5th Edition D&D

Edition and System doesen't really matter - every system is what you make of it (sometimes you just need more houserules).

That said, I played TDE 1st and 2nd Edition, AD&D 2nd Ed. and D&D 3.5 and I prefered 3.5.

I prefer gameplay over story, so I liked the combat-system of D&D more than that of TDE. The early editions of TDE were even more prone to cheese than D&D.

3E and the later Editions of TDE are more about character-costumisation than AD&D and D&D 4th. Ed. TDE has a very restricting (but charming) world.

Each System has it's ups and downs. That said, after all I've read about 4E it's just not my kind of Game and I doubt that 5E will be.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
511
Location
Franconia
Fenris said:
Edition and System doesen't really matter - every system is what you make of it (sometimes you just need more houserules).
Click to expand...

I disagree. The amount of work you have to do is precisely what differs. A system can be too rigid or too fragmented "out of the box".

Let me give you an example. Recently we played Twillight 2000. It's a military game after an all out war between the Soviet and the US that causes the world to collapse. The system that comes with this game is very old and we agreed to try something else. We first tried Modern d20 but it wasn't optimized for ranged combat and it was very focused on playing in a city environment.

So we tried BRP. Basic Role-Playing is very much based on optional rules and much of the neccessities for a military game such as rules for autofire and grenades didn't exist in the core rules, so we had to build numerous houserules. Many of these we borrowed from other people. We spent about three months on this, three people, trying to make it work with our best intentions.

Then out of the blue someone suggested that hey, New World of Darkness is a generic system and there's even a war sourcebook called Dogs of War. The GM read the book and we could play the game a week later. Everything worked right out of the box. What we needed was always easily found in it's streamlined format and the advanced rules we needed above was as easy as pie. I even used the Asulym sourcebook to flesh out my field-medic a bit.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
If your problem is too rigid a 'class' structure, JemyM, I doubt you've REALLY played CoC d20 which isn't a class based system.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
837
They see their sales dropping so decided to give the White Wolf open development process a shot. Certainly did VERY well for WW when it came to the V20 book they developed and published.

Hopefully WotC take this to heart and realize their community did not want a WoW type PnP game. They need to go back to a more 3.5 direction then a lets emulate WoW with dice direction.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
211
Location
Boston, MA
I've been playing D&D in various incarnations since the early 80's. Its hard to pin down a favorite edition because they all have a variety of strengths. 3.5 and Pathfinder are great for in-depth, intricate character building. Old-school Basic D&D and its retro-clone variants are good for nice fast combat and a rules-light approach which can be nice.

I enjoyed 3.5, Pathfinder, old-school D&D, and AD&D but never really liked 4E much. I'm not fond of 4E's power system which is so obviously trying to emulate video game mechanics. I like video games (as all of us here do I assume), but that doesn't mean I want that kind of system for tabletop gaming. Also I feel that 4E lost touch with the core feel of D&D somehow, in pursuit of the WoW demographic. You can see it in the art style, and the array of outlandish race choices that are in the core rules. To me Pathfinder carries the torch of the original D&D flavor more accurately than 4E.

With 5th edition - I hope they will move back towards the roots of D&D and stop trying to compete with MMOs, which is a battle they can never win. If they can find a middle-ground somewhere that mixes Pathfinder / 3.5 character development and the faster combats of old-school D&D I would be happy.

For now, my group is playing in a homebrewed variant of basic D&D, and will be starting a Pathfinder campaign later this year. That suits me fine, but I'll keep an eye on 5th edition developments.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
510
Location
Oregon
I generally agree that 4e lost some of the d&d feel, but I like the power system, I just think it's too streamlined. The big thing that 4e did well was it made every class fun to play. In previous editions classes like fighters were pretty boring and didn't do anything but attack every round. If you wanted to play a class with depth you had to be a spell caster. The power system was very succesful at changing this.

In terms of trying to make the game like a MMO/video game, people who hated 3e said the exact same thing about it. That seems to be the go to complaint about any edition you don't like. I don't think that's at all true for 4e, in fact 3e spawned many more video games then 4e did.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
darkling said:
If your problem is too rigid a 'class' structure, JemyM, I doubt you've REALLY played CoC d20 which isn't a class based system.
Click to expand...

None of the d20 systems I mentioned were rigid class systems except for D&D3.5 so when I talked about SWSE as a class improvement it was in comparison to D&D3.5.

CoCd20, SWd20 and ModernD20 still had several of the other issues I had with d20. The thing I disliked the most was the skill system. I usually dislike systems that reward spiked skills. And the ranking system was unneccessary complex with half scores and crosskills. I was a fan of WoD since it allowed for creating more dynamic characters without making the game unbalanced. I much prefer the 1/2 level +5 for trained they have in SWSE and 4e. Much easier to create players, to level up and the much reduced number makes it easier to come into for both GM's and new players.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
fadedc said:
I generally agree that 4e lost some of the d&d feel, but I like the power system, I just think it's too streamlined. The big thing that 4e did well was it made every class fun to play. In previous editions classes like fighters were pretty boring and didn't do anything but attack every round. If you wanted to play a class with depth you had to be a spell caster. The power system was very succesful at changing this.

In terms of trying to make the game like a MMO/video game, people who hated 3e said the exact same thing about it. That seems to be the go to complaint about any edition you don't like. I don't think that's at all true for 4e, in fact 3e spawned many more video games then 4e did.
Click to expand...
To clarify a bit - I don't really hate 4E and I do think it does some things well. Our group played it for a while and I enjoyed it at times. There is no doubt that it excels as a balanced tactical combat system, offering plenty for each class to do. I agree the diversity of actions available is a welcome change - low level wizards have a much better time than in old editions for example. I just don't like how tightly codified everything was - its almost too balanced. It works really well as a minis combat game but it leaves very little breathing room for the players to be creative with their actions.

For example - if I were playing a fighter - I'd prefer to describe a complex combat maneuver I'd like to attempt rather than simply state a power name off my powers list. In the first case, the DM can decide how to adjudicate it - but in 4E what happens is exactly as written for the power. I guess its just a personal preference - the "rulings" vs. "rules" thing people talk about when comparing old-school editions with newer ones. I like the flexibility offered by the first option.

Even though I like Pathfinder it has some similar issues with being rules-heavy but I felt it didn't go quite as far as 4E does. Both of them suffer from very long combat times - which is something I'd love to be changed in then new edition.

Anyway - I don't mean to bash 4E or enter into edition wars - I respect those who enjoy it, just stating my personal preference.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
510
Location
Oregon
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,964
Location
Old Europe
Cheese is if you use the game-rules to "break" the game. I.e. a Warrior with such a high Armorclass that it is simply not possible to hurt him any more in TDE or if you use Area-Damage-Spells that don't aggro the Mobs in Baldur's Gate.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
511
Location
Franconia
Yeah I can understand some of your concerns there. I generally do like the effects of powers and techniques to be spelled out in what they do rather then leaving it all up to the DM. But I do agree that things were balanced a little too well when the game first came out and they could have taken some more chances.

In terms of minis combat, I think a lot of people forget that early editions of D&D were actually designed for mini use even more then current ones. Things like movement rate and spell area were given in inches rather then feet because you were expected to measure out how far you could move on the combat board. The only key difference was that you were expected to play on an open wargame map rather then a grid.

Myrkrel said:
To clarify a bit - I don't really hate 4E and I do think it does some things well. Our group played it for a while and I enjoyed it at times. There is no doubt that it excels as a balanced tactical combat system, offering plenty for each class to do. I agree the diversity of actions available is a welcome change - low level wizards have a much better time than in old editions for example. I just don't like how tightly codified everything was - its almost too balanced. It works really well as a minis combat game but it leaves very little breathing room for the players to be creative with their actions.

For example - if I were playing a fighter - I'd prefer to describe a complex combat maneuver I'd like to attempt rather than simply state a power name off my powers list. In the first case, the DM can decide how to adjudicate it - but in 4E what happens is exactly as written for the power. I guess its just a personal preference - the "rulings" vs. "rules" thing people talk about when comparing old-school editions with newer ones. I like the flexibility offered by the first option.

Even though I like Pathfinder it has some similar issues with being rules-heavy but I felt it didn't go quite as far as 4E does. Both of them suffer from very long combat times - which is something I'd love to be changed in then new edition.

Anyway - I don't mean to bash 4E or enter into edition wars - I respect those who enjoy it, just stating my personal preference.
Click to expand...
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
fadedc said:
In terms of minis combat, I think a lot of people forget that early editions of D&D were actually designed for mini use even more then current ones. Things like movement rate and spell area were given in inches rather then feet because you were expected to measure out how far you could move on the combat board. The only key difference was that you were expected to play on an open wargame map rather then a grid.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is a good point - I'm aware of D&D's roots in the Chainmail system and I don't really mind minis combat per se. Though I did play AD&D 1st edition for many years back in the day without using minis at all. That was just the style we played in - it was all in our heads and combat was described narratively. I don't think I even understood the rules fully at that young age but we had fun in any case.

I think the minis combat can be fun especially for major "boss" battles where every action is critical. It would be nice to have the option to resolve minor combats more quickly without minis and a battlemat though.

They are talking about 5th edition being modular. It would be cool if the minis combat is a module that can be switched in when warranted (say, for a big boss encounter), but also have a simpler system to resolve minor combats narratively.

Just thinking out loud here - I'm really curious how the modularity of the new edition will work or if such a thing is even possible.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
510
Location
Oregon
Myrkrel said:
Though I did play AD&D 1st edition for many years back in the day without using minis at all. That was just the style we played in - it was all in our heads and combat was described narratively.
Click to expand...

Yes, we never used minis or battlemaps in any of the groups I've played with, either.

The only maps were those drawn by the players and the ones kept behind a screen for the DM's eyes only, unless they were props discovered by the players. In one case when I was GM'ing, I distinctly recall attempting to "age" a hand drawn map I wanted to provide as a prop, only I wound up setting the kitchen on fire!

Recently I participated in a Skype game with a few friends and the GM used a MapTools server. It was interesting, but I think it became more of a crutch and the dungeon exploration felt a bit more like a videogame.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
1,477
Location
Chocovania
Fenris said:
Cheese is if you use the game-rules to "break" the game. I.e. a Warrior with such a high Armorclass that it is simply not possible to hurt him any more in TDE or if you use Area-Damage-Spells that don't aggro the Mobs in Baldur's Gate.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I see. there are *huge* discussions going on that about TDE 4.1 in he official forums !

One infamous post on one of the TDE forums became known as a druidic "Caldofrigo Atomarschlag" - this post was an satirical take on exploiting rules …

The word "Atomarschlag" is a slightly distorted version of the German word "Atomschlag", which means letting an atom bomb hit a location.

The druidic "Caldofrigo Atomarschlag" (that would be the name of the whole spell-thing) is an combination of "Druidic Revenge", a coldness spell, its area of effect extended to "the horizon", and that Druid hitting the ground … The result would be total devastation.

This thing is not possible in TDE without exploiting/distorting the rules so much that it becomes more that over-the-top, it becomes simply ridiculous.

And that's why it was never meant to be a real thing. It was always meant to be satire.
But it evoked quite a hefty discussion on "exploiting the rules", then. ;)

This infamous post has been deleted by the moderators, but this is a recap of it (inclusive a reconstruction) : http://www.ulisses-forum.de/showthread.php?t=2026
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,964
Location
Old Europe
Yeah when I was younger we didn't use minatures for 1e either even though the game was clearly designed around them. We also didn't really understand the rules that well. It wasn't until I got older with 2e that we started to use maps and miniatures.

Seems to be pretty similar with a lot of young people and 4e today where they don't bother using minis. It's amazing how little you need maps or grids when you don't bother understanding the rules and just free form it!

Myrkrel said:
Yeah that is a good point - I'm aware of D&D's roots in the Chainmail system and I don't really mind minis combat per se. Though I did play AD&D 1st edition for many years back in the day without using minis at all. That was just the style we played in - it was all in our heads and combat was described narratively. I don't think I even understood the rules fully at that young age but we had fun in any case.

I think the minis combat can be fun especially for major "boss" battles where every action is critical. It would be nice to have the option to resolve minor combats more quickly without minis and a battlemat though.

They are talking about 5th edition being modular. It would be cool if the minis combat is a module that can be switched in when warranted (say, for a big boss encounter), but also have a simpler system to resolve minor combats narratively.

Just thinking out loud here - I'm really curious how the modularity of the new edition will work or if such a thing is even possible.
Click to expand...
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom