Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

AD&D 5th Edition attempts at fixing 4th Edition - facepalm

2»

Comments

  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,425
    To be fair, Ed Greenwood and Salvatore's books were never really that good to begin with IMO. I find the Dragonlance series more compelling. I think the main problem is that you have to be familiar with Forgotten Realms in order to have some enjoyment with these books.

    Also its sad to ignore 5th edition considering is a pretty good system compared to 4th.

    Wandering_Minstrelhelmo1977
  • ThrasymachusThrasymachus Member Posts: 629

    The biggest sin, in my eyes, was the destruction of the Planescape setting...

    Planescape -- or at least the Great Wheel and Sigil -- is back in 5th edition. (Sigil is discussed on p.68 of the 5e DMG.)

    VallmyrShapiroKeatsDarkMageMagpieRandoms
  • helmo1977helmo1977 Member Posts: 364
    Aramintai said:

    So, I've been reading what they've cooked up for Forgotten Realms setting in 5th Edition and how all the Spellplague clusterfuck is supposedly fixed with the Sundering event along with the resurrection of many of the dead gods, for example, such as Mystra (yet again, lol), Eilistraee and the dynamic trio- The Dead Three - Bane, Myrkul and Bhaal.

    I wouldn't even call 4th edition a proper AD&D and it seems that changes in FR setting were made without the consent of the major FR writers such as Ed Greenwood or R.A. Salvatore, who now for 5th edition have to write books, where they try to explain what the ef happened during this transition. Although the books themselves are no less facepalm worty as R.A. Salvatore, for example, had no other ideas other than to reincarnate long dead Drizzt's friends - Cattie-Brie, Regis and Bruenor - into other characters. Regis now is a halfling/water genasi, lol.

    Furthermore, for the Bhaalspawn saga they came up with a dumb story about how that godawful character Abdel Adrian (who somehow managed to live for over a century) was finally killed by none other than Viekang, who turned into a monster and was subsequently killed later as well, lol. Good riddance. But that's all minor compared to the resurrection of Bhaal himself as greater power. Bhaalspawn saga is totally screwed.

    Personally, since 4th Bullshit Edition came out and butchered FR and Planescape settings I'm in denial and no longer consider anything that came out after the 3d Edition as canon, cuz all of that later stupidity was written by total hacks who have no proper knowledge or respect for the settings.

    Well, simply forget about the Spellplague and most thing it did to FR. That is my way of taking it. FR 4th edition and that idiotic Spellplague never happened. The world just gave a 100 years lapse and that is all. IN that period some things changed, and that is all, but the world remained as usual, something reinforced by 5th edition taking many of the 4th edition changes back.

    5th edition IS 4th edition. The so called 4th edition never happened, in my view.

    killerrabbitShapiroKeatsDarkMagesemiticgodMagpieRandoms
  • helmo1977helmo1977 Member Posts: 364

    Aramintai said:

    R.A. Salvatore, for example, had no other ideas other than to reincarnate long dead Drizzt's friends

    Without getting into the advisability of the idea or the success/failure of the execution (I haven't read the book yet myself):

    I'd be less quick to condemn the creative instincts of someone writing in a shared world in this way. Salvatore likely has more leeway than most writers in doing what he wants, but to the best of my knowledge he doesn't own the characters. It's certainly possible--if it was a writer of lesser stature I'd even say it was likely--that the idea of restoring/reincarnating previously established characters was one that came down from on high. That idea of restoration/resurrection seemed to run through a lot of the Sundering, with the return of Bhaal, the lost continents, etc.

    The desires of creators often run counter to those of management, and in a shared world environment, the management's going to win most of those arguments. If such an argument occurs, the creator is left with an unpalatable option: walk away or try to execute the idea as best they can. I imagine that decision would be even harder to make for a creator who invested a signficant amount of time creating the characters and helping build a successful franchise.

    I'm absolutely NOT saying that's what happened in this case. I'm just saying that professional work for hire writers sometimes have to write the story they're given rather than the one they want.
    I would dare to say that Salvatore had soemthing like reincarnation/resurrection on mind far before 4th (or even 3rd) edition came out. After all, he (or anybody else who would have tought about it) could clearly see two things:

    1. His characters had very different lifespans. From the 800 years of a drow (Drizzt) to the 70 years (or 80, at most) of Catti Brie or Wulfgar. IN fact the literature about that problem in the Salvatore books is constant and dates back to 2nd edition.

    2. Knowing that different D&D editions (so different FR books editions) came out over time, it might happen that, in one of those, the "bosses" decided for a big lapse in the FR date.

    Concluding, I think Salvatore, to some extent, anticipated to a thing that was a real and predictible "danger" to his characters, so I think the decision about reincarnation/resurrection wasnt taken on the blink of an eye.

    killerrabbit
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    @helmo1977

    I mostly agree -- my solution for the realms was taken from Dr. Who and the Dark Crystal (love that movie). Mystra is the god of time, her death created a rupture in time that some brave adventurers had to heal. Once it was healed, time was reset to a few minutes after her death. 4th edition exists as "Dark Faerun" in an alternate universe.

    I also think andrewfoley is right -- these decision are as much social as they about preserving the setting. If wizards had gone with my plan the people writing novels about their tiefling warlocks would have been pissed because they had relegated to sandbox where they had no impact on the rest of the setting.

    Still. 4th just wasn't D&D and the "lets blow everything up attitude sucked"

    But 5th is the best thing since 2nd.

    semiticgod
  • filcat88filcat88 Member Posts: 115
    Personally, I would say that 5th edition is great. The rules are way more straightforward, even compared to 3.5th. The advantage/disadvantage mechanism is also a great idea.
    I cannot say about 4th edition, because I did not use it, but from revisions seems to be the worst ever.

    And I'd reccomend to read the sundering book story-line. It is epic. I enjoy very much the character of Faridhei, the tiefling warlock.

    FardragonMagpieRandoms
  • alceryesalceryes Member Posts: 373
    edited July 2016
    As an offshoot of D&D 3e., Pathfinder is pretty good. I would recommend it to those who are frustrated with 4e and 5e.
    As far as the forgotten realms and the sundering goes, I've read a couple of the books and thought they were...okay.
    I don't really mind the idea of a 'world resurrection'. Even if they weren't included in the original planning, the primary authors did get tons of new content possibilities. It's in the execution that I think they, not necessarily failed, but missed the big boat. They could have done soooo much with the 'blank slate'.
    Instead, I got the picture of a god putting quarters into a gumball machine and popping out Bruenor, Cattie-Brie, Regis, and Wulfgar. (crank-crank-crank, damn it! Licorice again?!?)

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I would say Pathfinder has become somewhat overcomplicated if you haven't got a veteran DM. 5th edition is more straightforward.

    I personally don't rate the FR setting very highly. Beyond familiarity it doesn't have much going for it. Golarion (Pathfinder setting) takes what the FR has and somehow makes it more interesting.

    VallmyrKuronaMagpieRandoms
  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 1,028
    Fardragon said:

    I would say Pathfinder has become somewhat overcomplicated if you haven't got a veteran DM. 5th edition is more straightforward.

    I personally don't rate the FR setting very highly. Beyond familiarity it doesn't have much going for it. Golarion (Pathfinder setting) takes what the FR has and somehow makes it more interesting.

    "Familiarity breeds contempt," or so they say. The Realms may be more interesting if it wasn't for all the video games and books being set in it. I enjoy it, sure, but I've come to enjoy Eberron a lot more, and I'm not that into steampunk/magitech settings normally. I've only played one game set in it, so it keeps me interested.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    Nah, I would say the FR's appearance in so many games is it's strong point. It's weakness is it's a cobbled together hodgepodge of every generic fantasy trope imaginable. I don't much care for Eberron either. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, Dragonlance and Spelljammer are better.

  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,851
    I really like 5e. But I also only give a damn about the rules and gameplay, not the universe. I know so little about D&D's setting it's kind of laughable.

    MagpieRandoms
  • ZilberZilber Member Posts: 253
    Personally, I think the 5th system is the best (d&d, I still prefer Ars Magica but that is a different type of game), but do not use its lore. My new campaign is built around the Kingmaker adventure path, and I found I liked that world better. If only I still had my 3rd edition divine book.

  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,340
    what a co-winky-dink I was just playing 5e today with a bunch of chums, it seems to me that 5th edition really tried to simplify absolutely everything which is pretty good I guess, but for the life of us, we couldn't find anyway in the players hand book if you could legitimately tumble pass baddies to run back to the group, so I assume you have to do a lot of house ruling sometimes

  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 1,028
    5e is all about "Make rulings, not rules." In plain American, it's more about the DM's ability to make things up on the fly rather than hard-coded rules scattered about a couple dozen books (like 3e/3.5e/Path.) So you'd have to talk to your DM about tumbling past enemies. Though there is the "Disengage" action which when you take it (using up your Action in the process,) you can move without enacting any Opportunity Attacks.

    If you want to imagine your character doing a sweet somersault as they move through enemies, you certainly can. Theatre of the Mind is strong with 5e.

    FardragonMagpieRandoms
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I figured the whole point of tumbling was the ability to do things like cartwheel over enemies heads and that kind of stuff, so I would certainly allow it.

    Although maybe not against a gelatinous cube.

    semiticgodMagpieRandoms
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,350
    5th edition does simplify a lot of things, and making it a lot easier to create a character sheet in a couple of minutes, which makes it excellent for one-shots and mini-campaigns.

    However, it lacks in character progression and customization. If those things are important to you, go with 3.5 or PF.

    Go with 4th if you really care a lot about strategic battles and challenges, rather than roleplaying.

  • ZilberZilber Member Posts: 253
    Thels said:

    5th edition does simplify a lot of things, and making it a lot easier to create a character sheet in a couple of minutes, which makes it excellent for one-shots and mini-campaigns.

    However, it lacks in character progression and customization. If those things are important to you, go with 3.5 or PF.

    Go with 4th if you really care a lot about strategic battles and challenges, rather than roleplaying.

    It does have character progression, quite a lot actually as there are no "dead" levels, and with the archetypes you get basic customisation earlier than prestige classes. Multiclassing is more limited, but that does not seem all that bad to me.
    I like fiddling, and don't mind taking a few hours to make a character sheet, I do Ars Magica (often subtitled "the Accounting"), but for D&D I prefer a simpler approach.

  • CalmarCalmar Member Posts: 688
    I like it that they incorporated stuff from BG into the new Forgotten Realms storyline. To me its very exciting that the game that got me, and probably many others, interested in D&D is finally included into the printed supplements.

    I'm glad they reverted the changes from 4E and I think they did it the best possible way.

    MagpieRandoms
  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,423
    So I was reading through the Sword Coast Adventure Guide for 5e and while I was saddened that in the gnome section there is no mention of their connection to the feywild it turns out my favorite Drow Goddess, Kiaransalee, is back! n_n

  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 1,028
    Vallmyr said:

    So I was reading through the Sword Coast Adventure Guide for 5e and while I was saddened that in the gnome section there is no mention of their connection to the feywild it turns out my favorite Drow Goddess, Kiaransalee, is back! n_n

    I don't know what I like more, the dwarf-related gnomes or the fey gnomes. Though I will say, the fey gnomes look rather weird... at least they did in 4e's artwork.

    Though, admittedly, gnomes always look weird, despite never really looking the same each edition...

  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,423
    For now I just assume

    Forest Gnomes - Fey-related with their ability to speak to small animals and illusion magic.

    Rock Gnomes - Dwarf-related with their con bonus and their ability to create and tinker with things.

    That way both fans are happy.

  • MagpieRandomsMagpieRandoms Member Posts: 72

    5e is all about "Make rulings, not rules." In plain American, it's more about the DM's ability to make things up on the fly rather than hard-coded rules scattered about a couple dozen books (like 3e/3.5e/Path.) So you'd have to talk to your DM about tumbling past enemies. Though there is the "Disengage" action which when you take it (using up your Action in the process,) you can move without enacting any Opportunity Attacks.

    If you want to imagine your character doing a sweet somersault as they move through enemies, you certainly can. Theatre of the Mind is strong with 5e.

    Yes, the flexibility is a breath of fresh air. I know different people prefer different playing styles; some get VERY caught up in rules and numbers, but I personally prefer this way of playing (I'm more of a 'story' role-player than a 'stat' roleplayer), and after all what the DM says goes at the end of the day.

    And, as a fairly new player, it is comforting to me not to have every single mode of movement micro-managed by specific rules that need to be looked up or learned. I would find that exhausting and intimidating.

    CalmarAstroBryGuy
  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,350
    I don't really agree that that's entirely new to 5e. There's nothing in 3.x saying that you have to do exactly as it says in all the splat books.

    Think something is particularly difficult due to the current situation? Award a -2 or -4 penalty. Particularly easy? Award a +2 or +4 bonus. I've done that plenty of times in 3.x and PF as well. As long as you're both consistent and fair towards your players about it, nothing wrong about it.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    edited August 2016
    sarevok57 said:

    what a co-winky-dink I was just playing 5e today with a bunch of chums, it seems to me that 5th edition really tried to simplify absolutely everything which is pretty good I guess, but for the life of us, we couldn't find anyway in the players hand book if you could legitimately tumble pass baddies to run back to the group, so I assume you have to do a lot of house ruling sometimes

    There's two ways to do it, actually; one is the Disengage action (which allows you to move out of a creature's reach without provoking opportunity attacks), and the other is the Dodge action (which grants your attackers disadvantage on their attack rolls against you until the start of your next turn). 5e doesn't enforce skill checks on those actions, and doesn't dictate how your character performs them, but that's the strategic niche they fulfill.

  • helmo1977helmo1977 Member Posts: 364
    edited August 2016
    sarevok57 said:

    what a co-winky-dink I was just playing 5e today with a bunch of chums, it seems to me that 5th edition really tried to simplify absolutely everything which is pretty good I guess, but for the life of us, we couldn't find anyway in the players hand book if you could legitimately tumble pass baddies to run back to the group, so I assume you have to do a lot of house ruling sometimes

    That is why some smart boss at TSR (a lot of years ago) thought about selling us additional sourcebooks (the complete figther, everthing about magic... and those kind of books).

    Things like tumbling should appear in the core books, imho. Anyway, if you have 3rd edition, try to adapt the tumbling rules for 5th edition. 3rd edition was the most complete one regarding rules, imho.

Sign In or Register to comment.