New Edition of Dungeons and Dragons

[Thriondel Half-Elven]

I just read about WotC is currently working on the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons. They didn't really give much other than saying they want to bring the core fundamentals to the front of the game experience and wanted player involvement in the creation process etc etc. You can read the post at their site

I know there was a big blargity blarg back when 4th edition came out. I sure there was when 3rd came out. And I'm sure there will be this time. But what are your thoughts on this? For those of you who play what sort of changes are you looking for?

[kirksmithicus]

I'm looking for something that will allow multiple styles of play. Something that can handle gritty and nasty to uber over-the-top action. I would also like something that allows tactical combat with miniatures but does not require you to use them if you don't want to, or the combat is small enough to handle without them.

I think alignments should be optional, I've never liked the D&D system all that much.

Combat should be faster and a bit more deadly.

Powers, as they are in 4e should be optional, and if included should probably be feats.

Though I know it will never happen, I hope they drop the static defenses in favor of a defensive action, like parry or dodge. Would go a long way toward improving melee combat IMHO.

[jasonj]

I have always started out my players with no alignment , then gradually they came into them on how they played

[Moritz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/ar....html?_r=4&hpw

Here's an article if you all are interested.
I'm just waiting for all the ranting to start just like it did when they came out with 4.0.

[Slipstream]

I'm just waiting for all the ranting to start just like it did when they came out with 4.0.

Waiting to ignore it, right?

[Malruhn]

Not at all! I remember that just within ONE WEEK before the release of 4.0, WOTC announced in VERY terse terms that there was NO plan for a new edition and NO plans for researching a new edition and there was NOT going to be a new edition... and to drive the point home, I recall that they released either two or three new 3.5 supplements to show their "good faith."

Seven days later, there's a new edition.

This time they are giving the public notice.

To heck with them. I'm sticking with Paizo and Pathfinder.

[Umiushi]

Well, since you've opened the floor, I'll deliver my wish list.

I'd like to see the continuation of the move towards branching options. Now that prestige classes have been consolidated into paragon paths and epic destinies, the big remaining offender is the unwieldy list of feats. Yes, it's a godsend for the players who crave customization above all else, but for others such as casual players who might want to get started in a hurry, it's a headache.

I don't mind the speedy in-play execution of combat, but I would like to see longer in-world combats at the same time. As things stand now, it's a rare combat that lasts more than a minute of in-world time. I'd like more rounds, longer (in-world) rounds, but speedier play-time rounds. If a round could be settled with less than a minute of play-time work, that would be fantastic.

In following with Kirksmithicus' idea of expanding combat to tactical miniatures, it would also be great to go the other direction and see the availability of a satisfying rules set that doesn't require tactical maps for combat. Going even further, I'd like to see the return of large-scale tactical and strategic rules, like AD&D's Battlesystem and D&D's War Machine. That way, combat could be handled at all levels.

I don't want to stop at combat, either. I liked the direction skill challenges were heading, and I'd like to see the further development of the mechanics for non-combat situations from social encounters to natural hazards. Furthermore, I'd like to see this expanded to include some formalized rules for long-term and/or large-scale activities on the part of PCs.

I'm happy with the use of powers, and particularly happy with how they're implemented. It used to be that DM had to keep track of more or less everything, including having a familiarity with the ins and outs of any spell the PCs were trying to use. These days, I feel comfortable letting players handle the details of their powers, and it takes a big burden off my work. This is similar to the decision to put combat in the Player's Handbook. I wouldn't mind seeing this carried on. However, I would like an expansion of "utility" powers and features. I think this is already the direction things are moving, as the Player's Handbook 3 came out with skill powers.

I would like to see the spotlight continue to move away from magical items. I'm happy that PCs and NPCs no longer have to be decked out like Christmas trees just to meet the expectations of their level, and would like to see that trend extend into the next edition. To me, there's always been a big, useless, middle layer of magic items. I like magic items that are small and ubiquitous (in a high-magic setting), subtly enchanted, or rare and powerful like artifacts. The idea of magic items increasing in power or of arcane boons should be continued and expanded.

I'd like the resumption of rules that allow for weak, wounded, and cursed PCs. I think this might be a problem with commonly accepted adventure structure where you fight bigger and badder things all the way up to the boss. That, and the consideration of player morale, supports a system where players are either running at 100% or down for the count. There are different storytelling styles that support other modes, and I'd like to see consideration of these come back.

I like the roles for monsters and NPCs, such as minions and solos, and wouldn't mind seeing that continued and expanded upon. I want to see greatly expanded treatment of environment, both indoors and outdoors, including objects, structures, and vehicles, and the continuation of the concepts of fantastic and tactical terrain. I like the idea that the DM doesn't build everything the same way, but at the same time, I'd like to see further development of what the DM can build, including such things as fantastic terrain and artifacts. To clarify a matter, I want to see rules to translate what the DM's imagining into mechanics. I don't want to see the opposite: lists of "ideas" that the DM has to develop for themselves. D&D has actually been better about this lately than most other games, but still backslides at times. Really, if the authors had such an idea in the first place, they should have done the grunt work to actually flesh it out mechanically, too. I would be really sad if a new edition fell back into lists of "ideas," "plot hooks," and "encounter tables" as a way to fill up content.

That brings me to the big thing I don't want to see: fleshed out settings and/or adventures included in the core rules. Small examples are fine, but if a DM really needs to see a setting or a dungeon, I think they should take the opportunity to buy an adventure module. Fallcrest and Sigil were just pages of wasted space to me. Other rpgs are already really guilty of this: they often have more setting than actual rules. I hope that D&D doesn't fall down that hole.

[mrken]

WotC lost me when I got into 3rd edition and they came out with 3.5 because they screwed up 3.0.

It seems to me they cut their player base in half when they forced people to either go 4.0 or stay with 3.5. Paizo was the big winner there, not WotC. With the move to 5.0 the 4.0 base will be further cut. they will get more money from fewer people. I would be surprised if a lot of gamers switch to 3.5 with Paizo. Many former DnD players have switched to Savage Worlds as well.

Here's to watching WotC sink their own boat (almost said ship, but they had swapped that for the boat).

Would be cool if they turned this into a role playing game rather than the min/maxing rules lawyering festival.

[Thriondel Half-Elven]

I think change is inevitable and that no matter what they aren't going to get it perfect. There will always be people who love it and people who are displeased. I don't remember much before 4e came out. Did they really not give any notice? Well at least this time they are getting playing input. There is even a forum thing where you can give your ideas and input: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext

So if Dungeons and Dragons is important to you and you want to get your ideas heard I'd sign up and give it a try. Though right now it says the site has like 1,434 members. With more members I'm sure there will be more ideas and with a lot of ideas there are bound to be conflicting ideas. Naturally they won't be able to use them all. So who knows what we'll end up with. They should just start from scratch.

[Q-man]

A new edition was bound to happen, new books is how they make money with the game. I've been expecting one since they started their essentials line, I got the impression that they noticed a few sticking points in 4th edition and were trying to address them. I'm sure the work for 5th edition started some time ago, its just now that they are making it public.

As for a wish list, I'm not sure I have a whole lot to say for that. My main gripe would be a need for honesty and more transparency in the development. A prime example would be the virtual table top that they announced when 4th edition came out. The project was dropped, then declared dead, now there's a beta for everyone with a DDI subscription.

That's got nothing to do with the game rules I suppose. I liked 4th edition, I was glad that they tried taking the game in a new direction with large lists of choices for the character to make. I don't think that model needs to be changed, though they might try to pare down the list of options. With all the player books they released the list of options was overwhelming. There was no way to really go through all of that stuff to pick what best suited your character. They'd do better to have a shorter list of more unique options, as many of the feats and powers seemed to duplicate or overlap with other options.

They might get rid of some of the fiddly bits of bookkeeping that combat had. All the powers that had effects that lasted until your next turn were forgotten and ignored at my table. Not many people wanted to be bothered with tracking all of that stuff. The same goes for save-ends ongoing damage, with it being a 50/50 chance of ending we just added one round of damage to the attack and dropped the lingering effect. Some people might like the additional tactics that such things offered, my group preferred to ignore those details in favor of speeding up combat. I suppose if these rules persisted we'd do treat them the same, and continue ignoring them.

I had a number of other gripes about 4th edition, but then no rules are perfect. As I said I thought 4th was pretty good for it being an attempt at some new mechanics. I'd like to see then refined a bit this time around and see where it leads.

Oddly enough I don't think I'll be purchasing the 5th edition books. Not to protest a new edition, more because the timing likely won't be right for me. At present I have 2 yr old twin boys, I'm assuming that by the time 5th edition comes out they might be old enough to comprehend game rules and be able to dabble with some tabletop stuff. I figure it would be better to stock up on simpler more kid friendly games that they might be able to enjoy.

[wizarddog]

The things that drive me batty about 4e were related to some of the combat mechanics. There is just too much emphasis on trying to hit something, forcing you to make design decision on your character that required that your attack roll was significant. I also thought limiting the players to roles was too restricting, though essentials tried to give you options that made the classes into another role. I was also not a fan of the Dragonborn or Teifling (and all the other races that followed). Sure, you could ban those races, but then your limiting your players from what little freedom they are given in character creation in the first place. The final irritation was the length of the combat, which was frustrating given that hardly any powers or skills were geared to helping you role play unless you took skill utilities, and even then, it was just mechanical. The final irritation was the constant updates in the powers through the character builder, making the PH practically obsolete and ultimately you became reliant on the CB. I spent more time building characters than actually playing them. I eventually let my DDI subscription expire.

And I always felt 1e and 2e was restricting as well; limiting races to certain classes and the whole a round is 1 minute and you get to do one action garbage was too abstract for me. Does really take you a whole minute to light a torch, even if you are weaving through the combat? It leaves too much to fill in that you forget that the whole thing is taking that long (and then you have to count segments for spells, Oi!) Not my cup of tea.

I really thought 3.x had a good mechanic on how to make the game work, but I also, missed the short stat blocks I used to get out of 1e and 2e for my enemies (well short, because the saves would have to be referred to by a chart). I liked having the ability to at least try to disarm an opponent or other combat maneuver instead of designating it as a power or some house-rule. I like having skills that work for all classes so I am not trying to figure out why the rogue (or ranger in 2e) is the only one who can hide in the shadows (and not very well at low level apparently) and why the assassin can not until he reaches third level?

This new D&DXP doesn't really jazz me up. I am already content on keeping my essential material and selling off my 4e hardbounds. I have found myself using Pathfinder, and with the limitation of the GSL, prefer working with the OGL for 3.x to write my own adventures and making them pathfinder compatible. It would take a step backwards towards 3.x for me to be really intrested in investing in the game again.

[tesral]

meh....

[nijineko]

wait and see. then we'll talk.

[kirksmithicus]

Yeah I'm optimistic that they will produce something that is good but I'm not counting on it. They (WotC) seems to shoot themselves in the ass every time they do something.

[Q-man]

They certainly have a habit of putting out something interesting and worthy of experimenting with. Then they mangle it with further rules changes or with some of the content they include in a later book.