D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Nanshork]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF

This is my favorite response to that.

"Most people want to be heroes? That's not my experience. IMXP, most people want to be amoral treasure hunters."

[TenaciousJ]

For my last 2 games, I opened up all alignments.  The first game had 2 neutral characters, 2 evil characters, and 1 good character.  They were all contractually obligated to work for an organization together or have their deferred executions carried out.  The 2nd game has had 3 evil characters and 2 neutral characters, and one of those neutral characters leans more towards evil considered he tortured and maimed some defeated enemies just for fun.

I have gathered that they enjoy playing evil because good is so forced upon them by convention.

Also alignment-based abilities are dumb.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I haven't been paying much attention, but

my local Big Box just got 1 copy of:  Murder in Baldur's Gate
and 2 copies of: Legacy of the Crystal Shard.
My local gaming store did not get them (yet?).


Anyways ... they both have a little blurb that says they work with 3.5e + 4e + 5e.

So is this Officially Official , or is this a soft roll out ?!

    I do want to know 

[Bauglir]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF

While I like that they're hardening their position on what the game is supposed to do (You're The Good Guys), instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin, they probably should have put these in a separate section of the PHB (to emphasize that they're not part of the default playstyle). Putting it in the DMG implies it's an issue of DM authority, instead of playstyle, which is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Anything that enhances the impression that the DM should dictate character concepts beyond the minimum for campaign functionality is not something I like, and this only improves functionality if you think Evil is "Trololol, I kill my allies in their sleep for the evulz".

I'm terrified that the dev team thinks that's what Evil is, and that they think DM authority should be entirely unlimited.

[ksbsnowowl]

Anyways ... they both have a little blurb that says they work with 3.5e + 4e + 5e.

So is this Officially Official , or is this a soft roll out ?!

    I do want to know 

The product page for Murder in Balder's Gate has a PDF with creature stat blocks.  It is divided roughly into thirds, giving the creature stats in all three edition formats.

The page for Legacy of the Crystal Shard has three separate downloads; one each for the stats in the three named editions.

[LordBlades]

While I like that they're hardening their position on what the game is supposed to do (You're The Good Guys), instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin, they probably should have put these in a separate section of the PHB (to emphasize that they're not part of the default playstyle).

To me it sounds less 'You are the Good Guys' and more 'You are the Good Guys that never ever do Evil under any circumstances', which is pretty dumb and limited IMO.

[veekie]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF

While I like that they're hardening their position on what the game is supposed to do (You're The Good Guys), instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin, they probably should have put these in a separate section of the PHB (to emphasize that they're not part of the default playstyle). Putting it in the DMG implies it's an issue of DM authority, instead of playstyle, which is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Anything that enhances the impression that the DM should dictate character concepts beyond the minimum for campaign functionality is not something I like, and this only improves functionality if you think Evil is "Trololol, I kill my allies in their sleep for the evulz".

I'm terrified that the dev team thinks that's what Evil is, and that they think DM authority should be entirely unlimited.

Mmm, it does help that they now have an actual game concept even if it's kinda limited. Two steps forward, one step back perhaps.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... instead of continuing to pursue the Game For All Games path of inevitable ruin ...

 

<snip>

Thanks and interesting.  However I doubt strongly the 3+4+5e at the same time strategy ; feels rather Game For All Gamers.

I have to suspect, that Hasbro* has plenty of history of developing games having nothing to do with D&D.  Following their run-of-the-mill new game Plan, ought or has to work better than the 4e launch.  Chances are d&d is more complex than anything else they've tried, but a basic start-up Plan is better than Shwinging it.


edit **
"Hasbro" the game company ; not "Hasbro" the holding company semi- hedge fund let's make some $ of those d&d weenies / dude don't insult the consumers so loudly.

[Libertad]

So, are we starting a new thread once we hit 50 pages, or are we continuing with this one?

[oslecamo]

Ahem.

That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

[RobbyPants]

So, are we starting a new thread once we hit 50 pages, or are we continuing with this one?

So far as I know, the 50-page rule is still in place.

Ahem.

That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

Yeah, I'd like to see how it can be done, too.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...

[Gazzien]

That'd certainly be interesting, but I feel like it might get a bit hairy, what with 4e's Minion rules.
'
I'd love to try it, though.

[Libertad]

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

C'mon guys, we can do this!

[oslecamo]

I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...

What happens in the monster's own turn? Say, they have a multi-target attack in 4e, but not in 3.X. Can they attack the 3.X player and the 4e player who are near each other? Just the 4e guy?

What if the monster has an area attack in both 3.X and 4e, and uses it against a 3.X and 4e guy? Does the area attack affects them diferently based on editions? What if the areas/shapes are diferent?

Ditto for auras, both from allies and enemies.

(page 50 go!)

[Keldar]

Ahem.

That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

I have some general ideas.  Though I'm way too lazy to do it today, and the thread is about full anyway.  But 5E's idea of modularity is a good start, they're just way too chicken to be successful.

[Gazzien]

I wonder how one of the new adventures would run if you allowed 3.x, 4 and 5th edition PCs.   There would be quite a lot of averaging to find a certain mooks current life, but it might work w/ a few houserules.

To be clear of what i mean, when 4th fighter attacks mook xyz, use the 4th ed stat block.  When the 3.P wizard casts a SoD, use the 3rd stat block for saves etc...

What happens in the monster's own turn? Say, they have a multi-target attack in 4e, but not in 3.X. Can they attack the 3.X player and the 4e player who are near each other? Just the 4e guy?

What if the monster has an area attack in both 3.X and 4e, and uses it against a 3.X and 4e guy? Does the area attack affects them diferently based on editions? What if the areas/shapes are diferent?

Ditto for auras, both from allies and enemies.

(page 50 go!)

I would think in the difference of abilities, you would pick an edition to act as for the whole turn, maybe?

[Nytemare3701]

I'm interested in seeing if PlzBreakMyCampaign's version is the same as mine.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I wonder what a Chimera encounter would
sound like simultaneously in 3e , 4e and 5e ??


Wait , that joke too nerd obvious ... 



<chant> p l z ... P l z ... P L Z ... P L Z ... P L Z ... P L Z

[Risada]

Ahem.

That grand-unified D&D is very doable. A lot of work? Yes. Impossible? No.

We have people here who've gone through every 3.5 spell in existance. Whoa.

When this thread hits 50 pages, I'll spell out how its doable if no one else has.

C'mon guys, just a few more posts! I'm holding PlzBreakMyCampaign to his promise!

Let's help the cause...

But yes, I think 3 stat blocks will be a big mess...