D&D 5E If 5E is going back to vancian plus "some tinkering" isn't this...

[Otakkun]

just going to help Pathfinder?

Honestly I find this business decision of WotC to be very hard to understand. As things are right now, Pathfinder owns 3.5E and fixing what 3.5E was actually about (feats & vancian magic) feels like a very BAD idea to me.

The fact that they are so very concerned about balance issues is also a bad symptom in my book, as I believe D&D will continue to morph into a bastardised version of a pen&paper mmorpg. Balance the fighter vs the wizard at ALL levels? That seems to me like someone trying to balance a fiat vs a porshe in horsepower & fuel economy at the same time. Good luck with that.

Still, best wishes to Mearls & Co. on this venture, but I seriously doubt they are going to come up with a winner here. The more I hear about it, the more 5E feels like Pathfinder 2.0 to me (or 3.75E for that matter)

 

[Matt James]

I think you have a misconception on what they're actually trying to do.

 

[Otakkun]

Here's hoping you're right...

 

[Dausuul]

Honestly I find this business decision of WotC to be very hard to understand. As things are right now, Pathfinder owns 3.5E and fixing what 3.5E was actually about (feats & vancian magic) feels like a very BAD idea to me.

How the heck does Pathfinder own either feats or Vancian magic? Vancian magic has been the rule in every edition of D&D ever, 4E included. (4E loved Vancian magic so much it gave it to every class.) And feats play just as much a role in 4E as they do in Pathfinder.

The fact that they are so very concerned about balance issues is also a bad symptom in my book, as I believe D&D will continue to morph into a bastardised version of a pen&paper mmorpg.

Piffle. D&D designers have worried about balance since Gary Gygax--he wrote about it in the 1E DMG. In many respects, casters were better balanced in 1E than they were in 3E, and it sounds like Mike Mearls is trying to revive some of those balance mechanisms, like making spell disruption into a real threat again.

The more I hear about it, the more 5E feels like Pathfinder 2.0 to me (or 3.75E for that matter)

The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like AD&D Reborn (or possibly BD&D). While I have some quibbles with particular implementations, the overall trend looks pretty good.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No: i wouldn´t run a pathfinder game... as I won´t run a 3.5 game anymore.

The implementation of the vancian magic is what turned me off. Even if it looks similar to ADnD magic system, it is not.

5e seems to improve upon the ADnD system. Which means: spells can be interrupted. (This was the first thing I noticed)

No spell failure + 5ft step back and attack made spells too powerful and someone defending you unnecessary.

 

[hafrogman]

Their stated objective isn't to make a new 3.X or a new 4th or even a new AD&D (or BD&D or OD&D). The goal seems more like trying to create an edition that a fan of any of those can sit down and play without feeling like they're betraying that sacred trust between man (or woman/neuter) and PHB.

I don't know if they can manage it, but if they can it'll be a monumental achievement. I'm sure that just like every other version of D&D, 5e will be SOME person's favorite edition. But for me, they will have met their goal if instead they can make EVERY person's second favorite edition. That way I can get together a group of disparate people to play a game of D&D without it devolving into bloodsports and Godwinism over what edition to play. Then we can ignore all the rhetoric and get down to enjoying the hobby that supposedly unites us.

"5e? Yeah, I can live with that." It's not exactly a rallying cry, but it'd still be amazing.

 

[the Jester]

just going to help Pathfinder?

What, by selling a non-Pathfinder product to Pathfinder players?

Honestly I find this business decision of WotC to be very hard to understand. As things are right now, Pathfinder owns 3.5E and fixing what 3.5E was actually about (feats & vancian magic) feels like a very BAD idea to me.

No, Pathfinder doesn't own 3.5e. WotC owns it; PF is a knock-off retroclone (by which I don't mean to denigrate it, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?). And 3.5 wasn't actually about feats and Vancian magic- it was about heroes and monsters and treasure and magic. Feats and Vancian magic are just a part of the implementation, and neither one is exclusive to 3.5.

The fact that they are so very concerned about balance issues is also a bad symptom in my book, as I believe D&D will continue to morph into a bastardised version of a pen&paper mmorpg.

Balance has been a concern since the very beginning of gaming.

Balance the fighter vs the wizard at ALL levels? That seems to me like someone trying to balance a fiat vs a porshe in horsepower & fuel economy at the same time.

Seems like what every version of D&D that uses the same xp chart for all classes has tried to do. It also sounds like you are saying "Too hard!", but don't you think it's a laudable goal?

Still, best wishes to Mearls & Co. on this venture, but I seriously doubt they are going to come up with a winner here. The more I hear about it, the more 5E feels like Pathfinder 2.0 to me (or 3.75E for that matter)

Why not wait 9 more days for the public playtest material instead of making up your mind based on website musings? In just over a week we'll all have a better idea of what 5e is going to look like, even granting that we're in alpha mode and will only the first bit of information.

 

[Surmos]

just going to help Pathfinder?

Honestly I find this business decision of WotC to be very hard to understand. As things are right now, Pathfinder owns 3.5E and fixing what 3.5E was actually about (feats & vancian magic) feels like a very BAD idea to me.

The fact that they are so very concerned about balance issues is also a bad symptom in my book, as I believe D&D will continue to morph into a bastardised version of a pen&paper mmorpg. Balance the fighter vs the wizard at ALL levels? That seems to me like someone trying to balance a fiat vs a porshe in horsepower & fuel economy at the same time. Good luck with that.

Still, best wishes to Mearls & Co. on this venture, but I seriously doubt they are going to come up with a winner here. The more I hear about it, the more 5E feels like Pathfinder 2.0 to me (or 3.75E for that matter)

I honestly believe I would rather them focus on a balanced game and a balanced set of systems as opposed to focus on a perception that could potentially knock off balance to maintain that perception. As I have said before in a previous thread, D&D does have a history and a lot of lore behind it and undoubtedly that history and lore need to come out in the game, but I don't feel like game balance has to suffer significantly for that to happen.

 

[Stormonu]

That seems to me like someone trying to balance a fiat vs a porshe in horsepower & fuel economy at the same time. Good luck with that.

There is somewhat of a point in this. If we were trying to make the equivilant of, say a Pinto (Thief or Fighter) and a Porche (Cleric or Wizard) cost the same (akin to needing the same XP to advance), they'd have to be comparible in performance. And you're going to have outcry from the side who needs economy (and the price has been raised due to "extras") vs. the sporty who hate the downgrades (loss of some of the "prestige" factors). In the end, you may end up with something nobody wants.

While I think it would be beneficial to bring both ends a bit towards the middle, I don't like the homizination that seemed to bring in 4E (as if everyone is a stock car). There may be something to be said for leaving different classes having different costs (not neccesarily different XP, but some form of a " for a tat") built in so that they can work at different power levels without being the one everyone grabs for.

After all, no matter how suped up a Pinto is, it isn't going to beat a porche in the 1/4 mile. And making a rule "no sports cars can participate in this drag race" is just going to tick off a bunch of folks. We'd be better off if the Pinto were replaced with a Camry (that could be tweaked), and we didn't limit ourselves to 1/4 mile drag races (How well is your porche going to do in a cross-county road trip? Or a demolition derby?)

 

[Dausuul]

All right, here's my inappropriate car analogy. Let's say you've got $25,000 to spend on a vehicle. You can use that money to buy yourself a sporty car that can go like a blue streak. Or you can get a super-efficient hybrid. Or you can get a pickup truck that isn't fast and isn't efficient but gets you free beer any time a friend needs to move. Any of these might be useful depending on your needs and preferences.

On the other hand, if you've got $5,000 to spend and your friend has $50,000, then assuming equal automotive savvy on both sides, your friend is going to drive a better car than you. End of story.

The goal of D&D should be to have some classes be sports cars, some be hybrids, and some be pickup trucks, in an environment where all of those vehicles are about equally useful, but to give everyone the same budget (with the size of that budget depending on party level).