PDA

View Full Version : D&d 5e



Person_Man
2009-09-23, 11:30 AM
Editions of Dungeons & Dragons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

1974:White box edition
1977: 1st edition
1989: 2nd edition
2000: 3rd edition
2003: 3.5 edition
2008: 4th edition
2011: 4.5 edition (projected)
2016: 5th edition (projected)

So, within about a year or two of releasing 3rd edition, WotC started working on 3.5 (even while releasing a ton of 3.0 material). Within a year or two after that, they started working on 4th ed (again, while releasing a ton of 3.5 material, and not hinting about 4e, lest they screw their profits for 3.5 stuff).

Over a year has passed since 4E was released. So I'm thinking that some sort of 4.5 edition is currently in the works. They've denied it, and definitely won't call it 4.5 for fear of more fan outrage. But it's inevitable that they'll release something in the next couple of years that modifies 4E rules based on what WotC has learned from playtesting, market research, and what supplements sold well. They'll be a free online update, but the core books will also be re-released in some new form.

Not long after that, someone within WotC will begin work on 5E. They would be idiots not to, because eventually 4E sales will decline, and they'll need to do something new and big in order to jump start them again.

So assuming that 4.5 will occur and will stay true to the core mechanics of 4E (similar to how 3.5 was basically 3.0 with some fixes) what changes do you think 4E needs?

And more importantly, what do you think the big reboot for 5E will look like? I'm guessing that it will have to be a big departure from the previous rules set, and not just another set of tweaks (which wouldn't sell well). Will they go back to the past and re-create a previous edition? Are there any 4E supplements that created new and interesting game mechanics that 5E could be based off of, as 4E was based off of Tome of Battle? Or perhaps another company that they could buy (or rob the good ideas from) and then re-cast as the next edition of D&D?

Discuss.

Doc Roc
2009-09-23, 11:47 AM
That's... not really enough data to even get a good fit line for, dude...

valadil
2009-09-23, 11:53 AM
If 4.5 comes out, I don't think they'll be as quick to release it as 3.5. 3rd ed desperately needed fixing and balancing. They've been far more cautious with 4th. Don't get me wrong, there's been errata and there will continue to be errata but there won't be as much as in 3rd ed.

Not that I want 5th ed any time soon, but the one thing I'd really like to see is weaponry treated as skills. Beyond that I'd like to see casters divided up by type a little more. Like if all casters were focused specialists. Something like that would be interesting to me.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-23, 11:55 AM
So assuming that 4.5 will occur and will stay true to the core mechanics of 4E (similar to how 3.5 was basically 3.0 with some fixes) what changes do you think 4E needs?
For starters, a lot of errata. There are numerous hotly debated ambiguities in the 4E rules that could easily be clarified if WOTC wants to.

Then, there are a few ideas in 4E that didn't work out too well.

The default for classes is to have one main ability score, and your choice of two for its secondary (e.g. the rogue is dex/str or dex/cha). Some classes in the PHB have it the other way around: the cleric is wis/cha or str/cha. This turns out to be impractical as it bars the class from about half of its powers.
The math. Many people claim that the Expertise feats were only printed to fix errors in the player-vs-monster math in higher levels.
More keywords. There are common effects, e.g. "take a -2 to all attacks", that would be clearer if they were a keyword. Note that this is similar to what the MTG team is doing, and obviously there will be people moving from MTG to D&D and vice versa.
Standardized wording. For instance, some effects allow you to roll two dice for some test, others allow you to reroll your die and use either result, and yet others allow you to reroll your die and use the second result. They'll pick one of the three and stick with it. Again, this is what MTG does, and MTG has sold consistently well for over a decade.
Skill challenges. They've been errata'ed once already, but player reactions to them are ambivalent at best. Discussions about why SCs don't work are about as common as threads in this forum about a Certain 3E Class.
Rituals. Discussions about why rituals don't work are also quite common, and judging from the mailflow in the relevant WOTC forums, people simply aren't using rituals all that much. Although I'm sure somebody will now respond that he personally does.




And more importantly, what do you think the big reboot for 5E will look like?
My predictions:

Regardless of what they actually change, they will make a big show of all the "blatant and obvious mistakes" 4E allegedly contains, and how it is really not fun and not very playable, and how 5E is so much more awesome. This is exactly what they did when advertising 3E and 4E. Basically, according to the WOTC marketing team, you must be out of your mind to play any previous edition. Pretty much like every other big company, really :smalltongue:
Computers will be more heavily involved. I don't mean in a MMORPG fashion (although of course there will be outcries on the internet that 5E is turning D&D into a MMORPG), but the game will be marketed to have each player carry a laptop or palmtop to hold his character sheet, conveniently account for bonuses, and provide sound effects.
They can't pull the "nostalgia card" by re-creating 1E or 2E, because there's plenty of such games on the marker already, and they need the additional revenue from e.g. minis.
Regardless of the above, they will of course claim that 5E is closer to the game's "roots", for a given value of "roots".
At some point, the playing grid will change to hexagons, since it's a major change that is easy to make and requires the players to buy new stuff. I predict this for 6E, though, for obvious reasons.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-23, 12:05 PM
I'd like them to change the skill system back to the way it was in 3.5 but have every class get the same number of base skillpoints. I also feel they should make combat a little less bland for melee classes.

woodenbandman
2009-09-23, 12:08 PM
Powers will be divided into powers that are good and powers that are not good. You have 0 uses per day of your powers that are not good.

Random832
2009-09-23, 12:12 PM
What they really should do is split the product line - have "D&D Classic" that is a blend between 3.5 and AD&D, and then on the other hand have 4th edition and whatever grows out of that.

FoE
2009-09-23, 12:14 PM
All classes and player races will be disposed of in favour of playing ponies. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060401a)

Kurald Galain
2009-09-23, 12:20 PM
All classes and player races will be disposed of in favour of one single character concept: ponies. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060401a)
My goodness, WOTC really needs to hire someone to make better April Fools jokes. As in, actually funny ones.

Sipex
2009-09-23, 12:21 PM
Ah WOC, you so craaazy.

ericgrau
2009-09-23, 12:24 PM
My goodness, WOTC really needs to hire someone to make better April Fools jokes. As in, actually funny ones.

Sometimes april fools jokes can be there just to scare you. Mission accomplished.

alchemyprime
2009-09-23, 12:30 PM
d20 college was a better April fools. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20020401a)

Anyway...

it'll either return to D&D 3.5 or go more towards OPTIONS! Yes, OPTIONS! The best thing in the world!

Sorry. I like options.

Or maybe I don't. That's an option.

Talya
2009-09-23, 12:32 PM
I actually predict it will be AD&D 4e, as opposed to 4.5. Current 4e will be the "basic" version.

Elfin
2009-09-23, 12:37 PM
All classes and player races will be disposed of in favour of playing ponies. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060401a)

I was getting scared there for a minute...:smalleek:

Ernir
2009-09-23, 12:52 PM
I predict/want the 3.5 class system with the 4E encounter/daily/stuff power system.


That's... not really enough data to even get a good fit line for, dude...

But interestingly enough, if we do try to fit anyway... it matches reasonably well with a 2016 release. I'd go for 2017, though.

http://i38.tinypic.com/20hvj8j.png

This assumes that the white box was a "0th" edition. If it is ignored, release expectancy is pushed back a year or two.


Disclaimer: Let it be known that I have absolutely no faith in this being relevant in any way. I just take any chance to plot stuff.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-09-23, 12:59 PM
I have no idea what is to come next, but I hope they hire some fresh new faces in their think tank before they do. People who actually understand the mechanics the new system would be a great start, as would be a conversion to a classless system stocked with premade "classes" for olde tyme's sake. If we really want to be crazy, they'd even go so far as to create the game crunch-first so that players aren't forced into cookie cutters in order to fill a role.

Haven
2009-09-23, 12:59 PM
This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Preview_Witchalok.pdf) will be a core class.

oxybe
2009-09-23, 01:30 PM
there won't be a 4.5. we'll keep getting updates and errata, but no "4.5" as is. then again, 3rd ed had a stream (if slow) of updates both online and in books.

what do i want from 5th ed? something completely different then the D&Ds before it.

3rd ed was enough of a jump to want to buy it over 2nd.
4th ed was enough of a jump to buy it over 3rd.

would i have bought 4th if it was very close to 3rd? until my 3rd ed GM finishes implementing the Pathfinder rules into our game, i'll make my final decision but from what i read, if PF is the 4th ed some people wanted... well, it looks too close to 3rd to make me want to buy it. i'll wait to see it in action first and give it a good shakedown first however.

if 5th ed is very close to 4th ed... i'll give it the pathfinder treatment. wait until i can test it before i buy it.

Calmar
2009-09-23, 01:47 PM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2009-09-23, 01:52 PM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

Cool!

I reiterate my earlier comment that WOTC should hire someone to make funnier columns. I would recommend whoever wrote that 5E review.

Thajocoth
2009-09-23, 02:02 PM
You don't look at patterns, you look at marketing and trends. It's when sales dip that it's profitable to release a whole new system. Until then, it's profitable to release a steady stream of content. It keeps most people buying. DDI holds on to half the people who would otherwise pirate the books with subscriptions for excellent tools with only a few weeks of delay for the new book's contents to be added. WotC has obviously learned from the episodic games and the MMOs that it's not new editions they need... It's a steady stream of new content, and a few balancing erratas along the way. I'm not saying it plays like an MMO, because it doesn't. MMOs can get away with adding a new class or race every, say, 2-3 years, (with a new continent included). Updates are more like episodic games, for which the standard is a monthly update (thanks to TellTale). But episodic games can get away with their "new" content being almost all old stuff in the same engine (thanks to VALVe). As a tabletop RPG, WotC can't get away with that sort of thing, so they need to release a steady stream of new races and classes, all while keeping the old races & classes up to date.

The only real major changes I forsee are:

* Errata - Replace "Strength" with "Wisdom" on all Cleric powers and "Strength" with "Charisma" on all Paladin powers.

* Fast ritual caster feat - 1/day, cast a ritual you know in (minutes/2) rounds. (Corresponding item's existence as well. Probably a headband.)

* Hybrid convergence feat - Pick the primary attribute of one of your Hybrid classes. You can now use that for attack and damage rolls with powers from your other Hybrid class. (This is similar to a feat Bards already have for their multiclasses...)

Faleldir
2009-09-23, 02:22 PM
After the universal success of the "all attack powers must cause HP damage, regardless of their description or your character concept" meta-rule, 5th edition attack powers will inflict the same total amount of damage, have the same chance of hitting, and never cause conditions for longer than one round. We can't let players accidentally gimp themselves by building a Beguiler-type tricky mage! That just wouldn't be fun!

daggaz
2009-09-23, 02:31 PM
That's... not really enough data to even get a good fit line for, dude...

Lmao... umm, since when do MBA's bother to learn any hard science? Keep in mind a degree in economics is not a masters in business.

Also, what Ernir said.

Elfin
2009-09-23, 02:51 PM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

Awesome. Very awesome indeed. :smalltongue:

Kizara
2009-09-23, 02:57 PM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

Actually, there's a couple good ideas in there.

For one, the custom-generated dungeon. I would be willing to pay a subscription fee to have a well-made, dynamic dungeon to play with an online group that could be arbitrated by our online DM. I know this sort of thing already kind of exists, but for various reasons it doesn't work for me (like it uses 4e DnD, or its just a instanced MMO thing where you never actually get anywhere).

Also, the higher-difficulties of the dungeon. Would be fun to test your rules-mastery and resource management skills against static scenarios. Again, I'd like to do this with RPG systems I actually am willing to play, like 3.5e or GURPS.

Rixx
2009-09-23, 03:33 PM
So it begins.

Jack_Banzai
2009-09-23, 08:56 PM
After the universal success of the "all attack powers must cause HP damage, regardless of their description or your character concept" meta-rule

Except Pacifist Clerics. They are now the unrivalled masters of stunlock.

Doc Roc
2009-09-23, 09:11 PM
Disclaimer: Let it be known that I have absolutely no faith in this being relevant in any way. I just take any chance to plot stuff.

In the ancient ways of my people, the Hackish, we are now Plotbrothers.


Lmao... umm, since when do MBA's bother to learn any hard science? Keep in mind a degree in economics is not a masters in business.

Also, what Ernir said.

I don't know what this means. Is business mastery a new unlock tier for crafters in 5th edition? Kidding, just kidding. Allow the beleaguered CompSci BA his fun.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-23, 11:57 PM
I want one thing, and one thing only: less homogenized classes. 4e's major failing, for me, is that there doesn't feel like there's a distinct difference between two different classes in the same job: a ranger and a rogue are both strikers, and they both pretty much do the same thing in slightly different ways.

With that base, you can't do interesting things like the Spellthief within the bounds of the existing system: it just doesn't work.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 12:31 AM
I want one thing, and one thing only: less homogenized classes. 4e's major failing, for me, is that there doesn't feel like there's a distinct difference between two different classes in the same job: a ranger and a rogue are both strikers, and they both pretty much do the same thing in slightly different ways.

With that base, you can't do interesting things like the Spellthief within the bounds of the existing system: it just doesn't work.

Very much agreed. It's frequently said that "Oh, it's okay if they have the same structure, because tactically they play very differently!" All very well and good, but "does more damage to flat-footed people" and "does more damage to two people at once" aren't really conceptually different enough (at least to me) to merit 30 full levels' worth of mechanical stuff of any sort, however differently they may seem to be in play. It looks like 4e's branching out mechanically with classes like the Psion and the Assassin, and I'd like to see any 4.5/5e continue with the diversification.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 01:06 AM
Cool!

I reiterate my earlier comment that WOTC should hire someone to make funnier columns. I would recommend whoever wrote that 5E review.

That was painfully trite and unfunny.

Haven
2009-09-24, 01:16 AM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

Rather painfully on the nose about 4e's philosophy, that.

Is it true that players actually choose what magic items they get now? To me the whole thing about them is their randomness, or did that disappear with 2nd edition?

Gralamin
2009-09-24, 01:21 AM
Is it true that players actually choose what magic items they get now? To me the whole thing about them is their randomness, or did that disappear with 2nd edition?

Players are encouraged to submit Wish lists to the DM, so the DM can give equipment that helps the character.

Tough_Tonka
2009-09-24, 01:50 AM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

This is so true. 4e is so railroading character concepts. I mean with 3.5 rules, I could easily play a competant gnome monk, or halfling barbian, or a vaible half-orc (any class besides barbarian or fighter).

Come on, every edition of dnd has been assigning classes for races. If anything 4e has been better about giving races more options than most editions. Although some races are pretty focused on what powersources they'll have.

The way I figure it if any 4.5 comes in the near future it will just be the core rule books with more errata and standardized terms.

Yakk
2009-09-24, 10:10 AM
So assuming that 4.5 will occur and will stay true to the core mechanics of 4E (similar to how 3.5 was basically 3.0 with some fixes) what changes do you think 4E needs?
I expect a reprint of the 4E PHB/DMG with errata in it, and maybe some extra errata in it and art. Possibly they'll even throw in some bonus content (stick a bonus class into the reprint, or take a class like the swordmage and include it in the PHB, etc). This will act much like a 4.5 E from a sales perspective.

If a more serious tweak occurs...

There are also some math errors that came out in the wash. Skills where clearly designed to scale like attack/defence modifiers with level, but they don't. Fixing this would open up whole new categories of mixing and matching combat and skill mechanics -- more skills vs defence checks, and even using attack checks out of combat against DCs that scale the same way as skills.


I'm guessing that it will have to be a big departure from the previous rules set, and not just another set of tweaks (which wouldn't sell well). Will they go back to the past and re-create a previous edition? Are there any 4E supplements that created new and interesting game mechanics that 5E could be based off of, as 4E was based off of Tome of Battle?
Well, Tome of Battle and the Warlock and lots of other stuff.

Note that much of this experimentation was pushed out after 3.5E.

If you assume that experimental stuff in 4E is likely to be the seed of 5E, then you'll be looking right at skill challenges and narrative mechanics and saying "do you feel lucky, punk".

The DMG 2 might be a good place to look for ideas to make more core. The boons and non-item based rewards could be worked into an interesting core system. Companion characters -- the presumption that you don't adventure alone would be interesting, which would open up the possibility of new character concepts with robust mechanical support (summoners, leaders, etc).

I could also see a significant change in how treasure parcels and that kind of economy is included in D&D.

The split between DM and Player side play exists in 4e, and could be extrapolated. Handing players crunchy systems to influence what happens in the game. If you glance over at "FantasyCraft", characters spend points to turn items into features of their character that carry over from one adventure to the next (while items they don't spend points on go away between adventures).

You could also do a hybrid 4E/3E game. Keep the relatively modular 4E design (where players pick features/powers from lists), but have 3E style wider choice in what bucket you pick the feature from. This could get crunchy, but with lots of work you could make it smooth. (Ie, imagine 4E with full 3E style multiclassing that somehow works, with characters grabbing both combat and non-combat powers from collections...)

Depending on how technology goes, you could imagine a versions of tabletop D&D that presumes also having computer hardware there. DDI is a step in that direction -- as they add more tools, they can playtest in production tools that make tabletop better. DDI also provides a way to fund that research, and make it more normative.

A more crazy departure would be a game where you "build your class" to a larger extent than you do in 4E as you level. Once again, getting this to be anything besides a morass of crunch is difficult.

Gnaeus
2009-09-24, 10:25 AM
I actually predict it will be AD&D 4e, as opposed to 4.5. Current 4e will be the "basic" version.

That would be nice. I might be willing to play that.

Talya
2009-09-24, 10:37 AM
I mean with 3.5 rules, I could easily play a competant gnome monk


Wait...3.5 gnomes are so OP you can even make monks competent with one?

Awesome!

t_catt11
2009-09-24, 10:52 AM
Players are encouraged to submit Wish lists to the DM, so the DM can give equipment that helps the character.

And now, it is once again time for an installment of "Old Codger Theatre".

In my day, *if* you found a magic item in some monster's treasure stash, it was a big deal! There was excitement! Was it a plain sword +1? A luckblade? A sunblade? A cursed weapon? Some other crazy crap the DM had come up with?

Sure, you got strange, oddball, or useless items from time to time - especially if your DM was a moron and did everything completely randomly. But then, finding something really useful was all the more special... and it felt like it was WORTH something, rather than something you were entitled to.



**goes back to muttering something about THAC0s**

Talya
2009-09-24, 10:59 AM
And now, it is once again time for an installment of "Old Codger Theatre".

In my day, *if* you found a magic item in some monster's treasure stash, it was a big deal! There was excitement! Was it a plain sword +1? A luckblade? A sunblade? A cursed weapon? Some other crazy crap the DM had come up with?

Sure, you got strange, oddball, or useless items from time to time - especially if your DM was a moron and did everything completely randomly. But then, finding something really useful was all the more special... and it felt like it was WORTH something, rather than something you were entitled to.



**goes back to muttering something about THAC0s**


Yes. Yes, this in its entirety. I'm not a fan of 1e/2e (because I didn't play them), but this sounds like a better way to run things.

Indon
2009-09-24, 11:40 AM
My theory is that there will be no 4.5 - the mechanics creep of 4th edition seems slower than that of 3rd edition, so by the time Wizards is out of material to release (read: rehash from 3.x) for 4th edition, I think the time will be ripe for an outright 5th edition.

I think Wizards has noticed the big downside of 4th edition - lack of metagame diversity - and have slowly been taking steps to remedy this (PHB3 will see if my hunch bears true). I think each successive book is going to introduce metagame 'creep', as it were, until 4th edition's ruleset is of significant complexity, if not outright comparable complexity to that of 3rd edition.

And then 5th edition's ruleset will be more modular to support that phenomenon better. Finally, Wizards will have established their product cycle: Release a simple game at first, and slowly build on it with game and eventually metagame expansions as people get bored with the original stuff.

Tehnar
2009-09-24, 11:52 AM
IMO, if WotC wants to do something different from previous editions with 5e, they will a classless point buy system, ala GURPS. Probably not so diverse, or complicated (not saying its a bad thing), but more in the lines of pick race, pick power source, pick powers from power source.

bosssmiley
2009-09-24, 11:58 AM
You're missing several data points. A more complete publication history for D&D is:

--- TSR Era ---
1974:White box edition (OD&D)
1977: Holmes Basic D&D
1978-80: 1st edition AD&D core books
1981: Moldvay, Marsh & Cook B/X D&D
1983: Mentzer BEC D&D
1985: Mentzer Masters D&D
1989: 2nd edition AD&D
1991: Allston Rules Cyclopedia (BECM revised)
1995: AD&D Player's/DM's Option series (aka 2.5E)

--- WOTC Era ---
2000: 3rd edition, the OGL and the SRD
2003: 3.5 edition
2008: 4th edition
2011: 4.5 edition (projected)
2016: 5th edition (projected)

Source: The complete family tree of TSR D&D (http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com/2008/12/dungeons-dragons-chartistry.html).

What can we conclude from this? There's generally another version of The World's Favourite RPG put out by the license holders every couple of years.

And if you don't like it, then an edition you do like is out there cheap/free. Heck, thanks to the OGL we can create our own versions (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/02/jeffs-incomplete-guide-to-new-retro.html).

Ernir
2009-09-24, 12:24 PM
Update!

http://i38.tinypic.com/33zb2nq.png

This assumes that the White Box is 0th edition, and that non-numbered distributions are assigned numbers that are "spread evenly" between the numbered ones.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 01:10 PM
And now, it is once again time for an installment of "Old Codger Theatre".

In my day, *if* you found a magic item in some monster's treasure stash, it was a big deal! There was excitement! Was it a plain sword +1? A luckblade? A sunblade? A cursed weapon? Some other crazy crap the DM had come up with?

Sure, you got strange, oddball, or useless items from time to time - especially if your DM was a moron and did everything completely randomly. But then, finding something really useful was all the more special... and it felt like it was WORTH something, rather than something you were entitled to.



**goes back to muttering something about THAC0s**

Speaking as a 1e/2e DM and player, completely agreed. It's exactly the oddball items that you think you have no use for (but will improvise something crazy with soon enough) that made 1e/2e treasure fun.

Meek
2009-09-24, 01:37 PM
I don't think we'll get a 4.5 that's explicitly called 4.5. Through errata and new books and DDI, we'll get patches and changes and innovations on 4e much like D&D 3.5 got the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic and all manner of those alternative systems. Much like with 3.5, I will not buy nor use any of it, but their inception is nearly inevitable.

What I'd like to see out of D&D 5e would be a sort of AD&D 2e approach, where the game is still built on the same base but certain changes. It won't happen, obviously. If an explicit 4.5 does come out, I'd like the last vestiges of Vancian crap to be finally excised from the system in place of a recharge mechanic like the Tome of Battle. I've learned to live with, accept and even enjoy Daily powers, but I still want them to die.

Zeta Kai
2009-09-24, 01:44 PM
Review of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)

:smallbiggrin:

I'd laugh, but it might come true. Big Brother is watching.

oxybe
2009-09-24, 02:27 PM
Speaking as a 1e/2e DM and player, completely agreed. It's exactly the oddball items that you think you have no use for (but will improvise something crazy with soon enough) that made 1e/2e treasure fun.

treasure like the cloak of the manta, ect... are items that can prove themselves useful to anyone who can't immediately breath or move underwater. it grants a direct benefit that mostly anyone can take advantage of. it's an odd item, but a useful one

a +1 rapier is useless to a group if no one has any investment in rapiers. at best it's a goto weapon if the character is unarmed. i think our fighter had like a sunblade or something as his backup since he was an axefighter. it effectively becomes another form of currency. only pointier.

that's why the "wish list" came about. 3rd & 4th ed both have some reliance on magic items (not that pre-3rd is free of this entirely. if memory serves many higher level monsters require a weapon of +X power to even hurt).

a wish list isn't "give me all this crud." it's "here's the type of items the party would find useful in the treasure horde". i don't mind seeing "useless" items being included in the treasure horde, but i see it in the same light as i do gemstones: universal currency, not something the party is expected to use.

ken-do-nim
2009-09-24, 02:34 PM
What's so painful to me about that link regarding everyone being a player and the DM is an online system is that I think what may have left the current D&D environment - though I could be wrong - is the wonderful dungeon/wilderness/world creativity. Dungeons & Dragons - to me - is about sitting down with a piece of graph paper or hex paper and designing. Somewhere along the way character building came along and trumped that.

Tough_Tonka
2009-09-24, 02:48 PM
My theory is that there will be no 4.5 - the mechanics creep of 4th edition seems slower than that of 3rd edition, so by the time Wizards is out of material to release (read: rehash from 3.x) for 4th edition, I think the time will be ripe for an outright 5th edition.

I think Wizards has noticed the big downside of 4th edition - lack of metagame diversity - and have slowly been taking steps to remedy this (PHB3 will see if my hunch bears true). I think each successive book is going to introduce metagame 'creep', as it were, until 4th edition's ruleset is of significant complexity, if not outright comparable complexity to that of 3rd edition.

And then 5th edition's ruleset will be more modular to support that phenomenon better. Finally, Wizards will have established their product cycle: Release a simple game at first, and slowly build on it with game and eventually metagame expansions as people get bored with the original stuff.

I'm curious what you mean by "meta-game creep". Are you referring to significant mechanics changes for psionic classes like power points and disciplines?

Aron Times
2009-09-24, 02:51 PM
Wishlists are basically the P&P version of tailored random items in video game RPGs. Very few RPGs nowadays use a completely random item generator, instead tailoring them to whatever classes are in the party. It's still random, but items that are genuinely useful to the party are more likely to appear than those that aren't.

Indon
2009-09-24, 03:02 PM
I'm curious what you mean by "meta-game creep". Are you referring to significant mechanics changes for psionic classes like power points and disciplines?

Yes, and the alternate multiclassing option in Dragon magazine is another good example (I hear there'll be a more official multiclassing option in the next PHB).

3.x, and 3.5 in particular, had a lot of metagame creep (which, honestly, I like - I like highly intricate metagames as opposed to simpler ones) - the game was introduced with a simple feat system and a spell system, and both were elaborated on, not to mention introducing systems like psionics, incarnum, binding, and so on.

The systems can be hit (incarnum, maneuvers, binding) or miss (truenaming), but they increase the system's diversity.

A more modular meta-system is one more amenable to houseruling and to additional rule systems such as the type you see a lot of in 3.5 (and like you start to see in 4th edition). I feel the next edition of D&D is going to see something supporting that.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-09-24, 05:31 PM
a +1 rapier is useless to a group if no one has any investment in rapiers. at best it's a goto weapon if the character is unarmed. i think our fighter had like a sunblade or something as his backup since he was an axefighter. it effectively becomes another form of currency. only pointier.

[...]

i don't mind seeing "useless" items being included in the treasure horde, but i see it in the same light as i do gemstones: universal currency, not something the party is expected to use.

Enchanted weapons are one thing--not every enemy is going to magically wield the same weapon as the party fighter--but I was mostly speaking of the other "useless" items. People ditch things like a bottle of air or helm of underwater action or whatever because they aren't immediately useful, when they can be plenty useful in the right situation.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-24, 05:58 PM
a +1 rapier is useless to a group if no one has any investment in rapiers. at best it's a goto weapon if the character is unarmed. i think our fighter had like a sunblade or something as his backup since he was an axefighter. it effectively becomes another form of currency. only pointier.

that's why the "wish list" came about. 3rd & 4th ed both have some reliance on magic items (not that pre-3rd is free of this entirely. if memory serves many higher level monsters require a weapon of +X power to even hurt).

a wish list isn't "give me all this crud." it's "here's the type of items the party would find useful in the treasure horde". i don't mind seeing "useless" items being included in the treasure horde, but i see it in the same light as i do gemstones: universal currency, not something the party is expected to use.

I don't agree - magic weapons provide a choice. Do I use the non-magic longsword I'm best with, or do I use this magical guisarme? It depends on my situation.

And if I want a magic longsword, I'll go out and specially look for one. Do some research. Find someone who has one, kill him, and take his stuff.

Akal Saris
2009-09-24, 06:42 PM
Yes. Yes, this in its entirety. I'm not a fan of 1e/2e (because I didn't play them), but this sounds like a better way to run things.

The first time I was DMing a 4E game, I was under a lot of stress b/c I didn't understand the system too well (had never played it), and was trying to simultaneously run a module with a very poor layout AND explain the game to 5 PCs with varying interests in the new system. I saw the room mention "Add treasure parcel C here", looked up parcel C in the module, then looked up the corresponding rule in the DMG about PC wish lists...

And just started laughing. And laughing. Literally, until I was red in the face, almost crying, and my PCs were chuckling nervously and looking away awkwardly. Because I had to take the idea of a wish list and explain it to my PCs, and the idea went exactly counter to just about everything I learned in 2E and a lot of my 3.5 experience. Also, I think I cracked under that night's pressure :P

And my players were pretty negative about it too - "Just give us whatever you think we need already!" was the most common response.

Anyhow, I kept an open mind and used the wish lists along with random treasure, and it actually made the game a bit better. PCs get loot that they want, and I don't have to think about what I want to give them vs. the items that make sense being in the game so much.

Silver mentioned random item generators in online games, and I just want to give a shoutout to Asheron's Call, which had an awesome random item generator, where almost any enemy could drop some interesting item with a bit of nice descriptive text ("A pearl-studded steel shamshir with a black opal pommel" was one item I remember keeping because the random sword generation made it look like a Moonblade). I was critically disappointed by WoW's item generation, where so many items are so bland. The same goes for 4E items compared to previous editions.

Back to the topic, I expect 4.5 to introduce more complexity into 4E (much like there's more complexity in the newer classes and variant classes - I love my vestige lock's options, for example), and then 5E to take this and reverse it into a more simple game once more.

AllisterH
2009-09-24, 06:46 PM
I don't agree - magic weapons provide a choice. Do I use the non-magic longsword I'm best with, or do I use this magical guisarme? It depends on my situation.

And if I want a magic longsword, I'll go out and specially look for one. Do some research. Find someone who has one, kill him, and take his stuff.

Depends on the edition.

In 2e for example, being best with a weapon was a significant benefit (+1 to attack and +2 to damage and you get more attacks per round at a lower level) compared to being non-proficient (-2 to hit). The only reason to use that magical guisarme would be if it was against a creature that needed that specific plus .

Similarly, in 3e and 4e, just go out and BUY the weapon you are specialized in.

oxybe
2009-09-24, 07:57 PM
I don't agree - magic weapons provide a choice. Do I use the non-magic longsword I'm best with, or do I use this magical guisarme? It depends on my situation.

And if I want a magic longsword, I'll go out and specially look for one. Do some research. Find someone who has one, kill him, and take his stuff.

my group only plays 3rd or 4th ed and on the rare special one-shots, BECMI/1st ed.

the magic guisarme is almost entirely useless in 3rd or 4th ed if you're not a guisarme user.

to mirror AllisterH said, if your character is specialized in the use of a weapon, barring extreme circumstances, you'll use that weapon, even if another weapon, this one magic, exists.

in 3rd ed the exception is the low levels 1-4 where if your GM holds back a bit you might not get a magic weapon that you want... but it the assumed scenario is that you can eventually sell and buy magic items to get stuff you can use. like in 2nd, some monsters require a magic weapon, or one made of a special metal, so having a golf bag full of different weapons is reasonable, if annoying.

in the low levels you'll swap out the longsword for a mace when skeletons come up or if your enemy has DR X/magic swapping your longsword for the +1 mace, since you're not too high up in the feat chains & PrC's to get the big combos up to easily bypass DR. once you do, however, you stick to your big guns and ignore the rest. higher levels you might keep that +2 cold iron rapier so the cleric can make it good aligned and you can hit some outsiders. again, that's only IF your main strategy can't punch through their DR.

in 4th ed, the magic weapon does add a +1 hit or damage, but if it's not one your weapon guy can take advantage of (due to chosen feats, class abilities or powers) he'll probably keep the weaker weapon to gain the most benefits from it the use the extra 1 to-hit.

sofawall
2009-09-24, 08:18 PM
That's... not really enough data to even get a good fit line for, dude...

I agree, especially since you completely discount your first three pieces of data and seem to be going purely on 3.0, 3.5 and 4e. Why did you even list the first few data points if you aren't using them?

Thane of Fife
2009-09-24, 08:30 PM
Depends on the edition.

In 2e for example, being best with a weapon was a significant benefit (+1 to attack and +2 to damage and you get more attacks per round at a lower level) compared to being non-proficient (-2 to hit). The only reason to use that magical guisarme would be if it was against a creature that needed that specific plus .

Certainly specialization is a benefit, but sometimes you need that magic +1. Sometimes you're playing a ranger or a paladin instead of a fighter, in which case, the discrepancy is much smaller. Sometimes you're uncertain if you're going to need that +1, and you have to choose what to do. And sometimes you need to be reminded that if you hadn't specialized you might have picked up the appropriate proficiency.

And if we're talking about a weapon better than +1, then you might want to use that even when you don't need to.


to mirror AllisterH said, if your character is specialized in the use of a weapon, barring extreme circumstances, you'll use that weapon, even if another weapon, this one magic, exists.

in 3rd ed the exception is the low levels 1-4 where if your GM holds back a bit you might not get a magic weapon that you want... but it the assumed scenario is that you can eventually sell and buy magic items to get stuff you can use. like in 2nd, some monsters require a magic weapon, or one made of a special metal, so having a golf bag full of different weapons is reasonable, if annoying.

Personally, I'm a 2nd edition man, so that's what I was thinking about when I posted. And again, I think that being able to buy or get whatever you want takes all the disadvantages out of specialization.

Wizzardman
2009-09-24, 09:53 PM
Players are encouraged to submit Wish lists to the DM, so the DM can give equipment that helps the character.

This disappoints me.

And I suspect it would have disappointed my players in the most recent 3.5 game I ran, wherein said players (being evil and all) managed to defeat a Solar eight CR above their level by sheer luck, awesome, and machismo.

And promptly discovered (thanks to the power of rolling randomly, which was rather fun in this case) that said Solar was carrying a set of +6 Holy Fiery Acidic Frost slingstones, as well as an entire art gallery in a conveniently placed Bag of Holding.

Sure, it made no gorram sense. But they still say that was the best loot they ever got, and they STILL found a use for those crazy, almost unsellable slingstones one day.

The New Bruceski
2009-09-24, 11:11 PM
To be fair, the 4e DMG doesn't say "don't have any items your players will use rarely or never," it says "if you include items your players will use rarely or never, realize you're doing so."