2e brings back such fond memories; if retro means revisiting, I'm not sure I want those memories being 'tarnished' by a re-hash by a corporation that realizes their product isn't meeting its expected quota
3/3.5 were fairly solid, but I find it cares a lot more 'for the math'; too often I find my companions care only for large numbers than the actual character they have created. and large numbers tend to leave some believing a stat lower than 12 is appalling.
Better yet, as Tiamat noted Pathfinder stands as a solid alternative (~ a 3.75).
4e, managed well as a mini game, but I had my... issues, such as that whole 'feels like a videogame with ability activation' thing (leaving it there; I dont want to rant). Of note: Prior to PHB3 you could have a minotaur rogue who backstabbed with a morningstar (the big 2-handed type, in 1-hand; see oversized) and there was nothing anyone could do to argue
Posted on 2012-01-11 at 04:31:37.
Edited on 2012-01-11 at 04:41:22 by Tuned_Out
I, errm, actually quite like one element that has changed between edition to edition. And I'm hesitant to admit my liking, since I imagine many would see it as the equivalent of being overly consumeristic (something I like to call the "Pokemon Generational Effect").
I actually buy more books than perhaps I have to, purely because, well, I like new classes. New weaponry. New powers. New items. Sometimes it can be a bit strange, or go overboard (see 4e "Battlemind" class, an attempt to make a Psionic-based Fighter just for the sake of having a Psionic-based Fighter), but I love the idea of making an entire character around unusual or flat-out unique concepts, and playing through different adventures with characters who are completely different...not only in personality, but what tools they have at their disposal to overcome environment, enemies and other obstacles.
I remember the video game Neverwinter Nights and its sequel, both based on 3e and 3.5e D&D respectively. And one of the things that was so dear to me about the game was the sheer volume of classes to try. Bards, Monks, Favored Souls, Assassins, Eldricht Knights, Arcane Archers, Red Wizards, Dragon Disciples....
And, of course, part of the appeal of D&D is you can mess with the existing rules to make new creatures, monsters or even classes...but as I've found in my attempt to make a homebrew 4e class, the Pistoleer (an ongoing project), 4th edition is a TERRIBLE basis to do so, considering the sheer volume of powers to create.
But anyway, what I'm saying is I, for one, don't particularly care for new editions having nostalgic classes. Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Cleric and Wizard and leaving it there. I'm geniunely excited when there's the Bard who supports his allies rather than fighting directly. When there's the Monk who uses lack of weaponry or armor to his advantage. When there's the Seeker who uses spiritual power infused into thrown weapons.
The Pokemon Generational Effect in action. I guess I'm just a sucker for new things, so I'll probably be getting 5e if it has even just one class that is more than a remake. (Hence why I have at least one game of every generation of Pokemon, sadly)
I find myself agreeing with Celtia... I found myself constantly buying new books just because they contained something new to try. I remember how excited I was when I first bought a copy of the Draconomicon, or the Tomes of Battle and Magic, or Libris Mortis, or hell most of the Complete series of supplements. That said I made up my mind rather quickly that I would not be playing 4e for the simple fact that I knew if I got started I'd spend like crazy...
Definitely valid points, there, gents... Probably the one thing that even gets my interest piqued in "expanded" or "updated" source materials for any game would be the possibility of taking "stock/base" character classes and tweaking them into something "more than" just your standard "fighter" or "rogue" or "wizard"...
In that same breath, though, I've got to wonder why it takes a 'reboot' of the rules or even the publishing of additional source material to make such things happen? Isn't that what "houserules" and having conversations with the DM/GM is all about? Couldn't you roll all the way back to Basic D&D and, with just a little time, imagination, and vision, be able to work out exactly the sort of character you want to play with what's already there?
...I guess what I'm getting at, here, is that these "fast and furious" updates/edition changes/whatever you want to call them do very little to make the system more comprehensive and/or the game(s) more playable... instead, they seem to say "Oh no, don't strain your imagination. We've already done that part for you and made so many overblown "prestige classes" that you don't have to do anything beyond track stats and skills in order to hit that next perk. Why bother figuring out creative uses for your character's existing skills/feats/attributes when we've pigeon-holed the heck out of everything for you ahead of time, right?"
Back to creativity and imagination, I say...
...but, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
Well...there was a little bit of d12 usage in 4e, if you were a fighter/warden/warlord/other and had no problem with two-handed weapons.
But anyway, in response to Eol, about tweaking character creation and/or working out a character unique to yourself.
Well if you want to make a character that does not apply to existing bases in more modern D&D (sadly the only ones I am familiar with, as far as Dungeons and Dragons go), such as 3e, 3.5e and 4e, you have to create (or have created for you by a DM) a fully playable class/prestige class/paragon path whatever. And that's something that I mentioned in my first post, about how easy or difficult some editions make it to fiddle with character creation or making unique classes.
I don't know about other editions, but I'm in the middle of making a 4e class for the reasons you said and it is hard work. And very time consuming. Within the space of at least 14 hours of brainstorming, editing, scratching out features and implementing new ones, as well as testing against other classes for cohesity and balance and creating names, descriptions and rules for dozens upon dozens of powers, I've still only created a class playable up to level 10. (To be fair, a lot of that time was also plans for a new and unique weapon that the class is proficient with)
I don't know about other editions, but 4e is a terrible basis to create a class in. Primarily because of the volume of skills and feats. The chances are high that such a task (to create a class) would be easy in another D&D edition that I'm not aware of the rules... But it is one of many ways to measure 5e...how easy can you create your own elements/classes/rules in this upcoming system?
That all said and done, I agree fully....that they don't need to overhaul the rules so often just to implement new ideas. I always respected Forgotten Realms and Eberron for the sort of optional game expansions as they have been in recent editions, where you can take classes or rules of easily enough, but you don't actually have to change your own setting to do so.
I certainly would be more excited if they made another extended-D&D like those, as opposed to a whole new rulebook.
Posted on 2012-01-12 at 15:14:38.
Raven Resident Finn RDI Staff Karma: 69/3 998 Posts
5th edition, really?
Bah! Why did ever publish the 4th edition, if they never believed it would work? Or if they did, they apparently didn't playtest it enough. Seems to me that the 4th ed. could not have been a success, since it's being dumped so soon.
Oh well, back to the question... No, I don't care. Even though I've played my share of 3/3.5 editions, DnD is still really Ad&d for me. I loved the old boxed D&D sets (btw. there was a halfling too, I believe?) They sort of left more for the players and the DM to imagine. Even Ad&d and especially the new D&D from 3rd edition forward have tried to create more rules after rules to cut down the need to imagine and create. (prolly not the intention, but that's how it felt)
That said, I still enjoyed the Player's Option rule books for Ad&d very much. They gave more options to create individual characters. No longer were all fighters big mindless warrios glad in full suits of plate and swinging 2H-swords. Of course we had had other types already in some of our games, in which there wasn't a rules-lawyer DM forcing us to follow the books to the letter. Of course to me, the basic idea behind any RPG rules is to give some common guidelines for players to follow. With everyone agreeing (or at least the DM) those guidelines can be then bent if needed.
Whoops got carried away on a sidetrack there. In any case, it'll be a no thanks for me for the 5th edition although I am still going to buy at least the PHB (if that is what it will be called). Not going to play it though.
As far as Table Top editions go never played 3e, never played 3.5, never played 4e and sure as hell will never go near this new 5th Edition crap!
Call me a fanatic but I was born and raised on Basic, 1st edition and my soulmate for life AD&D 2nd Edition and I'm just too old and stubborn to change now. I say beware buyers as I think this is just a way to scam people out of more money for 'revisted crap'
So there you have it my 2-5 cents not worth much these days but oh well who gives a s*** anyway
I started D&D in middle school when my dad ran me through a game of 2nd ed AD&D. Since then it's been my favorite. I'm not saying I don't like other editions... I played 3/3.5 in highschool for a while but refound my love for the feel of 2nd ed.
My thing is why bother buying a game that they say has a retro feel when you have way more 2nd ed books than any other edition. Might as well just play that...
Posted on 2012-03-29 at 07:06:49.
Grugg Mun is Fandatory RDI Staff Karma: 357/190 6179 Posts
I just gotta say, as a rebuttal to post way up top there, if a minotaur rogue sneaks up behind you with a morningstar...it's going to hurt.