View Full Version : Looking forward to 5e!

January 10th, 2012, 15:43
Thank you for the 5e forum! I've had fun playing 4e while it lasted, and I'll happily switch over to 5e when it launches. I'm looking forward to it! I just hope this one lasts longer than 4e did.

January 10th, 2012, 23:13
Hey, it lasted longer than 3.0, and almost as long as 3.5, so you can't really complain there. There's just only so much new stuff they can make in a system publishing a core book every 1.5 months before critical mass makes you have to start over and make everyone buy it all over again.

For the most part, I skipped 4e (and went Pathfinder). But I do plan on getting 5e if they are indeed going to mix and match old and new - there were lots of things in 4e that I did like, but the scaled down feel turned me off. If they can do the play pace of 4e and keep the character options and feel of 3e, I'd be happy.

January 11th, 2012, 04:37
6th Edition will be announced before 2018 I am sure.

January 11th, 2012, 15:04
How big do you think the chances are they'll revise their licensing and VTT strategy, and give Fantasy Grounds a chance?

January 11th, 2012, 16:32
Perhaps I'm being cynical (almost certainly) but WotC's history would seem to indicate little chance that they'll change their licensing policies unless there's money in it for them.

Illrigger, I'm curious if you've actually *seen* improved play pace in 4e? My experience last night (nearly an hour to run 2 rounds of combat with 5 experienced players and only 8 NPCs, half of whom weren't concentrating on the fight) doesn't seem to indicate any real improvement in that area, even with all the prep work I could do using Dr Z's awesome tools. We'll be picking that one up at round 3 next week and that's been typical of our combats, despite 4 years working with the system.


January 11th, 2012, 19:23
3 Words about combat:

Fast, Furious, Fun. Hopefully 5E will take a page in that...

January 11th, 2012, 20:58
This might make me jump ship over to Pathfinder, but I'm hoping the game changes for the better.

I do agree that even with FG2 combat in 4e is far too long. I think that for that to change the game would have to become less of a tactical combat game.

I've given up on trying to speed combat up and just accepted that long drawn out battles that span many sessions is what the game is about now.

January 12th, 2012, 05:41
How big do you think the chances are they'll revise their licensing and VTT strategy, and give Fantasy Grounds a chance?

Unfortuantely, my guess is next to none. With the Virtual Table just being in beta, I think it's pretty much a given that it will move to 5E as quickly as possible - they aren't going to sink a bunch of time and effort into something that isn't going forwards along the same path as the rest of the product line.

January 13th, 2012, 04:28
I also agree that 4e combat was too long, but I've always used a houserule that everyone I played with agreed. Monsters have 50% less HP and deal 2X damage. It may not be the best solution or keep balance but keeps battles fast and still dangerous.

January 13th, 2012, 10:36
3 Words about combat:

Fast, Furious, Fun. Hopefully 5E will take a page in that...

Darn right - after spending a whole 3-4 hour session on ONE D&D combat at a face to face game, there was no way I was going to try running that online, even with the awesomeness of FGII.

January 13th, 2012, 18:27
This was my BIGGEST gripe about 4e, there were some others but this was the biggest.

January 13th, 2012, 23:15
I have always found 3.5 to be a bit faster in combat then 4.0, but I did not play 4.0 long because I found it way too generic and boring.

My group and I have been using FG for a while now and we are starting to do 3.5 combats faster in FG then in person! When I DM I am finding it to be way faster. That sheet of monsters hit point is gone, replaced by that nice combat tracker that does it all. The larger the encounter the more combat is improved over in person games. A combat with 6 PC's and 20 Monsters runs so smooth in FG. Rolling 20 attacks takes less then a minute, no way I could do that in person.

Loving FG, cant wait for the next update!

Bleak Midwinter
January 14th, 2012, 10:17
With a group of experienced players, I've found (face to face) combats went very quickly. There is the occasional prevarication when someone decides whether the risk of provoking AOOs is worth it to set up combat advantage ... but really, that's the slight price of time in exchange for having a combat system which encourages thoughtfulness and tactics.

It certainly takes longer than a more 'fluffy' system where you don't take positioning into account, but I haven't yet found it to take longer than 3.0 or 3.5 when they also used combat maps. That being said: not tried D&D past level 14.

January 14th, 2012, 19:32
With a group of experienced players you can do alright in tabletop, and lighting fast using FG2.

But I guess many people might have faced the same problem as me, I've even printed combat carts to make the game faster, but whenever it was a players turn they went like "Huh... let's see what I'm gonna do..." and started to look at his own cards. If the game goes like this, no wonder the battle will take hours to finnish.

January 16th, 2012, 19:49
I had actually just quit D&D outright, in favor of straight role playing on Second Life (that is meterless RP. Not like WOW). However, having recently discovered Castle and Crusades, i'm definitely getting back into it.

I really did not like 4E in the least... it became too much like a video game/ collectible card game, and I know I certainly couldn't keep track of it.

WOTC did not have the same success that they did with 3E... and actually fractured their player base, buy turning their noses up at those of us who have been into it for years, in favor of trying to appeal to the WOW munchkin crowd.

They failed in both efforts... loosing many long time players, and not gaining significant new ones. Pathfinder, C&C, and other games quickly gobbled up those disenchanted with the new rules set.

5E will be an attempt to recapture that fractured base. I wish them well, but I'm not holding out much hope for them as long as Hasbro is pulling the strings.

January 17th, 2012, 05:35
Very true, Hasbro pushed for a new books every month, which just burned through new content and growth and they will repeat the same thing over again. They should take a look at Paizo and consider think about leaning more towards their model, cause they seem to be doing alot better. My other concern is the Living Campaign, cause if I have to start over again, well I won't be suffice to say, and honestly I am kinda irked about how everything, or at the very least nearly so end up as available even when it shouldn't.

January 27th, 2012, 07:34
Ironically, I found 4E combat to be greatly enhanced and quicker using FG2. On a typical night, we should get through 2-3 battles in a two hour period, plus a lot of exploring, RP, and general goofing off.

The key, for me, was to stress that players should be ready on their turn and, at worst, have a favorite power to default to if they aren't sure. No one player's turn should take more than a minute.

As for 5E, I wholeheartedly agree. I hope they continue to move D&D forward to a well balanced, easily managed (as a DM) game, but with more character in the characters and more of the variety of previous editions.

January 27th, 2012, 16:56
Personally, I'd like to see D&D go down the lines of some of the d20 OGL modifications I saw. Namely, a fixed Hit Point value set at character generation and increases to a Defence bonus to Armour Class per level. It means that, as you increase in level, you are less likely to get hit. But, when you do get hit, you get hurt. Knowing the AC breakdown can assist with the narration of the combat (so much being dodging the blow, so much being the armour defending you from the blow, etc.).

January 27th, 2012, 23:05
I will certainly be very interested to see what comes out of 5E, but I will be in no rush to adopt the game.

Too much investment has been made in 4E resources (and FG2), and frankly if I changed systems again, my players would revolt.

Once our 4E campaign is complete (I estimate around 2020 at this rate) I might look at 6E or 7E!

February 9th, 2012, 18:58
I am very curious to see the new material as well.
I have a sickness, where I have to acquire and read all new Table Top RPG resources. :(

March 2nd, 2012, 12:36
In 3rd edition, WotC wanted to take things "back to basics" and I honestly liked the game enough to play it for quite a while until 4th edition came out. I have never played 4th edition, but I will definitely be looking at the 5th edition rulebooks only because I'm very curious to see in what ways they will be changing the game rules -- for instance, how much of the "old old" rules will be brought back into the game? How much faster will the game run? How complicated wil it be and will it have massive customisation of characters, etc...

From trying to garner new players to now perhaps attempting to get back old players...hmm, WotC seems a little confused. I trust however that things will pan out well -- so long as they create the game we want.

March 8th, 2012, 02:23
Back when I was still playing, about an hour per encounter seemed to be our typical pacing. I really enjoyed 4E myself, and my primary reason for getting out of it was just a lack of time to commit to playing. If I was still doing FG2 games I'd probably be playing still, but we starting playing face-to-face a lot and FG2 just wasn't the same.

Now we just play Descent to get our hack-n-slash on.

But anyway, I didn't find 4E combat to be slow at all, when players weren't learning the game. But there were some good points already made regarding knowing what you're doing on your turn. Takh the goliath barbarian was ready to cleave faces on his turn, and the only reason my turns slowed the game down was laughing over a triple-crit round, or charging in between two green dragons and by some miracle not taking a single point of damage.

(I actually broke a tooth off one at the end and gashed his chest open with it at the end because my victory felt hollow.)

****, I miss playing. Anyway, I'm tentatively watching 5E to see what comes, the book factory kicked out with 4E was all that got on my nerves, and for now I'm undecided on getting back into RPGs.

March 9th, 2012, 03:15
I hope 5E continues to respect balance that 4E began, and I hope it also includes some of the always-something-to-do aspects of 4E.

I also hope it eliminates (by making it optional) the tactical miniatures game it had become after 2E.

We play a very fun (all about the adventure) version of 4E that's fast paced and about characters and laughter more than tactics and "powers". In freeing up the game, we've found ourselves playing much more often (heck, we've had weeks we've played 6 nights) and returning to the old feel of being characters adventuring instead of character sheets being used by people trying to find the best powers to use.

It's been wonderful.

From my perspective, that's what I hope 5E feels like right out of the shute.

(Edit: An example of pacing sees us going through 2 RP encounters and 3 combat encounters in 2 hours of play.)

March 21st, 2012, 18:43
Some of the major reasons our group left 4E was:
:cry: Amount of prep time
:cry: Slow combat rounds.
:pirate: With all the books and supplements it was a nightmare if there was a conflict in rules or debate if something works or not.
:cry: Not very riveting for smaller groups as your forced to fight Meh creatures a lot.
:mad: Without some serious time and effort, making enemies on the fly that were balanced or a challenge was near impossible

If 5E doesn't fix the lack of fluency no way an I going to touch it, We will just stick with Savage worlds. FFF ftw

March 21st, 2012, 22:08
I hope that they make 5E more about the "Adventure" than about character development. In my last 3.5 campaign the players let feats and skills determine how their pc's reacted to a situation. One player became so obsessed with building the "Perfect Character", that he told me he would need a week before he was ready to play.

April 9th, 2012, 11:49
I'm definately going to be interested in what 5th edition brings. I first cut my gaming teeth when AD&D waned and 3rd was coming out around 2000. This was my most familiar D&D. I stuck with it right through 3.5 but 4th ed was a totally different game to me. The dragonborn jsut popped out of nowhere, and we were supposed to just accept them into the pre-designed worlds like Faerun? The customization was gone, all fighters had 1 of 2 1st level at will powers even though one's a hulking axe wielder and another is a whip cracking duelist? (I later discovered the customization was held back to get to part with even more money for no less than 3 player's handbooks).

What 3.5 nailed for me and what Pathfinder continued was that creating your own unique character made the gaming experience yours on every level. While you could make a character in 4th with your custom backstory and appearance he seemed to play rather mechanically. Like in an MMO where the appearance is different and you spend a week writing fiction on the forum but in game it's still press hotkey 1 to use Mighty Swing! But in 3.5 with the Open Gaming License your background would be reason for a trait or feat, for a certain prestige class that let you do different things. Pathfinder has alternate racial traits, so if you're a more civilized half orc you can show it in the game mechanics. The rules have these legal flexibilities that are jsut spread out before you, bolt-on additions that make thinking up and fleshing out your character a joy because when you have him/her on the table what you thought up will make sense.

This flexibility seemed stifled in 4th, without the Open Gaming License it was dripped out over official expansions and sourcebooks and then still then they were large templates that seemed to change characters in narrow ways. If WoTC don't do an open gaming license for 5th i struggle to see how we will have the tools that make the RPG experience unique from say board games and computer games. From an FG perspective freedom over the content helps all of us, I always wondered how FG would cope when 4th emerged because we weren't free to use and experiment with the core mechanics the way we had gotten used to in 3rd.

I think as a reimagining of everything i liked about my most favourite D&D I'll still be playing Pathfinder for years to come but I'm willing to give 5th every shot to move this game forward. But they will need to do a lot for the creative roleplayers like myself that they seem to largely have not appreciated in 4th.

April 30th, 2012, 07:06
For the people who have 4e combat taking too long, the times qouoted in this thread are rediculous. I have been dming and playing 4e since it came out. I don't understand what takes everyone else so long to do a combat. Here are some tips I guess that I guess lend to faster fights and a better 4e game.
1. Victory conditions don't need total killing of other side.
2. When a battle is clearly over and the outcome is obvious let the story take over and don't waste time on mop up.
3. As DM F' the F'ing rules and own the pace of the game and own the rules. Make it up, don't waste time looking up or even discussing rules. Make a judgement quickly and move on.
4.Much of the time taken by players and the dm is not knowing what their powers and abilities are, if you are often reading your powers during your turn you don't know your character/monsters well enough, haven't been paying attention or like wasting time. If a player says oh wait I had an immediate interupt or as a DM I realize I should have had an Attack of Opportunity...well too bad, don't go back. The chance was missed. If players get too slow because of combat, not roleplaying on their turn, use the hour glass. Don't let players metagame or play like they are generals in a conference room during battles. Don't watch stupid you-tube videos when you should be prepping your turn or paying attention to the game.
5. Combat often doesn't opperate as intended because people are still trying to run 4e combat like it was earlier editions. It's combat is different, you can have experienced players from other editions or games but that doesn't mean they are good at 4e combat. Just because I might be amazing at Rugby doesn't mean I understand the tactics or flow, or anything with American Football.
6. Don't seperate combat from the rest of the game. Too often I hear things like oh man we had all this combat and no time for roll playing or exploration... well, in 4e Combat is a the perfect time to roleplay. WWF wrestlers or whatever the hell they are now are all roleplayers whoses moves, attitudes and personality all shine when they are in fake roleplay combat. Yeah sure they have their interviews and other fake stuff outside the ring but this notion that combat is seperate or isn't roleplay is bizarre to me.

OK I'm sure there are a million other things I could state o rbabble on about but to make a long story longer, yes 4e has issues as did every other version before it and every other game. Do with 4e what we've always done with prior versions of DnD, if you don't like something change it, make it work you're way. Own the rules don't let them own you.

About 5e, I hope it's good, but I won't know till I see it and then play it for a bit. All this love for Monte Cook, I have non...not a shred. He is resposible for my least favorite edition (which I played non-stop). 3e was bloated, unbalanced, a broken in so many ways I can't do it justice here. Monte Cook seems to not be able to commit to anything for very long and if you follow his career moves he is all over the place in opposite directions and it seems anytime he isn't totally in charge he has issues. His wife may feel the same (low blow I know). Anyways, I'm glad he is off the project because I don't like his style of game design.

Anyways I'll play DnD in all its forms till the day I can't lift my hand to roll a d20 because for all the differences in the additions and the changes it's always been fun and it will always be fun if you don't let the rules get in the way of your game.
Ok more ice cream...

April 30th, 2012, 14:47
Some of the major reasons our group left 4E was:
:cry: Amount of prep time

4e for all of its warts has been lauded, even by its critics, as being the easiest to prep and run if you don't have a lot of time. Are you comparing 4e to other DnD editions or to other systems?

:cry: Slow combat rounds.
see my ramblings in the post above

:pirate: With all the books and supplements it was a nightmare if there was a conflict in rules or debate if something works or not.

Also, there shouldn't be Rules debates at the table anyways. Too many supplements? Like what? compared to 3e/3.5? 2e? DnD "I'm Too Old or Set in My Ways to Learn Something New" Edition (Pathfinder). What edition has less supplements? I'll tell you right now, 5e will have **** tons of supplements.
I don't know what to say? There are so few conflicts in 4e it makes me wonder if your group understood how to use the rules.

:cry: Not very riveting for smaller groups as your forced to fight Meh creatures a lot.

You are never forced to do anything in a game of imagination.

:mad: Without some serious time and effort, making enemies on the fly that were balanced or a challenge was near impossible.

This statement, while being your opinion, is so wacky that it may actually just be an illusion that I have to dispel. 4e has so much balance that it is often cited as a weakness. Monsters and the math behind them make modifying and creating/adjusting monsters easier than stealing music from the interwebs. In fact, I bet monsters are one of the few things they keep almost untouched from 4e.

If 5E doesn't fix the lack of fluency no way an I going to touch it, We will just stick with Savage worlds. FFF ftw

5e will not:
* have less supplements
* increase a DM's ability to run the game, stop rules debates, understand or learn the rules, create imaginative monsters or run efficient and effective encounters
* stop you from feeling forced to do anything

I'm not sure if you have played other editions of DnD but if the things you don't like about 4e are an indicator DnD in general, regardless of edition may not be for you.

April 30th, 2012, 18:37
I'm definitely an old-school gamer, but I found a lot to like in 4e. Over-all, it seemed pretty well laid out and easy to system with some great mechanic simplifications, like "once per encounter" abilities, "once per day" abilities. Stuff like that is simple to understand and almost trivial to keep track of, especially in FG. But then then there was that sort-of over-all 'sameness' to some of the characters. I still can't believe there were no random encounter charts to be found anywhere - I really enjoy random encounters for what they are - 'random' - was extremely ticked off to find that they simply didn't exist anywhere, at least at the time I was looking. The idea that something so important to my style and enjoyment of playing was so unimportant to WotC that it was omitted was the first eye-opener that perhaps I was at the wrong party entirely.

What cinched it was in actual game play, if I had 3 NPCs to keep track of, I couldn't keep track of all the specifics of all their abilities. I started off thinking, "OK, I just need to memorize these 8 (or 12 or whatever) abilities and the game will run well." But even when I had them down, there were too many times that some particular of some specific skill would get missed, and I just got sick of it being something I almost felt like I had to obsess over in order to be sure the game was playing the way I wanted it to.

In the end, 4e made me realize how much I liked 1e AD&D. Daumnation says above, "You are never forced to do anything in a game of imagination." True, of course... but since it *is* a game of imagination, why choose to use a set of rules that causes as many problems as it solves (and has you bent over a barrel for buying expensive supplements or monthly subscriptions)? In my experience, the more you have to force or tweak a game system to be something it isn't, the more hassle it usually is, and the more I wind up questioning myself why I'm playing it in the first place.

So for me, Castles & Crusades was a perfect choice: very old school, very fast to play, I already pretty much knew how to GM it right at the start, a pretty decent ruleset in FG... *and* the entire necessary set of rules could be had in FG for $10, nothing else needed. For my preferences, it was a match made in heaven. And now FG 2.9 will probably have Rolemaster working for me, so I'm happy there too.

So I'll be very interested to see what happens with 5e, but the closing comment in my "D&D is not an iPhone" post sums it up well for me: Who really needs 5e? Wizards of the Coast. For everyone else, it's really just a new rules system that might be fun to play. If it's fun, great! If not, I'll roll my eyes and play my other games.

May 1st, 2012, 01:21
Amen Daumnation

May 9th, 2012, 20:43
Well... I don't think the quoted 4e combat times incorrect. The fact is , even with the combat tracker combat is slow in 4e. I had one BBEG combat session last 3 games!

With that said, I think longer combat is part of what 4e is all about. Sometimes this can be great for online play and other times it can drag on, especially when you get tried as a DM.

As a DM, you have to give in to the fact that 4e combat is more detailed and as a result slower. It's just something you have to accept even if your old school instincts tell you to end the combat quickly.

I really do miss the fast pace of AD&D 2e combat. The rounds go by very quickly and it's your turn again before you know it. Of course, initiative was a d10 and monsters didn't have so many hit points.

Perhaps I'll give C&C a try soon. Like dr_venture I've also learned to appreciate the design of old school systems a bit more.

May 11th, 2012, 04:04
To be honest I'm hoping 5e is basically a lot like Castles & Crusades but with some of the elements of 4e thrown in.

I however, found 4e combat to be quite streamlined - and a group should be able to knock over an encounter of their level in about an hour. It does require people know their characters though, the options they have available to them, and to be focused on what's happening even when it's not their turn.