Ah. Yes. I do agree about the comics bit. In addition, only the first paragraph was "at" you, the rest returned to general discussion involving the changes to realmslore. You haven't seemed "get off my lawn" in the slightest, just untrusting of the corporate machine... Which I fully understand. Sláinte.
@jackjack - you can pre-order them on Amazon for a considerable discount atm. (well unless you live in Manila like me, in which case after shipping it is nowhere near a discount).
Here's a post at EN World that also has some other useful info about the release.
@AstroBryGuy I think one improvement this time around is that the "basic" is actually a subset of the "advanced" rules. Meaning anything in the basic free version is also included in the PHB/DMG/MM so they are fully compatible. The basic will just only contain 4 races and 4 classes and only 1 option for each of the classes.
Also any adventures released by WOTC that use rules/monsters, etc not already in Basic will either have those in the adventure itself or the free pdf will be updated to include them. So potentially if you are satisfied with the options in "basic" you can still play the game using those adventures alongside those playing with the options in PHB. The 3 "core" books are in an optional purchase (I want more options) rather than a requirement to play the game.
@SirK8 - That sounds pretty good. I like the return to the basics. The BECMI edition of D&D is still my personal favorite. Can't wait to see what they've come up with.
I just read an article on Next, the only thing that bothered me was that players must select "factions", which reminded me of WoW with "Alliance" and "Horde". I read it and it was like "ugh". I'm not sure *why* I feel so averse to this, I suppose it depends on what factions there are, but it feels a bit disappointing that all adventurers must be part of some faction. Where is the option to be faction-averse or just not caring about factions, I just want to have adventures, dammit!
@LadyRhian - My understanding is that the "factions" bit is for Organized Play which will be set in the Forgotten Realms. I don't think this will be the standard in character creation.
@SirK8 I hope not. And I can understand why they want a whole "Organized Play" thing, but it makes D&D Next feel like a pen and paper version of WoW, and that's kind of not what I want, you know?
@LadyRhian - In that interview he specifically mentions organized play -
"The other half of it is introducing to organized play the concept of factions. If you think of the starter set, those characters will be tied into the adventure. Factions will do something similar but for organized play."
So only if you are participating in WotC's organized play (I'll admit I'm not an expert on that, but I think something like LFR) factions will not be part of the character creation, at least that's my understanding. Factions definitely weren't in the playtest and even if they plan to introduce it as a rule at release I'm fairly certain it would be optional.
Overall I wouldn't be concerned about factions, I've not seen anything to indicate that factions will be an integral part of the core rules.
I think I've steered this thread a bit off topic, but one last plug here. I plan to run the Starter adventure as a PbP on rpol.net, a community I recently discovered that seems to have a great setup for PbP. Here is the link to my game http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=60227 if anyone is interested in a 5e game using the basic rules (all that's available until PHB releases in August) run by a n00b DM The game is in a "pre-setup" phase obviously until I can purchase the Starter set in July.
I've been reading this thread for a while now and I think its high time to throw in my own spores for thought. I've played AD&D, 3.5 and am currently running a pathfinder game and have played 4e once (Hated it but I'll get to that later) and I've GMed for almost all the games I've been in, so i have working knowlage of every system. The thing is, there is no best system. There are however things I like from each system. AD&D has my favorite lore and setting as well as flavor. I love the customization of 3.5 the streamlining of pathfinder and heck I'd even admit to liking the combat/daily/whenever powers and items from 4e. I've never been a stickler for rules, so what I've been doing is slowly frankenstiening the my favorite parts from every system into my own personal one with the same group. I use AD&Ds lore and campaign setting including some of the restrictions e.g. Clerics can only use crushing weapons, the gods and goddesses, setting ect. I hate playing AD&Ds system though, I never get THAC0, I think the saves are contrived and stupid, The class restrictions are just infuriating as well as multiclassing. It was groundbreaking for its time but now I think its just plain outdated and really shows its age. I love how 3.5 can allow you to literally create any character you come up with. How in the games systems there is literally nothing limiting you but your imagination. The system is designed to allow for absolute freedom, Feats are an easy way to develop your character and weapon proficiency have been replaced with combat feats. I also like how it added Combat maneuvers which add a whole new level of play to combat if used right, I like how skills handle Out of combat proficiencies because you can have a lot of fun with them with some imagination. Like hurting the player or really throwing a cog into the players plans with a botched diplomacy check. I do think however there are way to many skills that aren't differentiated enough e.g. Search and Spot; Balance and Tumble; Hide and Move Silently . The customization also allows for huge amounts of abuse. I've seen on a optimization sight that if you use every splat book officially published that you can turn a druid into a greater god by level 4. Also the dead levels really suck. I'm in a love hate relationship with Pathfinder. Its DnD 3.75, it streamlines so much of 3.5 but at the same time breaks so much. The first game I had ran with a Paladin that was so good in and out of combat that I had to create challenges for her, and challenges for the rest of the party and it really bogged everything down. I love the skills in pathfinders, they make so much more sense than in 3.5 and are a lot easier to manage, I also love what they did with Combat maneuvers with Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, it saves so much time. Pathfinder would have been my ideal system if it weren't for 1 thing. The feats, dear lord, the feats. So many of the feats in pathfinder are so overpowered and so gamebreaking that I downright require a player to tell me what each feat does. If I have to do that, then you have made a terrible design choice. I won't lie, I hate 4e, I really do. It feels like World of Warcraft, hell it was probably designed that way to draw in the WoW crowd. 4e is too balanced, there's hardly any difference in classes outside the meta roles that each class subscribes to, which the players guide outright tells you about, the Controller, Striker, Leader and Defender. DnD took a huge step back with this. Instead of allowing you to choose a class and slowly work it to what role you want it to be. The class you take is forced into the role that WotC gave it. Sure classes before hand were suited to specific roles but they weren't bound to them like in 4e. There is incredibly little imagination or variation on what you can do with those classes. If you are a fighter, you are a tank, that is it. If you are a ranger, you are a damage dealer, that is it. If you are a mage, you are a controller that is it. If you are a leader class, you are a buff giver, that is it. Its boring, its contrived, and it stifles creativity. I do like however, some of the the encounter/daily/whenever powers that players get, and I downright love a lot of the items and special enchantments that 4e came up with.
So now that I've created a wall of text that the Night's Watch would be proud to call home I guess I'll tell you how I Frankenstein it all together. I use AD&D's setting before spell plague, before Time of Troubles, before all of that rot. Then I start with 3.5's system. I replace the 3.5 skills with Pathfinders and Fill out some of the dead levels with Pathfinders levels and I'll allow players to take some of 4e's powers converted to 3.5 as feats . I outright refuse Pathfinders feats in favor of 3.5's. I then allow players to use 4e's equipment 3.5-ized and if any problem arise I take them case by case and rule accordingly.
@OneAngryMushroom I didn't read the whole Wall of the Faith--Text but I did read most parts and I agree about the ADnD lore.
Personally, I prefer Bhaal and Myrkul instead of the idiotic Cyric that acts like the Joker from Batman and Kelemvor that is the neutral Judge of the Damned. Wasn't Jergal already that more or less? Now he's his butler.
Bhaal is the calculating assassin and a whole game series revolved around him. And Myrkul is basically the Grim Reaper, or the Horseman Death.
But I cannot stand the game rules and restrictions of ADnD. My favorite part of them though are Kits and multiclasses, though.
They're an easy way to choose your class without qualifying for prestige classes. Pathfinder basically did that with the Archetypes. Variations of the existing classes that function like Kits.
For example in one of the ADnD sourcebooks, there is a Chaotic Neutral Wild (Green) Elf Druid of Rillfane Rallathil.
IMO, 2E did have "feats". They were called "nonweapon proficiencies", and were mainly skills that were not essential to the effective functioning of a class, including singing, swimming, etc.
After 2E, the system was changed into a "feats" system, and included skills that were essential or relevant to the effective functioning of a class. That was the terrible design decision that turned everything downhill for old-timers like me. The new system increased customizability, but at the expense of the uniqueness of the classes. This contributed to the rise of powerbuilds as class distinctions became blurred and players could build characters that combined the best of multiple worlds.
This is a reflection of the evolution of gaming - this is the modding era where rules are despised for being restrictive and mob power forces game creators to pander to them. Hate a rule for being "restrictive" because you cannot do everything that you want? Demand for it to be removed. Dislike a gaming mechanic? Mod it away. Ironically, after the rules are lifted, with the rise of powerbuilds, the joke is on the players who are creating power characters that are basically mirrors of one another.
I am not particularly sorry that I pulled out from DnD. Not that an old-timer like me would be missed by the current batch of gamers either, including several on this forum, I would think.
I love how 3.5 can allow you to literally create any character you come up with. How in the games systems there is literally nothing limiting you but your imagination. The system is designed to allow for absolute freedom
I have always held the opinion that 3.5 wanted to be GURPS, which is the most flexible system ever created from a player's point of view. That being said, that system can really get complicated with its vast amount of rules which try to cover every situation imaginable. As you note, the first rule of group play should be "everyone is having a good time". If ridiculous restrictions are preventing this from happening then ignore or remove the restrictions or, as you did, pick and choose the good things from a couple of rule systems and fit them into a context which works.
I agree with you, though, that the best days of the Forgotten Realm were before the Time of Troubles and the subsequent Spellplague, which in my opinion was just a way to kill off characters and justify removing people's names from books for publishing rights/royalties.
The problem with "open" games systems like 3.x (and Pathfinder) have tried to be is that they're only as good as the players. I've had fun playing those games, but it only takes one guy who's decided to powergame his way through to spoil a group, especially if a DM lets him away with it.
4e got a lot of stick for trying to be WoW, but truthfully it felt more like a JRPG: you travel the world meeting people and following the plot, but as soon as combat starts you're stuck in a slow, grindy turn-based wargame. It did a lot of stuff right (making Wizards useful at lvl1, but not letting Fighters feel left behind by lvl10) but the overall boost in survivability that characters had just meant combat took twice as long to resolve.
I'm currently back to playing in two 2e games right now and I'm actually looking forward to seeing what 5e does. 2e feels decently fast-paced in that we can have a fight with half-a-dozen PCs that will be done in 25 minutes rather than an entire session.
Comments
Also, I think some of the stuff is already available for pre-order on Amazon
I am not impressed.
Here's a post at EN World that also has some other useful info about the release.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1631-Dungeons-Dragons-Starter-Set-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Fundamentals-(D-D-Boxed-Game)-Hits-Amazon!
Also any adventures released by WOTC that use rules/monsters, etc not already in Basic will either have those in the adventure itself or the free pdf will be updated to include them. So potentially if you are satisfied with the options in "basic" you can still play the game using those adventures alongside those playing with the options in PHB. The 3 "core" books are in an optional purchase (I want more options) rather than a requirement to play the game.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls
"The other half of it is introducing to organized play the concept of factions. If you think of the starter set, those characters will be tied into the adventure. Factions will do something similar but for organized play."
So only if you are participating in WotC's organized play (I'll admit I'm not an expert on that, but I think something like LFR) factions will not be part of the character creation, at least that's my understanding. Factions definitely weren't in the playtest and even if they plan to introduce it as a rule at release I'm fairly certain it would be optional.
Overall I wouldn't be concerned about factions, I've not seen anything to indicate that factions will be an integral part of the core rules.
I've played AD&D, 3.5 and am currently running a pathfinder game and have played 4e once (Hated it but I'll get to that later) and I've GMed for almost all the games I've been in, so i have working knowlage of every system.
The thing is, there is no best system. There are however things I like from each system. AD&D has my favorite lore and setting as well as flavor. I love the customization of 3.5 the streamlining of pathfinder and heck I'd even admit to liking the combat/daily/whenever powers and items from 4e. I've never been a stickler for rules, so what I've been doing is slowly frankenstiening the my favorite parts from every system into my own personal one with the same group.
I use AD&Ds lore and campaign setting including some of the restrictions e.g. Clerics can only use crushing weapons, the gods and goddesses, setting ect. I hate playing AD&Ds system though, I never get THAC0, I think the saves are contrived and stupid, The class restrictions are just infuriating as well as multiclassing. It was groundbreaking for its time but now I think its just plain outdated and really shows its age.
I love how 3.5 can allow you to literally create any character you come up with. How in the games systems there is literally nothing limiting you but your imagination. The system is designed to allow for absolute freedom, Feats are an easy way to develop your character and weapon proficiency have been replaced with combat feats. I also like how it added Combat maneuvers which add a whole new level of play to combat if used right, I like how skills handle Out of combat proficiencies because you can have a lot of fun with them with some imagination. Like hurting the player or really throwing a cog into the players plans with a botched diplomacy check. I do think however there are way to many skills that aren't differentiated enough e.g. Search and Spot; Balance and Tumble; Hide and Move Silently . The customization also allows for huge amounts of abuse. I've seen on a optimization sight that if you use every splat book officially published that you can turn a druid into a greater god by level 4. Also the dead levels really suck.
I'm in a love hate relationship with Pathfinder. Its DnD 3.75, it streamlines so much of 3.5 but at the same time breaks so much. The first game I had ran with a Paladin that was so good in and out of combat that I had to create challenges for her, and challenges for the rest of the party and it really bogged everything down. I love the skills in pathfinders, they make so much more sense than in 3.5 and are a lot easier to manage, I also love what they did with Combat maneuvers with Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, it saves so much time. Pathfinder would have been my ideal system if it weren't for 1 thing. The feats, dear lord, the feats. So many of the feats in pathfinder are so overpowered and so gamebreaking that I downright require a player to tell me what each feat does. If I have to do that, then you have made a terrible design choice.
I won't lie, I hate 4e, I really do. It feels like World of Warcraft, hell it was probably designed that way to draw in the WoW crowd. 4e is too balanced, there's hardly any difference in classes outside the meta roles that each class subscribes to, which the players guide outright tells you about, the Controller, Striker, Leader and Defender. DnD took a huge step back with this. Instead of allowing you to choose a class and slowly work it to what role you want it to be. The class you take is forced into the role that WotC gave it. Sure classes before hand were suited to specific roles but they weren't bound to them like in 4e. There is incredibly little imagination or variation on what you can do with those classes. If you are a fighter, you are a tank, that is it. If you are a ranger, you are a damage dealer, that is it. If you are a mage, you are a controller that is it. If you are a leader class, you are a buff giver, that is it. Its boring, its contrived, and it stifles creativity. I do like however, some of the the encounter/daily/whenever powers that players get, and I downright love a lot of the items and special enchantments that 4e came up with.
So now that I've created a wall of text that the Night's Watch would be proud to call home I guess I'll tell you how I Frankenstein it all together. I use AD&D's setting before spell plague, before Time of Troubles, before all of that rot. Then I start with 3.5's system. I replace the 3.5 skills with Pathfinders and Fill out some of the dead levels with Pathfinders levels and I'll allow players to take some of 4e's powers converted to 3.5 as feats . I outright refuse Pathfinders feats in favor of 3.5's. I then allow players to use 4e's equipment 3.5-ized and if any problem arise I take them case by case and rule accordingly.
Personally, I prefer Bhaal and Myrkul instead of the idiotic Cyric that acts like the Joker from Batman and Kelemvor that is the neutral Judge of the Damned.
Wasn't Jergal already that more or less? Now he's his butler.
Bhaal is the calculating assassin and a whole game series revolved around him.
And Myrkul is basically the Grim Reaper, or the Horseman Death.
But I cannot stand the game rules and restrictions of ADnD. My favorite part of them though are Kits and multiclasses, though.
They're an easy way to choose your class without qualifying for prestige classes.
Pathfinder basically did that with the Archetypes. Variations of the existing classes that function like Kits.
For example in one of the ADnD sourcebooks, there is a Chaotic Neutral Wild (Green) Elf Druid of Rillfane Rallathil.
That's two violations or exceptions in an ADnD NPC. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Aerilaya
IMO, 2E did have "feats". They were called "nonweapon proficiencies", and were mainly skills that were not essential to the effective functioning of a class, including singing, swimming, etc.
After 2E, the system was changed into a "feats" system, and included skills that were essential or relevant to the effective functioning of a class. That was the terrible design decision that turned everything downhill for old-timers like me. The new system increased customizability, but at the expense of the uniqueness of the classes. This contributed to the rise of powerbuilds as class distinctions became blurred and players could build characters that combined the best of multiple worlds.
This is a reflection of the evolution of gaming - this is the modding era where rules are despised for being restrictive and mob power forces game creators to pander to them. Hate a rule for being "restrictive" because you cannot do everything that you want? Demand for it to be removed. Dislike a gaming mechanic? Mod it away. Ironically, after the rules are lifted, with the rise of powerbuilds, the joke is on the players who are creating power characters that are basically mirrors of one another.
I am not particularly sorry that I pulled out from DnD. Not that an old-timer like me would be missed by the current batch of gamers either, including several on this forum, I would think.
As you note, the first rule of group play should be "everyone is having a good time". If ridiculous restrictions are preventing this from happening then ignore or remove the restrictions or, as you did, pick and choose the good things from a couple of rule systems and fit them into a context which works.
I agree with you, though, that the best days of the Forgotten Realm were before the Time of Troubles and the subsequent Spellplague, which in my opinion was just a way to kill off characters and justify removing people's names from books for publishing rights/royalties.
4e got a lot of stick for trying to be WoW, but truthfully it felt more like a JRPG: you travel the world meeting people and following the plot, but as soon as combat starts you're stuck in a slow, grindy turn-based wargame. It did a lot of stuff right (making Wizards useful at lvl1, but not letting Fighters feel left behind by lvl10) but the overall boost in survivability that characters had just meant combat took twice as long to resolve.
I'm currently back to playing in two 2e games right now and I'm actually looking forward to seeing what 5e does. 2e feels decently fast-paced in that we can have a fight with half-a-dozen PCs that will be done in 25 minutes rather than an entire session.