New Dungeons & Dragons Next and Tyranny of Dragons Details Emerge

New Dungeons & Dragons Next and Tyranny of Dragons Details Emerge

Details on settings as diverse as Eberron, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft were mentioned in the Tyranny of Dragons panel at PAX East 2014.

Read Full Article

"Dragonlance is not dead." Nope, you just moved it to Faerun.

Cult of a Dark God attempting to return the 5 Headed Queen of Dragons to the Mortal plane you say? NEVER read anything like it XD

Seriously though, I am SO excited. I really hope they have something for us Magic Users, because 4th edition was a GIANT "fuck you" to Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids.

Double Excited for Legit Dragonlance material. I'm pretty sure I know a Wonderful spell.....how's that go again? Furball?

I still think that D&D Next is a step back and not worth buying a whole new set of books. The design of the rules is inferior to the design of D&D 4e. All thos complaints, like "every class feels the same" can only come from people, who have never actually played the system.
Also

SilverStuddedSquirre:
I really hope they have something for us Magic Users, because 4th edition was a GIANT "fuck you" to Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids.

Why is that? What about a unique playstyle for each of those classes with completely different roles in combat as well as in the roleplay parts of the game? What about the huge amount of rituals, which each one of the haters seems to forget? It is true, that those classes lost their central point, that they had in 3rd Ed, but this only meant, that the other classes became more relevant. The 4th Edition actually managed not only to have each of the classes be equally important, but at the same time have their own field of expertise AS WELL AS having to work together with the other classes, to overcame their obstacles. In 3rd Edition, from level 5 or 6 on, the cleric could just activate his spells, and was a better fighter, than the fighter, a better rogue than the rogue, had powerful attack magic and on top the best healing abilities in the game. That's why they somewhat split him in three classes in 4th Edition ;-) The wizard could just kill anything with a single thought. The fighter had... sword.
I know, why some people liked that, but can't those people play Ars Magica? It has the better magic system anyway. I also know, that the presentation of the 4th edition was more dry, but should that really be an obstacle for a creative Dungeon Master? I know a lot of people, who really like the 4th Edition, and who think that it is a shame, that they scrapped it, only to try to release this half arsed attempt to please all audiences.
I will definitely not play it.

Ah DnD. Only two posts in this thread and they disagree about whether an edition was any good or not. :)

Some of what is in the article sounds pretty sweet. I like how you get different perks for aligning with different factions.

fractal_butterfly:
I still think that D&D Next is a step back and not worth buying a whole new set of books. The design of the rules is inferior to the design of D&D 4e. All thos complaints, like "every class feels the same" can only come from people, who have never actually played the system.

But every character has the EXACT same way of playing. with the exception of a few gimicky things that make em "unique".

Look at these two at-wills:
Warlock: Warlock Attack 1 Eldritch Blast
Wizard Attack 1 Witch Bolt

Besides a slightly different effect, these could both just be called Ranged Magic Blast.
There is no longer the large difference in play style between classes.

Wizards stand in the back and fire spells, yes, but they have the exact same sort of at-wills, encounter and Dailies as every other Controle class.
Only they're now named slightly wizardy, they're main attack stat is by default Int.
Sure, they might have a few "back-up" encounters they can have in their "spell book" but it's nothing like the preparation early wizards had to do. Wizards bring the exact same attacks to the table every fight, because they no longer have a spell book.

Druid casters are the same. Hell, even druid spells like Grasping Claws, a melee Beast attack works on Wisdom because that's the single main attack stat for druids. Gone are the days that you used your dex, or hell, the stats of the creature you turned into, for a melee attack. Nope, just wisdom.
And of course this attack is exactly the same as every other melee attack that causes slow.

It's all just so arbitrary. In DnD 3,5 I could knock someone prone whenever the hell I wanted. I makes no sense that a fighter can only knock someone prone every 5 minutes, because that move as a Encounter.

So much content was lost, so much options were removed because every character needed to have special attacks that turned DnD into a Action bar MMO.

Ranorak:

Besides a slightly different effect, these could both just be called Ranged Magic Blast.

Ray of Frost and Acid Splash. Much difference, such wow.

Wizards stand in the back and fire spells, yes, but they have the exact same sort of at-wills, encounter and Dailies as every other Controle class. Only they're now named slightly wizardy, they're main attack stat is by default Int. Sure, they might have a few "back-up" encounters they can have in their "spell book" but it's nothing like the preparation early wizards had to do.

Here's what I don't get. This is a new edition of the game, meant to try new things. Yet everyone complaining about it seems to think that they just should have kept the same broken Vancian system from 3.5, despite it being the biggest bitched-about feature of 3.5.

If you're a game developer, and you hear your players complaining about something, and your first reaction is "oh, we shouldn't change that" then you are doing it wrong.

Ranorak:
Wizards bring the exact same attacks to the table every fight, because they no longer have a spell book.

This makes me question if you've played 4E or are just parroting an argument, because spell books still exist in 4E. They even fulfill a similar function, allowing wizards to learn more spells per level than other classes (though they can still only USE the same number of spells as everyone else).

Druid casters are the same. Hell, even druid spells like Grasping Claws, a melee Beast attack works on Wisdom because that's the single main attack stat for druids. Gone are the days that you used your dex, or hell, the stats of the creature you turned into, for a melee attack. Nope, just wisdom.

They made building a good character and understanding stat/power interactions easier for new players. What monsters.

And of course this attack is exactly the same as every other melee attack that causes slow.

They simplified CC. What monsters.

It's all just so arbitrary. In DnD 3,5 I could knock someone prone whenever the hell I wanted. I makes no sense that a fighter can only knock someone prone every 5 minutes, because that move as a Encounter.

A necessary sacrifice to put martial and magic classes on the same level. And it can make sense - envision yourself fighting an opponent. If you use the same tactics over and over, your opponents will take notice and adapt, and there's only so many ways you can knock a guy prone.

Encounter tactics on a fighter are meant to symbolize tricks that won't work twice. Dailies on the other hand symbolize feats of strength/wit that you simply wouldn't be able to do every fight without turning yourself into a trainwreck.

I hope they ddo

fractal_butterfly:
I still think that D&D Next is a step back and not worth buying a whole new set of books. The design of the rules is inferior to the design of D&D 4e. All thos complaints, like "every class feels the same" can only come from people, who have never actually played the system.
Also

SilverStuddedSquirre:
I really hope they have something for us Magic Users, because 4th edition was a GIANT "fuck you" to Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids.

Why is that? What about a unique playstyle for each of those classes with completely different roles in combat as well as in the roleplay parts of the game? What about the huge amount of rituals, which each one of the haters seems to forget? It is true, that those classes lost their central point, that they had in 3rd Ed, but this only meant, that the other classes became more relevant. The 4th Edition actually managed not only to have each of the classes be equally important, but at the same time have their own field of expertise AS WELL AS having to work together with the other classes, to overcame their obstacles. In 3rd Edition, from level 5 or 6 on, the cleric could just activate his spells, and was a better fighter, than the fighter, a better rogue than the rogue, had powerful attack magic and on top the best healing abilities in the game. That's why they somewhat split him in three classes in 4th Edition ;-) The wizard could just kill anything with a single thought. The fighter had... sword.
I know, why some people liked that, but can't those people play Ars Magica? It has the better magic system anyway. I also know, that the presentation of the 4th edition was more dry, but should that really be an obstacle for a creative Dungeon Master? I know a lot of people, who really like the 4th Edition, and who think that it is a shame, that they scrapped it, only to try to release this half arsed attempt to please all audiences.
I will definitely not play it.

No, I played 4th edition for MANY games, and the overwhelming consensus of my group was this:

Couple of GREAT ides, including Minions and an overall increase in pace. Same-y, feels like a board game port of Dragon Age. What the HELL happened to spell-casting? Why is Every class equally good at everything?

Don't mis-interperet, a lot of fun was had with 4th edition, but it really felt like a game that was NOT DnD.

I credit 4th edition as having made me a much better DM, and the 4th edition DMG is a great book, full of DMing gold. This does not change our enjoyment of teh game, as much of the feel of DnD was replaced with hack and slash + flashy attacks.
Now maybe that is WHY you and your friends enjoy it, and that's totally cool.

I am very excited to see the new things they have in store for us, but if magic again receives no love we will do what we did to 4th edition: Take the 2 or 3 good ideas and apply them to 3.5

On the subject of clerics, druids, wizards and Sorcerers. They all have very different roles and ability sets within the game. Similarities? Oh sure. But I can't help but feel their same-y-ness for your group ids from a tendency to stick to a small group of feats, and not try radically different builds for them. (( I could be wrong, of course you are all absolutely allowed to just not like 3.5 It's not without its' flaws.))

Two words: House Rules.

For example, in AD&D 2nd ed (dating myself here) I, as DM, instigated the following rule for wizards - you can memorize a "generic spell slot" for any of the spell slots you have, to be used for casting a spell directly from your spellbook. This will take one round per spell level plus casting time, with a check against the average of your wisdom and intelligence each round when anything distracting is nearby, i.e gnomes trying to chew off your ankles. Unless it's a critical fail you just keep going, created some great tension at times.

Same variation for priests but with Con and Wis, plus an impromptu promise/sacrifice to your God based on what you're asking for and how loyal you've been lately, or (and this was my favorite) a vision to follow after with a holy quest. Instant plot device for next module. Nothing moves a party the way you want them to go like that life-threatening wound the fighter received being prone to reopening if you tick off a deity.

After all, what's the point of magic if it's no longer magical? What's the point of playing heroes if they can't sometimes pull off something really heroic? Warhammer RPG got this right with Fate Points.

Want to knock someone down and it's not a free action for this encounter, roll vs x. Hell, make a rule on the spot if someone wants to try something, then just make a note of the rule. Does it contradict the DM Guide? Who cares except the rule lawyers, and they get demonic syphilis anyway.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

No, I played 4th edition for MANY games, ... Why is Every class equally good at everything?

It can get really diversified on the higher levels. I am currently running a group on level 9. Every single character has a completely different role in combat, a diverse set of skills. There is no overlap ALTHOUGH they are all technically characters with "Ranged Attack Powers". It is amazing, what you can do with the right mix of feats. In this regard the system is way more flexible and diversified than 3rd or 3.5, where you just get another ability every two levels.
I recently also ran several introductory plays of D&D4 with players who had mostly played older editions of the game. They loved the new edition, they liked the ease of play and they loved the roleplaying. Maybe it is because of my Dungeon Mastering style: I use the intuitive and easy rules of D&D4 to let the players make their own game and let them be able to concentrate on playing the game. In 3rd edtition it was often much mind numbing rule crunching and textbook search.

Ranorak:

It's all just so arbitrary. In DnD 3,5 I could knock someone prone whenever the hell I wanted. I makes no sense that a fighter can only knock someone prone every 5 minutes, because that move as a Encounter.

In 4th edition you have quick rules for improvisation, and they are great. With these I even allow my players to trip monsters, if they come up with a good trick, like pushing it over a chair. And not just because they "used their trip feat". THAT would be arbitrary...

SilverStuddedSquirre:
Same-y, feels like a board game port of Dragon Age. What the HELL happened to spell-casting?

You can play it that way, or you don't. Depends on the players and the game master. In the aforementioned introductory round, I had one group of instigators, who rushed through the dungeons and killed and defiled everything in their sight. Another group had a careful, social approach to problems, talked to everyone and avoided combat if they could. Both had the same amount of fun. I also encourage my players to make creative use of their powers to get the upper hand in combat (or noncombat) with a clever trick (you know: the "Try to say Yes"-Rule).
Once again regarding spell casting: You still have your spell book, it is now just called "Rituals". It is a clear division between combat abilities and non-combat abilities. I admit that it is somewhat thin and that it looks somewhat like a cashgrab, that they expanded it with extra books like the "Arcane Power". But everything is still in its place, it was just renamed or moved. And besides, the Mage has still his Cantrips, Ghostsound and Mage Hand, which my players use very creatively out of combat.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

This does not change our enjoyment of teh game, as much of the feel of DnD was replaced with hack and slash + flashy attacks.
Now maybe that is WHY you and your friends enjoy it, and that's totally cool.

I am still trying to understand, what you mean with the "DnD feel". Our main enjoyment of the game was the easy rules which allowed more space for actual play as well as the much more diversified combat. For a direct comparison I ran a 3rd Edition one shot. It is... kind of dull, unless you play one of the magic classes. And for them it is a huge amount of rule grinding. Are you aware, that 1/3 of the rulesbook of 3rd Edition is "Magic" and "Grimoire" stuff? So... not meant for a huge amount of the classes? I know that this is kind of the appeal for some to play 3rd or 3.5, but I think it is not very good game design ;-)

SilverStuddedSquirre:

I am very excited to see the new things they have in store for us, but if magic again receives no love we will do what we did to 4th edition: Take the 2 or 3 good ideas and apply them to 3.5

I think you could like it. They virtually started out with 3.5 Ed rules and then tried to add stuff, until it stopped sucking for the non-magic classes. They half-succeded. They then half-arsedly added some stuff from 4th edtition, added some new stuff which doesn't make any sense, or added stuff that makes sense, but overcomplicates things.
As I said, I don't like it, and it is a step back from 4th edition. But it is somewhat better-ish than 3.5. My recommendation for you: play Pathfinder.

SilverStuddedSquirre:

On the subject of clerics, druids, wizards and Sorcerers. They all have very different roles and ability sets within the game. Similarities? Oh sure. But I can't help but feel their same-y-ness for your group ids from a tendency to stick to a small group of feats, and not try radically different builds for them. (( I could be wrong, of course you are all absolutely allowed to just not like 3.5 It's not without its' flaws.))

I don't get it, what are you trying to say?

scotth266:

Ray of Frost and Acid Splash. Much difference, such wow.

I like you :D This is one of the things I don't get about the anti-4th-Ed rants, 3rd Edition can be really samey in the abilities of the characters although they have this huge spell book...

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67218)