Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition

[namada]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by fartrader

Well, I was part of the playtest and quite frankly, the first playtest document is very similar to the last. There were some minor changes along the way, but the design was already set before the playtest began, or so it seemed..

Any new mutations to Alignment?

[rlbeaver]

I'm looking forward to the release. While I switched to GURPS from AD&D for many reasons (mostly rule codified options) , I never hated the game and had a lot of fun playing it.

While I fear if it flops, Hasbro may retire it to their attic with all the other licenses they sit upon. However, I hope that it does well and that the marketing might of Hasbro brings many new gamers to the table.

I don't find the price off putting, the very first RPG book I bought was the AD&D Monster Manual around 1978 or 79, cost me $12 which is about $44 adjusted for inflation according to the CPI Inflation Calculator. $50 doesn't seem all that unreasonable, especially since that tends to be color.

But I can understand the angst about it all...I didn't care for D&D 4th either and Pathfinder stole the show.

[Anaraxes]

I didn't care for D&D 4th either and Pathfinder stole the show.

Indeed. I think WotC sees how well Pathfinder has done at being "not 4e" and "D&D 3.5 Next", and realized that the 4e path was not the one they wanted to find.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Any new mutations to Alignment?

Back to the two-axis Law-Chaos/Good-Evil system, I believe.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Back to the two-axis Law-Chaos/Good-Evil system, I believe.

At least as of the sept 2013 draft, yep.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

Back to the two-axis Law-Chaos/Good-Evil system, I believe.

I hope it isn't too hard to excise without screwing with other intrinsic rules.

[namada]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Flyndaran]

I like alignment features for outsiders just not morally grey mortals. Good to know that it isn't too entrenched.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Indeed. I think WotC sees how well Pathfinder has done at being "not 4e" and "D&D 3.5 Next", and realized that the 4e path was not the one they wanted to find.

4e suffered from two problems. First, it was a radical change, and anything like that always gets resistance. Secondly, the OGL was out there, and therefore people who were resistant to change had a viable alternative.

4e is actually a quite good game, seen in its own lights. It's a fun, surprisingly well-designed miniatures boardgame that has a bit of RPG stuff tacked on. However, way too many people decided it wasn't D&D.

The problem for WotC is that they want to get both the 4e players and the Pathfinder players. However, it's not clear that they'll be able to get either one, because the preferred play styles are too different.