quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Therise

Jeez Markus, you only get this sassy when you're actually bitter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZeshinX

I'd like to see a melding of the various editions as far as character creation goes. I'm thinking kind of a mix of 2.5e (the Player's Option stuff), 3e and, yes, a bit of 4e (while I mostly detest the 4e system, it does have some good elements).

Something like this (the base mechanic is still a D20 system):

-Class abilities are not typically assigned per se. They are a pools (a combat table pool, skills pool, feats pool, arcane spellcasting pool, divine spellcasting pool, and so on). The various pools and the abilities therein have a point cost. Each class gets the same number of points to spend on picking abilities. Each class can then spend the points on the abilities they want to have, but certain classes get a "discount" on certain pools. So warriors (fighters, paladins, rangers, etc) would be able to pick the warrior combat table at a reduced rate compared to non-warrior classes, mages (wizards, sorcerers, etc) get discounts on the arcane spellcasting, etc.

That's a very, very rough concept and would need a LOT of refinement obviously (already I can see a few oddities....like a Mage that doesn't cast arcane spells lol), but I find the idea of really customizing the character in that way to be interesting. Perhaps each class has its identifying ability at no cost...I don't know. It's an idea that would need a lot of work, and I'm no game designer (obviously lol).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

quote:

---

Originally posted by Therise

Jeez Markus, you only get this sassy when you're actually bitter.

---

Not bitter at all.

I'm ecstatic, actually.

I must be losing my touch. Then again, at my age, its hard to tell the difference between 'bitter' and 'ecstasy' - either way, my face gets all 'scrunched up'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by froglegg

I am so happy that the only 4th edition thing I picked up was the big red box.
I needed something to put my B/X and BEMC stuff in.
Man I saved alot of money.
John

---

quote:

---

EDIT: just noticed that the first official public playtest with the 'new rules' is in the Caves of Chaos. They first appeared in the B2 module Keep of the Borderlands from the (basic) D&D boxset (c. 1979-1982).
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Feature.aspx?x=dnd/feature/dndxp

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

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.

---

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.

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

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.

---

What does 5E gain by having Vancian Casting? It gets back more to the core idea that's being presented in the novels... wizards know LOTS of spells, but they can't have them all ready all the time (and they're constantly trying to learn new ones). Without that, to me a wizard is just a sorceror or warlock variation, and it ruins the class. However, I'll give 4E some nods towards some ideas that were good, and you can definitely work them all together. The idea of having certain "at-will" spells is fine. The idea that all wizards can scribe scrolls is also fine, and scrolls should be for single use, in combat, defenses or attacks or escape type spells. The idea that all wizards should also be ritual casters and a lot of the Vancian spells instead be converted to rituals for things that realistically should take some kind of ritual (opening a portal, scrying, anti-scrying, warding/protecting an area, placing down some glyph, putting up some alarm, etc...). Or maybe wizards get the option of having "scribe scroll greater" or "perform ritual greater" as a choice for starter feats and they have "scribe scroll lesser" and "perform ritual lesser" as automatic feats... (note on the above, I made up those names, and maybe the lesser "feats" be needed prior to getting the greater abilities). This gives them through Vancian magic the versatility to have some effects each day from a wide pool to pick (not, hey I know 6 daily spells, so all mages who study me know that I only know these 6 daily spells and that's it).

Let's face it, the warrior has a sword, and generally his sword's going to work (he may have to overcome dmg reduction or have a certain metal... whatever)... but if a mage only knows an upper level fire spell and an upper level lightning... whammo block fire & lightning for that mage and you've just ruined his options.

Now, if you give said mage at will spells that they can use for general combat, plus replace a lot of spells with feats, then you don't necessarily have to give him the number of spells that you used to. However, if you let him also have the at-wills and the old numbers, then you don't run into the 15 min adventure issue so much... and if they DO blow all their spells up front, then DM can always say "well, too bad, you still have your at wills and whatever scrolls you prepped, so buck up and move on".

As to the various classes having certain roles, I'll say 3E was very good nearer the end at making these roles interchangeable. You could make a mage into a hybrid healer, turn a druid into a hybrid blaster, a bard could be a hybrid healer/scout, etc.... I vastly liked the core concept of 3E's multi-class idea. Where things sometimes went overboard was making prestige classes that were so easy to swap between that some people were grabbing 5 or 6 prestige classes while leveling just for X ability. I won't say that everyone who did multiple prestige classes were out to cheat however. Some truly were building that way for the idea behind the character, and it seriously would have gimped the character at points.

---

quote:

---

Trailblazer: New Horizons in 3.5 Roleplaying, page 18

The 10-minute Rest Period
• A “rest period” is re-defined as 10 minutes of uninterrupted rest, to include no more than conversation and light activity.
• All character abilities and class features that were previously granted “per day” are instead granted “per rest.” This includes rage, smite, wild shape, etc. as well as spellcasting (see below).
• Spellcasters may be required to spend action points in addition to resting, in order to recover certain spells more quickly.
• All abilities are refreshed once every 24 hours, at no cost of action points. (In other words, always at least as often as the current 3e rules allow.)

After a successful rest period, at no cost of Action Points:
• All “per rest” class abilities are refreshed (rage, smite, wild shape, etc.)
• All characters heal an amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal, maximum hit point total.
• All spell slots used to cast Rote spells are refreshed. (See below).
• Any ongoing spell effects on your person are dispelled when your rest is complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining. This does not apply to spells with instantaneous or permanent durations; however it does apply to spells both beneficial and harmful, regardless of their origin.

After a successful rest period, at a cost of 1 Action Point:
• A character can recover an additional amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total (which will restore any character to full hit points).
• All spell slots used to cast Restricted spells are refreshed (see below).
• One spell slot used to cast a Ritual spell is refreshed, per action point spent.

Spellcasting
All spells are designated as Rote, Restricted, or Rituals.

Rote spells include:
• All 0-level spells.
• Any single-target spell with a duration of 1 min/level or less.

Restricted spells include:
• Any area of effect or multiple-target spell.
• Any spell with a duration of 10 minutes/level or longer.
• Any Conjuration (creation, calling, or teleport).

Ritual spells include:
• Any spell with an XP cost, or unusual and expensive material component.
• The big three gamebreakers: Divination/Commune, Raise Dead, Teleport.
• “Edge case” spells that create permanent goods (water, food, iron) at the DM’s discretion.
• At the DM’s discretion, any other spell which by reputation or overuse proves disruptive to the campaign (for example, spells that require no roll to affect the target and permit no defenses).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayrik
The cleric is still around for heavy-duty healing, but now he can actually focus on being a hero instead of constantly applying first aid to every little scrape and boo-boo his comrades obtain on their adventures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins

I really like the idea of a rest mechanic, the one below was developed by Bad Axe Games

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

<snip>
I think the differences are largely cosmetic.

My favorite example is dynamic (3e) vs. static (4e) Defenses: 3e's saving throws and 4e's defenses are basically the same thing, except that instead of actually rolling your save, the attacker rolls and you take 10.

<snip>

Cheers

---

quote:

---

Do the financial obligations of being a games publisher necessitate a new edition every few years, or can you foresee a period where the game would remain more static and settled for a longer period?

We’re actually much better off creating a single, stable edition. It’s easier for fans, it’s better for continuity for writers and designers, and it’s much easier in terms of creating a long-term product strategy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt James

Diffan, don't worry. You'll be just fine.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---