D&D 5th Edition Announced

[James Gillen]

Part of that I think was trying to prevent direct competitors to D&D through the OGL, and part to not unbalance the system where they were trying to keep perfectly balanced. More the former though.

Understandable from some viewpoints (I think Gygax would approve...) but again it kills a lot of support you would otherwise have. And that "perfect balance" is both a strength and a weakness- on another forum, I'd described it as a matter of 4E having a place for everything, and everything in its place- a policy intended to curb the severe bloat of something like the Forgotten Realms, BUT that means if you still want to USE the Realms as your core setting, you not only have to retcon (again) but fit all those multishaped pegs through the one round hole that is 4th Edition D&D.

JG

[Lord Mhoram]

Understandable from some viewpoints (I think Gygax would approve...) but again it kills a lot of support you would otherwise have.

I agree completely. I was just trying to figure out what the motivation was, and we all know the consequences. It hurt the game.

[Ninja-Bear]

They actually said in the West End books that you really shouldn't play a Wookie character unless you can pull it off, which means that if you can't sound like a malfunctioning carburetor, you should at least try to play charades rather than talk.

JG

That's interesting, must have missed that. (Wonder if that was in first ed, cause they didn't allow you to play droids either)Now it does say that if you can't speak basic, then you can only speak made-up alien unless someone makes a alien species roll.

[Mister E]

That's interesting, must have missed that. (Wonder if that was in first ed, cause they didn't allow you to play droids either)Now it does say that if you can't speak basic, then you can only speak made-up alien unless someone makes a alien species roll.

As far as I know you've always been allowed to play droids. I specifically recall noting that R2 had a force point. They weren't my books, but I remember there were stock pre-fab builds for common droids perfectly suited to the job of being PCs.

The IG88-based assassin droid was broken.

[Narf the Mouse]

Alright, everyone read the ENWorld D&D Experience summary threads?

No?

Well, use Google!

Anyway, most of it sounds good (everything IMO, of course):

Loving the idea of themes.
Multiclassing sounds vague, but better than 4e "mangleclassing".
Skills sound like they're sort-of feats, in that you pick the ones you want and they give a bonus to an ability score for something. Could work.
Ability scores as base, less need to roll for everything - Like, so long as everyone isn't "automatically competent". For example, just because you're STR 17, that shouldn't mean you're a great blacksmith.
"All the PHB1 classes, ever" - Interesting.
Fighter is 100% combat; other classes are X% combat, Y (Z? W?) % other stuff. Cool. 4e was a major step backward, there.
Base classes are simple, then the modules give you options you can swap in and out - If they manage it, it sounds great.
Base classes are simply one "build line" of the modular classes - Indicates they've got an "eye on the ball" there, at least.
Wizards can get "at-wills" and "vancian" spells - Vague, but probably deliberately so. One thing I do like about 4e is that the magic-using classes felt more like they had magic as a core concept. (Ignoring any arguement over whether that was accomplished)
No more "Power Sources" as an in-setting thing. "I cast Arcane spells", rather than "I'm an Arcane caster". I was always "meh" about "power sources", so good.
Intent is for classes to "feel like themselves" - Bit of a tautology, but for D&D, it works. One reason given for getting feedback.

Playtesting reports I've read sounding catiously optimistic and like it's fun - Neat.

[Markdoc]

It sounds like they are moving towards the way that I play D&D: I see "classes" essentially as modules. They're not well-designed for that, so it often leads to an awkward fit, but that's how I've been playing for ages. As a result most of my characters have a defined "theme" which is then kludged up out of bits For example, my character from today's game was described as "a wuxia-style swordsman: a wandering warrior-monk with ki powers who walks the land helping the helpless, by kicking mucho butt" (Monk/paladin/swordsage). It works great and delivers exactly the sort of play I desired, but it required a fair bit of digging about to build it.

Almost all my characters have been multi/prestige class, and my "2 levels here, 3 levels there, 1 of those, two of these..." approach used to drive our GM crazy ... until she started playing in my Fantasy Hero campaign and realised that the approach there was in fact to chose from a smorgasbord of choices. I wasn't min-maxing, per se, I was just building to a concept that wasn't one of the core classes.

It would not be a big stretch to rethink the whole "prestige class" approach so that classes were designed from the beginning for modular assembly. To some extent Pathfinder has already moved in this direction. Part of their stated design philosophy was that every level should yield a benefit of some sort: no more "dead levels" and they have made multiclassing easier. In addition, they are adding more and more substitution features: trade out paladin's spell power for a holy light power. Trade out a wizard's familiar for improved power with one class of spells, yadda, yadda. Refine it slightly, and you could retain the class aspect (which is a core defining feature of D&D) but build each class so that you can more freely mix levels - and acquire the associated powers. Combine feats and skills into a simple mechanism. This skill does X. This feat does Y. Do they need two different mechanisms? Not really. Build skill trees to "unlock" higher level versions of each. Eliminate "stacking" to cut down on ridiculous combos (in other word, you can have one feat bonus or one skill bonus on any given action: simply take the best).

Keep the at will, per encounter and per day mechanism, but drop the idea that every character has to be a direct combatant. Ditch the rest of 4E.

Most of the stuff they need is already out there. It's simply a matter of putting it together. With a little bit of thought, they could easily design a system that is clearly derived from 3.5, loses its worst features (complexity and power combos), and offers more than Pathfinder, in terms of customisation - plus giving them the ability to continue to release new content that that they need. That would let you play a vanilla fighter - 20 levels of hittiness, and plenty of combat feats. Alternatively, you could customise with magical powers, rogue abilities ... etc to produce a character who was less hitty, but more flexible. That would attract both old and new players, I am guessing.

cheers, Mark

[Lord Mhoram]

I've really been liking what I have been reading about it.

Some of the things that Narf didn't mention -
Character build it Race/Class/Theme so you can build to concept better.

The whole approach to gaming. It isn't about what is on the character sheet, it is about the player interacting with a DM. It appears that this isn't like third edition where if you didn't have a feat for it you can't do it (trip for example), but you can try it because it is what you want your character to do - the term "Theater of the imagination" has come up a few times.

It looks like ability scores are going to be very important, and the bonus to hit for fighter (for example) isn't necessarily +5% per level (i.e +1 to hit). They are spread that out a little more, and flattening the math - this allows monsters and magic items to be useful for longer periods of time.

Probably my favorite note - Magic Items are no longer necessary to keep the combat math accurate. You do not need a +3 sword at X level to be effective. The combat design is for it to be evenly matched without magic items. So a +2 sword could be a big deal for a longer time in the game.

I never liked the idea that magic items were necessary for adventuring. I like the idea of lots of them, true. But when they are necessary it makes them lose that magic "specialness".

Implements look to be staying - there was a mention of a Wizard buying a basic Wand for 100SP like the fighter buying scale male. This is great with me, that was one of the things I really liked about 4E.

I am really stoked about this one.

I guess for me D&D is like Star Trek movies in reverse. I liked 1st ed, didn't like second, loved 3.x, found 4E good but unsuited for my style of play, and 5th looks great.

The fact that they have said that they learned the lesson on 4E and the GSL, makes me also hope for a lot of 3rd party support, both in adventures and in new modules. That was one of my favorite things about 3.x that I really liked - the OGL and the mass of supplements that worked with it.

[Lord Mhoram]

Almost all my characters have been multi/prestige class, and my "2 levels here, 3 levels there, 1 of those, two of these..." approach used to drive our GM crazy ... until she started playing in my Fantasy Hero campaign and realised that the approach there was in fact to chose from a smorgasbord of choices. I wasn't min-maxing, per se, I was just building to a concept that wasn't one of the core classes

They did say that multiclassing was going to be more "3rd edition style" than anything else.

And I approached building characters the same way - a level in this class or that was just a discreet package of skills that fit my character concept.

[casualplayer]

To obtain that feel is why I start most 3.x D&D characters at Level 4, with 3 levels of backhistory to show how they got to where they are today. I'm particularly fond of a few levels of Sorcerer to account for the utility spell slots (Read/Detect Magic, Light, etc.) and a few of Wizard to reflect the book-acquired big boom. It also puts my players out of range of the threat of death if they piss off a housecat.

But I'm still not sure what 5th is going to bring to tempt my coin. I don't feel the imperative to play D&D when I feel the urge to game. Hopefully for WotC's sake they will be able to overcome the self-inflicted gamer exodus and the inertia of gamer tendencies.

[Lord Mhoram]

But I'm still not sure what 5th is going to bring to tempt my coin. I don't feel the imperative to play D&D when I feel the urge to game. Hopefully for WotC's sake they will be able to overcome the self-inflicted gamer exodus and the inertia of gamer tendencies.

Yeah. I love Hero, but sometimes I need something different, and that is usually D&D for me - I play it solo with the wife. And we try to use published modules as any outside game prepwork is usually for our Hero stuff. 1st and 3rd were pretty easy to houserule/morph into something a single player could do in a module. 4E being so balanced and team focused made it impossible. So I m hoping D&DNext is going to be able to do that for me. Based on what we have heard, I think it will.

[Dr. Confoundo]

Some fairly odd news about D&D Next - Monte Cook has left WotC and the D&D 5E design team.

"Last week I decided that I would leave my contract position with Wizards of the Coast. I am no longer working on Dungeons & Dragons, although I may provide occasional consultation in the future. My decision is one based on differences of opinion with the company. However, I want to take this time to stress that my differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell. I enjoyed every moment of working with them over the past year. I have faith that they'll create a fun game. I'm rooting for them.

Due to my non-disclosure agreement, as well as a desire to keep things on a professional level, I have no intention of going into further detail at this time. (Mostly, I just hate drama, and would rather talk about more interesting things.)

As for what I'll be turning to next, I hope you'll stay tuned. I plan on having an interesting announcement in that regard in the near future."

- Monte Cook, April 25, 2012

[Susano]

I'm having a hard time caring about this.

[Zen Archer]

Some fairly odd news about D&D Next - Monte Cook has left WotC and the D&D 5E design team.

Interesting news, thanks for posting.

I won't say I don't care, but I'm neither elated or disappointed.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Hmmm. Almost no information here. But "Monte Cook leaving your project" generally isn't a good sign.

Anyway it's a done deal, so yeah, there's no point getting all torqued up about it.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Some people are getting a bit torqued up. Monte Cook was one of the chief advocates, and later beneficiaries, of the Open Gaming License (OGL) that launched with D&D 3.0 and revolutionized the industry for better or worse. In addition to working for WOTC he eventually formed the fairly successful Malhavoc Press, which based all its products around d20. You may remember the "Alternative Player Handbooks" he published (Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved) and the d20 reboot of the World of Darkness he did for White Wolf (although many fans would like to forget about that one).

If there was a power struggle within Wizards and Cook lost, will there be further restrictions on D&D 5 being even partially open content? Has the genie gotten too far out of the bottle for Hasbro to contain it? People working with OGL properties are a bit concerned that they will be shut out of D&D 5's system completely. Like it or not, Cook was the face of the project to many fans.