. Something needed to be done, but I'm not even sure if I care at this point. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 01:14:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
At the current rate of accelerated velocity, 6e should be about 2 years out. We should all save our money for that.
No seriously... six months after that 7e, then 8e, then 9e (that sounds kinda cute!). Eventually, editions will appear on shelves mere nanoseconds after previous ones. There may even come a time when future editions begin to appear before new editions, in which case 47e may actually appear just prior to Gary Gygax being born.
Or not.
I expected this, so other then my usual sarcasm above, I can't say I have an opinion either way. Something needed to be done, but I'm not even sure if I care at this point.
Jeez Markus, you only get this sassy when you're actually bitter.
Buck up, soldier! Or do you need the patented Therise 3-dry-hump treatment?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3286 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 04:49:30
|
There not editions, they are call Itinerations now.
It's funny watching people get caught up in the WotC lingo. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 05:08:36
|
Well, Version 4.0 in anything is almost always an awkward and ultimately transient iteration, often because it includes all those things which couldn't be implemented in 3.0 - for good reason! MS-DOS 4.0, Windows 4.0/9x, Borland Turbo C++ 4.0, Microsoft.NET 4.0 ... these products did (or do) all kinda suck, while 5.0 was (will be) amazingly improved in every way. In fact, 5.0 is usually so perfect that 6.0 is unable to improve upon it, post-5.0 usually ends up being rebuilt from the ground up and consequently ends up being broken, unpopular, or just plain lousy ... sometimes worse than 4.0. Or it's just 5.0 stuffed into a new package and tweaked with some trivial improvements, it's just 5.0 in disguise but consumers are forced to buy the "upgrade" if they want to maintain compatibility.
I'm not saying D&D 4.0 is necessarily a bad product, and D&D is far more than a pile of computer software, I'm just saying that it's reasonable for D&D 5.0 to be an amazing platform when compared against all previous editions. Or so I can hope. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 11 Jan 2012 05:17:22 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 05:30:43
|
I know I'm usually in the minority, but I actually liked Borland Turbo C++ 4.0 -- warts and all.
It really allowed for some quirky programming, and I've yet to see any version of C handle templates as well as Version 4.0. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 06:05:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Buck up, soldier! Or do you need the patented Therise 3-dry-hump treatment?
  |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 06:52:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Buck up, soldier! Or do you need the patented Therise 3-dry-hump treatment?
Glenn Close did it on Will and Grace... to Grace. People probably don't remember, but it was hilarious!
Or maybe this is the wrong crowd for that, I guess. 
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 06:59:58
|
quote:
The Sage
I know I'm usually in the minority, but I actually liked Borland Turbo C++ 4.0 -- warts and all.
lol, you're definitely in the minority this time, Sage. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 09:26:31
|
I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the plans for 5e Realms, but from what I'm seeing and hearing, the goal is to give structure to the possibility of playing in whatever era you want. So if you like what happened with 5e, love the novel support, and want to continue with it, there shouldn't be a problem with that. But if the Spellplague didn't work for you and you want to go Pre-Spellplague, or even earlier, there is no reason why you couldn't. Exactly how this will be carried is something that remains to be seen (at least for me). But I think the goal is unity, diversity, and to avoid fracturing. WotC wants you to be able to use as many of your previous Realms products as you want. I don't know that the same can be said for mechanics products, but who knows?
Part of the problem with 4E is that the system IS married to the setting. One of the reasons for the Spellplague was to help explain the transition from Vancian magic to the power system. But if the setting isn't married to the rules, there is nothing stopping you from using whatever edition you like with the setting put out for the Realms with 5E. In an ideal world (for WotC), everyone would want to play everything they put out, but I think they're realizing that it's better to allow people to use all of their older products than it is to insist that they buy brand new versions of them.
What I'm still unclear on how or if there will be any mechanics paired with the Realms setting. The only possible answer I can imagine is yes, but I'm just not sure how this will happen. I guess this is one of many questions that will be answered in the coming months. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 09:44:05
|
quote:
EytanBernstein
... the goal is to give structure to the possibility of playing in whatever era you want.
I haven't seen any statements from the designers confirming this is a goal. Only statements from (Candlekeep) fans confirming the hope. This includes statements from Wizbro-employed scribes, who have made it clear when they're not participating in an "official" Wizbro capacity.
At this point in time we really have no data about 5E at all. To be honest, 5E development was just announced and I suspect WotC doesn't yet really have any plans or structure set in stone at all - they've just initiated a tentative information-gathering dialog, trying to discover where investing their constructive efforts will produce maximum benefits in appeasing the disgruntled segments of their fan base (in a way which doesn't alienate or erode their existing fan support).
Of course I might've missed all sorts of announcements, since Candlekeep and a cursory glance through the Wizards boards are my only sources of real information about 5E. I might also be making assumptions which aren't valid. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 11 Jan 2012 09:49:10 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 14:30:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
Part of the problem with 4E is that the system IS married to the setting. One of the reasons for the Spellplague was to help explain the transition from Vancian magic to the power system. But if the setting isn't married to the rules, there is nothing stopping you from using whatever edition you like with the setting put out for the Realms with 5E. In an ideal world (for WotC), everyone would want to play everything they put out, but I think they're realizing that it's better to allow people to use all of their older products than it is to insist that they buy brand new versions of them.
What I'm still unclear on how or if there will be any mechanics paired with the Realms setting. The only possible answer I can imagine is yes, but I'm just not sure how this will happen. I guess this is one of many questions that will be answered in the coming months.
I just don't believe this. Vancian magic, for example, has been used in D&D for a LONG while and the Realms have reflected this various times in novels. And while the A/E/D/U system is in 4E, wizards (and spellcasters in general) are required to rest and wizards/mages need to read they're spellbooks to regain those powers. So if I read a novel set in 1372 DR and the wizard says "We must rest, I need to regain my spells." I take it to mean that he's pretty much out of his daily powers and utility spell and probably drained of most of his "healing surges". Terms indicative of 4E yet doesn't influence or have any real bearing on the story what so ever.
Now, there ARE a few difference such as Eladrin (Sun, Moon, and Star elves) that needed a reason for being different. Dragonborn could've easily be what people on Faerūn call Dragon-kin (which is what I do) OR be a sub-species of Saurials due to their strong belief in honor, valor, and the like. Everything else, classes and all, fit together like pieces of a puzzle.
I know some people (or many) don't like the cosmology now or whatever, but I've really no qualms about it. I wans't a fan of the Great Wheel or the Big Tree or whatever they termed it. To me, it's just one philosophers understanding of how such things function over anothers. Call it whatever you like.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
At this point in time we really have no data about 5E at all. To be honest, 5E development was just announced and I suspect WotC doesn't yet really have any plans or structure set in stone at all - they've just initiated a tentative information-gathering dialog, trying to discover where investing their constructive efforts will produce maximum benefits in appeasing the disgruntled segments of their fan base (in a way which doesn't alienate or erode their existing fan support).
I actually think they're farther along in the process than this. Keep in mind that they hired Monte on a while ago and I have a feeling that they've been putting things into the works for well over 4 months (judging by the recent lack of anything....crunchy in the DDI articles). Additional informatino about a possible Playtest as early as this month shows that there is somethign going to happen very soon but will probably be protected by NDAs.
Who knows, though I do plan on attending as many Playtests as they allow me to help guide how/where/what should happen to D&D. There are things about all the systems that I like and there are a lot of things about systems that I don't. For example, in one recent Legends and Lore articles it talked about Action Economy and how it's becoming so dominate in recent editions. Is this good or bad? Or, more bluntly, do you think you should be able to do all this stuff within 6 seconds (1 round)? Things such as cast 2 spells, run-move-attack, attack multiple times, move twice, break down a door, pick a lock, etc. Answering this question: "What can or should you be able to do with your turn?" is paramount to handling everything PC-related. From class features, spellcasting, attacking, feats, skills, and so forth. It's that pivotal. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 14:56:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
EytanBernstein
... the goal is to give structure to the possibility of playing in whatever era you want.
I haven't seen any statements from the designers confirming this is a goal. Only statements from (Candlekeep) fans confirming the hope. This includes statements from Wizbro-employed scribes, who have made it clear when they're not participating in an "official" Wizbro capacity.
At this point in time we really have no data about 5E at all. To be honest, 5E development was just announced and I suspect WotC doesn't yet really have any plans or structure set in stone at all - they've just initiated a tentative information-gathering dialog, trying to discover where investing their constructive efforts will produce maximum benefits in appeasing the disgruntled segments of their fan base (in a way which doesn't alienate or erode their existing fan support).
Of course I might've missed all sorts of announcements, since Candlekeep and a cursory glance through the Wizards boards are my only sources of real information about 5E. I might also be making assumptions which aren't valid.
Correct, there are no confirmations. Keep your eyes peeled.
|
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 15:16:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
EytanBernstein
... the goal is to give structure to the possibility of playing in whatever era you want.
I haven't seen any statements from the designers confirming this is a goal. Only statements from (Candlekeep) fans confirming the hope. This includes statements from Wizbro-employed scribes, who have made it clear when they're not participating in an "official" Wizbro capacity.
At this point in time we really have no data about 5E at all. To be honest, 5E development was just announced and I suspect WotC doesn't yet really have any plans or structure set in stone at all - they've just initiated a tentative information-gathering dialog, trying to discover where investing their constructive efforts will produce maximum benefits in appeasing the disgruntled segments of their fan base (in a way which doesn't alienate or erode their existing fan support).
Of course I might've missed all sorts of announcements, since Candlekeep and a cursory glance through the Wizards boards are my only sources of real information about 5E. I might also be making assumptions which aren't valid.
Correct, there are no confirmations. Keep your eyes peeled.
It's true. There has been a great deal of speculation (GUILTY). I guess we'll just have to wait and see. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 15:31:32
|
From The Escapist: Speak Your Mind in the Next Version of Dungeons & Dragons
Looks like the basis for the new rules is already completed and the Playtests will be to fluxuate what else is to be incorporated or removed from the game. This quote: "The announcement of a new D&D doesn't mean that 4th edition is now a lame duck. Wizards recognizes that the game still has a very loyal following, and pledges to continue supporting 4th edition during the testing cycle of the new edition and beyond. "We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition" makes me extreamly happy as I use the tools a lot, even if it's just to fool around with character concepts and the like. Keeping those tools available EVEN if I don't go with 5E will keep them seeing my $$ in subscription fees.
Also of note: Mearls: "We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition."
Now, this is very very open to interpretation. I 'ported' my characters from 3.5E into 4E yet the systems are very different in many regards. But if they are taking cues from 4E I hope they take some of these idea directly:
- Weapon Groups: Really, it's a great idea no matter what edition your playing. Being forced into a specific weapon for your career is pretty lame and not very realistic IMO.
- At-Will powers: Now, I know a lot of people hate the idea of at-will abilities and I do hope they don't call them that. But I like it that my mage can use a small reserve of power or have "go-to" spells tthat don't need to be re-charged like all my other magic. This only applies to classes with spellcasting. For fighters, rogue, rangers- I'd like to see "Stances". A sort of condition met with each attack and changes upon the stance your in. So a Bowman's stance does something cool for people who like to use their Bow. A Line Breaker's stance is for someone who likes to Charge or use Two-handed weapons. A shieldsman stace better protects allies that are near you.
- Themes: This aspect, I feel, revolutionized character creation for 4E. It provided some really cool or unique features based on the backstory of your guy. It needs to stay.
|
Edited by - Diffan on 11 Jan 2012 15:32:43 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
New Edition is on the way!
