Café de Nuit

HuManBing wrote:Could we excise the political discussion posts and put them in a separate thread in the Dark Beyond forum?

I'd rather not. "Is Cruelty evil" had a relevance to this forum, as an exploration of the themes of Horror. Politics really doesn't, so I'm not going to encourage further debate on the subject on our forum. There are plenty of places elsewhere on the web for that. I'm not going to delete them either, since I don't like to delete posts that aren't spam or other blatant rule violations. So we let it lie, and we move back to discussing 5e, ok?

So back to the 5th edition news...

What I'd like to see in 5E:

• a system built on 4E rules; playtested, streamlined, and simplified
  
  a new art direction with more of an old school feel- less sex and glamor, more grit and gore
  
  instead of hardbound books, boxed sets for each tier of play (similar to the old BECMI boxes)

Some of you might be surprised that I suggest that 5E be based strongly on based on 4E, given my strong preference for B/X and AD&D. I think that Hasbro must keep as many 4E fans as possible. The designers should add old school elements to the game, in order to attract players interested in that style. The rules, though, should be somewhat compatible with the most recent edition. That will help avoid the sort of shearing off of fans that we saw with the releases of 3E and 4E, where large numbers of people quit buying the new books.

YMMV

Actually I think the smart move would be to bring back the basic/advanced dichotomy.

The new "Basic D&D" could be based on 4th ed. rules, while the new "Advanced D&D" could be based on 3.5 ed. This would satisfy both crowds.

ewancummins wrote:What I'd like to see in 5E:

• a system built on 4E rules; playtested, streamlined, and simplified
  
  a new art direction with more of an old school feel- less sex and glamor, more grit and gore
  
  instead of hardbound books, boxed sets for each tier of play (similar to the old BECMI boxes)

Some of you might be surprised that I suggest that 5E be based strongly on based on 4E, given my strong preference for B/X and AD&D. I think that Hasbro must keep as many 4E fans as possible. The designers should add old school elements to the game, in order to attract players interested in that style. The rules, though, should be somewhat compatible with the most recent edition. That will help avoid the sort of shearing off of fans that we saw with the releases of 3E and 4E, where large numbers of people quit buying the new books.

YMMV

I think I agree with you. Not just for keeping the 4E fans, but because I like simplified workable rules that don't give me a headache after adding/subtracting the christmas tree of bonuses.
I don't care about the art personally, so they can do whatever they think it would sell best.

However, what I want is:
- a greater gap within levels. Two 3rd lvl monster (2 x 150XP) shouldn't be the equivalent of a 7th lvl monster (300XP).

- More class variation. The warlock doing 2d8 fire +5 + 1d8 extra doesn't seem too different to me than the ranger's 2d8 arrow damage +5 + 1d8 extra (quarry).
Yes, there should be IMO more variation between strikers, leaders, controlers and guardians.
Ranger is mobile striker, while Warlock is curser striker. OK, make the differences more pronounced and give us the tools to "muddle" the classes if we feel like it.

- More modable system, that can be reworked easily. 4E is quite nice for fantasy games, but doesn't work well for people that want more lethal combat or better realism.

- If they go by the quite nice idea Ewan said Heroic box/Paragon box/Epic box, they should do it right and not like the rip-off of oD&D boxes. I hated the "You want outdoor adventures? Oh, well, they're in the expert rule set" "You want dominions? In the companion ruleset" etc.
I want a Heroic box that is all I need to play and DM heroic tier games. That includes upper reaches of underdark, so "upper underdark rules" should be there. That includes short forays to shadowfell and feywild so "short forays and a few heroic Points of Light for your game" should also be there.
A free adventure like Keep on the Shadowfell wouldn't hurt.

- Geared towards 3-4 players instead of geared to 5+
You may think that 3 players = 5 players -2 monsters/encounter.
It's not so. I have trouble dealing with a few of the Skill challenges, a mechanism I love, with just 3 players because there are not enough trained skills. Combat takes somewhat too long and it's not rewarding. Fewer characters doesn't mean just fewer hits; It means you lack somewhere, be it area damage effects, guardians or leader. So I have to reduce the hitpoints of monsters so they go down faster.

The advantage of keeping rules for wilderness, strongholds, dominions, etc in different boxes is obvious: it encourages more people to buy those boxes.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of 'how do they maximize sales of core rule sets/books'.

Indeed, but I would be enraged if I found out that I bought my shiny new Heroic box and found out there is no info on the upper underdark.

I want Duergar and drow in my games. A lot of Duergar and drow. I use them even in Ravenloft. And I mean the real Duergar, that become invisible and are not hellspawn and the real drow (which weren't bad in 4E).

And lets face it: I know Mind Flayers would be Paragon villains but as you could perhaps guess, I would like them earlier on. The ones in 4E are ... lacking a certain something. I would prefer if they all had the ability to control thralls with their brain-eating. It seems the "real" mind flayer in 4E is... the 18th elite monster. :/
And they're too deadly for 4E. Even the "weak" infiltrator can use thralls etc to keep unreachable while they keep boring into brains with their +17 vs Fort, save ends. A 14th lvl char would have Fort around 22-25, and even if the mind flayer misses one round, the victim remains dazed until it makes a save. To break free? strength Attack vs -25- Fort. God forbid if the mind flayer grabs anyone else than the str 20 fighter (with the +12).
More or less, it's a Deathhold. Once you're grabbed, it's a timed clock while your friends try to cut through the defences to free you. That makes them unsuitable for "boss" monsters at the end of a 10th lvl adventure. Sure, the party could be lucky and avoid the mindblast. However, if the dice are unfavorable in a couple of crucial rolls, the mind flayer will kill people, he won't just leave all of them severely wounded.

alhoon wrote:Indeed, but I would be enraged if I found out that I bought my shiny new Heroic box and found out there is no info on the upper underdark.

I want Duergar and drow in my games. A lot of Duergar and drow. I use them even in Ravenloft. And I mean the real Duergar, that become invisible and are not hellspawn and the real drow (which weren't bad in 4E).

And lets face it: I know Mind Flayers would be Paragon villains but as you could perhaps guess, I would like them earlier on. The ones in 4E are ... lacking a certain something. I would prefer if they all had the ability to control thralls with their brain-eating. It seems the "real" mind flayer in 4E is... the 18th elite monster. :/
And they're too deadly for 4E. Even the "weak" infiltrator can use thralls etc to keep unreachable while they keep boring into brains with their +17 vs Fort, save ends. A 14th lvl char would have Fort around 22-25, and even if the mind flayer misses one round, the victim remains dazed until it makes a save. To break free? strength Attack vs -25- Fort. God forbid if the mind flayer grabs anyone else than the str 20 fighter (with the +12).
More or less, it's a Deathhold. Once you're grabbed, it's a timed clock while your friends try to cut through the defences to free you. That makes them unsuitable for "boss" monsters at the end of a 10th lvl adventure. Sure, the party could be lucky and avoid the mindblast. However, if the dice are unfavorable in a couple of crucial rolls, the mind flayer will kill people, he won't just leave all of them severely wounded.

They could combine the boxes with modular sections. Remember the three hole binder Monstrous Compendiums?

ewancummins wrote:
They could combine the boxes with modular sections. Remember the three hole binder Monstrous Compendiums?

Nope. Not at all. All my monster manuals were books.

a new art direction with more of an old school feel- less sex(...)

U mean theres much more sexual content in 4th e graphics that in the previous editions..?

Seriously..?
I mean, are you really sure..?
Because all the "unnecessary sex" i found in 4th edition...
Was an idea of the reptilian dragonborns with boobies...
In fact I think, the 4th edition arts are created "for kids" that watch to much anime:/ AD&D artworks were much more "for adult only" than almost anything that was published after them... BTW I totally agree that more "gore and hardcore" will be a great:] You know I cannot imagine 4th of 5th edition Ravenloft book with colourfull, superdetailed, overidealized artworks of the dragonborns, tieflings and so on... The way how the book looks like is a half of the climate...

ewancummins wrote: They could combine the boxes with modular sections. Remember the three hole binder Monstrous Compendiums?

I remember that! It was early 2nd ed, and they were done so you could slot them into the three ring binders. It was even done in the UK, where they don't even have three ring binders or use Letter sized paper. Loved the Easley illustrations on the covers...

As a report on other systems, GURPS has pointedly gone without a monster manual book for a long time. The main argument being that the system is universal, so trying to guess what any one GM needs in his campaign is futile. However they did finally release a number of monster books, mostly in e-format, for their most popular setting Dungeon Fantasy. Unsurprisingly, DF is the setting inspired by DnD, and which appears to be mostly supported by the DnD pre-4e diaspora.

Skavenloft wrote:

a new art direction with more of an old school feel- less sex(...)

U mean theres much more sexual content in 4th e graphics that in the previous editions..?

Seriously..?
I mean, are you really sure..?
Because all the "unnecessary sex" i found in 4th edition...
Was an idea of the reptilian dragonborns with boobies...
In fact I think, the 4th edition arts are created "for kids" that watch to much anime:/ AD&D artworks were much more "for adult only" than almost anything that was published after them... BTW I totally agree that more "gore and hardcore" will be a great:] You know I cannot imagine 4th of 5th edition Ravenloft book with colourfull, superdetailed, overidealized artworks of the dragonborns, tieflings and so on... The way how the book looks like is a half of the climate...

Not a single piece of the art you posted is what I would call 'old school', except for perhaps maybe the Cup and Talisman cover. * Heck, you posted stuff from the 1990s! I'm talking OLD SCHOOL.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/T ... /Mouth.gif

http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/lion009b.jpg


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KVMmj3VWme4/S ... mpier1.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_siPGdYxCfK4/T ... averns.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/T ... 00/phb.jpg


I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Yes, there were some scantily clad girls in old D&D art, and the occasional bare nipple. Big whoop. The 'sexyiness quotient' went way up in later AD&D 2E publications, and stayed up in 3E and into 4E. Too much glitz and glam, not enough dungeons and grime.


YMMV

* The Cup and Talisman adventure came out in 1986.That was just three years before AD&D 2E came out, and after Dragonlance and UA. Many people do not consider that to be 'old school.' I'd call it 'late old school'. I don't see why the occasional harem girl should not be included in the game art. That's plainly what the women on the module cover are supposed to be- harem girls. If they were given swords and placed in a dungeon, they'd look silly. My objection is not to the presence of shapely or scantily clad women, but to the sheer abundance therof; and to the trend to depict most female adventurers as fanservice.

Dude, I understand your point well, but in "real oldschool times" I was barely a dream of my mother:D I was born in '89 so I simply cannot remember the first of the first edition;) But of course you are right here.
BTW - have you ever think that could be a nice idea to print few kinds of D&D with different stylization? I remember the Harry Potter was printed that way - adults get a serious looking, grimm book and youngsters get a colourful, fancy cover... That may be a good idea to satisfy the different groups of fans...

Skavenloft wrote:Dude, I understand your point well, but in "real oldschool times" I was barely a dream of my mother:D I was born in '89 so I simply cannot remember the first of the first edition;) But of course you are right here.
BTW - have you ever think that could be a nice idea to print few kinds of D&D with different stylization? I remember the Harry Potter was printed that way - adults get a serious looking, grimm book and youngsters get a colourful, fancy cover... That may be a good idea to satisfy the different groups of fans...

I was born in '77, so most of the truly 'old school' stuff was OOP (but widely available) when I started playing D&D in 8th grade.

I think different art for different fans is a good idea, but the problem is that gamers have widely divergent tastes in art. I find the level of 'cheesecake' in a lot of gaming art to be unappealing. Some gamers I have known find it downright offensive and sexist. Some people like a cartoonish style, others want more 'realism.' Some people want slick and glitzy art, other people want dark and gritty stuff. I don't see how they can please everybody. Your idea of printing multiple versions of 5E ( each with a different art style) would awesome- if they could make it work with printing costs.

Well, I think people that would prefer old school art from the anime art of the 21st century are few Ewan. I don't see it happening.