D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Wrex]

This will be horrible beyond imagining.

Of course i'm adding my vote to the pile.

[RedWarlock]

Whoo! 50 pages!

I will say my friends and I tried a 5e game a week ago, and while it was manageable, it was.. limited. It was hard to figure out how to do things, and despite the fact that I was not DMing, I was handed the rules packet to be the 'rules nazi' and figure out how stuff runs.

(Not helped by the fact that the guy DMing apparently played for a long time in a 3.5-ish game with a LOT more houserules and imported homebrew than he realized.)

[Childe]

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...

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

[ksbsnowowl]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I get the marketing idea of dragging 3e people into 5e, while not abandoning the 4e folks.

Marketing = old Detroit
Engineering = Toyota/Honda
... we know who won that one.

[Keldar]

I want to say Yugoslavia. 

[Nytemare3701]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime 

[Childe]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime 

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

[Nytemare3701]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime 

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.

[Libertad]

Where are you, PBMC?

[ksbsnowowl]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime 

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.

My comment was more about the number of things you are mentally juggling.  He has 10 buff spells up, but the party waited to strike, so now he only has these four remaining.  Oh, yeah, and he has a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with his boss that I forgot about.  Then after the session... Oh, if I'd remembered he had that, it would have been harder to kill him, etc.

Rule by committee doesn't help that aspect.  Then you add in trying to juggle three such stat blocks for one bad guy, with different abilities that apply against different PC's, etc.  It would be a nightmare.

[Nytemare3701]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime 

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.

My comment was more about the number of things you are mentally juggling.  He has 10 buff spells up, but the party waited to strike, so now he only has these four remaining.  Oh, yeah, and he has a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with his boss that I forgot about.  Then after the session... Oh, if I'd remembered he had that, it would have been harder to kill him, etc.

Rule by committee doesn't help that aspect.  Then you add in trying to juggle three such stat blocks for one bad guy, with different abilities that apply against different PC's, etc.  It would be a nightmare.

Fair enough.

PBMC, where are you?!

[bhu]

Be patient, he hasn't logged in in 8 days.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Hell(!) let's throw some 2e in there too ... 


4e Asmodeus says:  I use a Daily Power
3e Asmodeus says:  4e Asmo needs a donut, activate The Ruby Rod Of Doom
2e Asmodeus says:  3e Asmo, did you take a bath in the river Lethe?  I'm a Greater God there at the creation of the 9 Hells.  I'm'n'a survive the Spellplague and throw the whole Abyss into the elemental planes.
3e Asmodeus says:  I do that?
2e Asmodeus shakes his head 
4e Asmodeus says:  I use an Immediate Interrupt
Tiamat looks at her various selfs and says:  And I/We thought I/We were complicated?!
Tiamat's Black and Red Heads simultaneously cough, accidentally killing 4e Asmo.
5e noob DM says:  Alright lemme try to resolve these actions here ... just a sec ...

[Childe]

I think this would just be problematic in terms of the amount of books required in total and at once. Tracking three different books at a time is a hassle, and having to have three books at any time you would ever need one would make campaign planning for DMs nightmarish.

Agreed.  By the time you get to a high-teens game of 3.5, there's already enough info that the DM is juggling in his head that he forgets things in the heat of the moment (trust me; this just happened to me last Monday).

Our group does rules by committee, with no clear rules answer going to DM until they group can discuss it in depth between sessions. You should try it sometime 

This isn't about making an executive decision on a rules debate though.  This is about the routine running of encounters.

That too actually. If the DM doesn't understand something, he defers to the person most knowledgeable in that field, whether is be archer/charger tactics, or how a certain undead's biology functions. Metagaming used to run rampant in our group until we decided that the game is the responsibility of everyone at the table.

My comment was more about the number of things you are mentally juggling.  He has 10 buff spells up, but the party waited to strike, so now he only has these four remaining.  Oh, yeah, and he has a permanent Rary's Telepathic Bond with his boss that I forgot about.  Then after the session... Oh, if I'd remembered he had that, it would have been harder to kill him, etc.

Rule by committee doesn't help that aspect.  Then you add in trying to juggle three such stat blocks for one bad guy, with different abilities that apply against different PC's, etc.  It would be a nightmare.

This.

[sirpercival]

Did you guys see the release announcement? A "thrilling" launch.

[ksbsnowowl]

"Multi-Platform."  Interesting.  So I'm guessing there will be back-door 3.5 material, much like the two mentioned adventures?

Yea for more monsters?

[Nytemare3701]

Did you guys see the release announcement? A "thrilling" launch.

Oh dear...

Hint  1: They say Gaming Platform, not Edition or anything to denote a tabletop launch. That's fine though, since they probably have another tool like the 4E character builder or something.

but wait...

Hint 2: Why is it saying Monster as a singular? That would imply that they have a specific foe planned, which at the very least sounds like the 4E Orcus debacle all over again, but worries me much more when combined with Hint 1.


Oh look, someone else already noticed.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

 

... Hint 2: Why is it saying Monster as a singular? That would imply that they have a specific foe planned, which at the very least sounds like the 4E Orcus debacle all over again ...

Echoes of Rattata sugar Plums dancing in their heads !!

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Where are you, PBMC?

PBMC, where are you?!

TBH, if I wasn't missed, I wouldn't come back very soon. Working lots. Doing things differently in life. I've oddly been doing a bunch of 3.5 stuff ... just not posting it, yet.

Be patient, he hasn't logged in in 8 days.

Actually I have a persistent log-in cookie so whenever my computer is turned on from sleep, my browser reloads tabs.



Btw is this the next 5e thread since we are at 50 pages?

Edit: I thought I was missed, rather than people seeing about calling my bluff. but whatever I'll spill.

Firstly all canon 3e information would have to be quantized. They own all the licenses after all. A few books at a time, wouldn't be too hard. 5e environments updating stormwrack, frostburn, sandstorm, etc. Then 5e Completes & Races etc. Then Eberron and Faerun, etc. Then the adventure modules. Then dragon and dungeon mags twenty at a time or so. You get the point.

Each update would have the same header to explain system changes. Then individual entries would be noted that didn't fit. It wouldn't be that much work on the individual side if the broader system changes were specific enough. You wouldn't even have to worry about precedence if you do this just after the core 5e books.

This kind attack could even be done for 4e but obvious with completely different conversion rules than for 3e. Now on to the specifics:

I don't like combining spot and listen into perception. Some people are blind and some are deaf and even people who are neither are often better at seeing than hearing or visa versa. But it seems 5e wants just perception. So for said official updates to 5e, it would look something like this: "for any bonii or penalties to 'listen' or 'spot,' instead add half the value to your perception skill. Any ranks put into the second are now free ranks to be places into another skill." There now you can now worry about that little change.

Yes xp values or gold values will need to be readjusted for the new tables, but the proportions shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. Classes and magic items won't be as bad as it might seem. The worst thing is probably spells, many of which will have to be nerfed or thrown out. Go figure since those are the most broken parts of 3e.

tl;dr make the edition a compatible update from 3e. Don't trash it all, sh|t on your fans and then wonder why they are wary about buying more books that will end up heading into obsolecence in 3 years. I just watched an interview where the main 4e lead admitted 2005 was when WotC considered abandoning 2003's 3.5 system.