D&D 5th Edition announced

[Disciple of Sakura]

Arc Vembris

Disciple of Sakura

building on the history of the franchise rather than throwing it out like garbage...

Oh I dunno, 4e had Sigil and Dark Sun. I don't think Sigil appeared in 3.5 until it made a cameo in Queen of the Demonweb Pits

Planescape didn't directly get touched in any 3.x products, but that doesn't mean that it didn't get tossed out. The basics of 4.x re-purposed things all over (succubi are devils, there are no erinyes, etc, etc). Large swathes of history were just ditched. They did revive some things near the end of the product cycle such as Dark Sun or Sigil, but was it really building on the history of the game? I wouldn't honestly know, having not read their publications and having not gotten much of an opportunity to play in either setting. But their treatment of a recent innovation like Eberron was something of a disappointment to me.  

[Arc Vembris]

I wasn't really a big fan of the 4e artificer, and I think that spoke mechanically to the ways 4e classes were different from the last edition, but short of publishing twelve more books and more adventures they gave Eberron a pretty strong showing. FR only got more attention given their Living FR game and in the 2011 hyper-local Neverwinter setting. Realms, Dark Sun, and Eberron were getting continued lore updates on the website.

Changing things like the affiliation of Succubi and the wheel of the cosmos were part of the design philosophy of 4e. They wanted Devils to fill the role of winged tricksters and corrupters of mortals, rather than simply be demons but lawful. The Erinyes filled the niche of the devil version of succubus and when succ became a devil it was redundant, but you probably didn't notice the Erinyes return in Monster Manual 2.

The entire Great Wheel was full of this forced symmetry that Wizards decided wasn't a sacred enough cow not to kill. Maybe that's important to you or maybe it's not, in my opinion the 4e cosmology made for a more coherent and exciting story about the creation of the universe than "These guys are one alignment, theses guys are the other alignment, and they fight."  

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Arc Vembris

I wasn't really a big fan of the 4e artificer, and I think that spoke mechanically to the ways 4e classes were different from the last edition, but short of publishing twelve more books and more adventures they gave Eberron a pretty strong showing. FR only got more attention given their Living FR game and in the 2011 hyper-local Neverwinter setting. Realms, Dark Sun, and Eberron were getting continued lore updates on the website.

Changing things like the affiliation of Succubi and the wheel of the cosmos were part of the design philosophy of 4e. They wanted Devils to fill the role of winged tricksters and corrupters of mortals, rather than simply be demons but lawful. The Erinyes filled the niche of the devil version of succubus and when succ became a devil it was redundant, but you probably didn't notice the Erinyes return in Monster Manual 2.

The entire Great Wheel was full of this forced symmetry that Wizards decided wasn't a sacred enough cow not to kill. Maybe that's important to you or maybe it's not, in my opinion the 4e cosmology made for a more coherent and exciting story about the creation of the universe than "These guys are one alignment, theses guys are the other alignment, and they fight."

I liked that as well.

I mean the concept of an unholy paladin or cleric or a good rogue is just awesome.


A rogue, who's more like a good assassin or an avenger almost.

I think it opens up a whole lot more character designs.  

[Arc Vembris]

Suicidesoldier#1

I liked that as well.

I mean the concept of an unholy paladin or cleric or a good rogue is just awesome.


A rogue, who's more like a good assassin or an avenger almost.

I think it opens up a whole lot more character designs.

I don't think rogues have ever been restricted to a certain alignment, but I have appreciated paladins and monks of any alignment. Regardless, I make nearly all my characters unaligned. I've been sorely tempted to make my pathfinder characters True Neutral since then for that very reason.  

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Arc Vembris

Suicidesoldier#1

I liked that as well.

I mean the concept of an unholy paladin or cleric or a good rogue is just awesome.


A rogue, who's more like a good assassin or an avenger almost.

I think it opens up a whole lot more character designs.

I don't think rogues have ever been restricted to a certain alignment, but I have appreciated paladins and monks of any alignment. Regardless, I make nearly all my characters unaligned. I've been sorely tempted to make my pathfinder characters True Neutral since then for that very reason.

Hehe, yeah.

Usually mine are "Good".


Simply becuase I imagine I'm supposed to be the good guy.

But I've been working on developing an evil character that would fit my playing style. ninja


Sort of evil but not like, screw the whole party over evil.

It's difficult to do without making your guy out to be a psychopath. ._.  

[Arc Vembris]

Suicidesoldier#1

Arc Vembris

Suicidesoldier#1

I liked that as well.

I mean the concept of an unholy paladin or cleric or a good rogue is just awesome.


A rogue, who's more like a good assassin or an avenger almost.

I think it opens up a whole lot more character designs.

I don't think rogues have ever been restricted to a certain alignment, but I have appreciated paladins and monks of any alignment. Regardless, I make nearly all my characters unaligned. I've been sorely tempted to make my pathfinder characters True Neutral since then for that very reason.

Hehe, yeah.

Usually mine are "Good".


Simply becuase I imagine I'm supposed to be the good guy.

But I've been working on developing an evil character that would fit my playing style. ninja


Sort of evil but not like, screw the whole party over evil.

It's difficult to do without making your guy out to be a psychopath. ._.

Alignment isn't worth arguing over, 4e had that right. Ridiculous thing to anchor your cosmology to IMO  

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Arc Vembris

Suicidesoldier#1

Arc Vembris

Suicidesoldier#1

I liked that as well.

I mean the concept of an unholy paladin or cleric or a good rogue is just awesome.


A rogue, who's more like a good assassin or an avenger almost.

I think it opens up a whole lot more character designs.

I don't think rogues have ever been restricted to a certain alignment, but I have appreciated paladins and monks of any alignment. Regardless, I make nearly all my characters unaligned. I've been sorely tempted to make my pathfinder characters True Neutral since then for that very reason.

Hehe, yeah.

Usually mine are "Good".


Simply becuase I imagine I'm supposed to be the good guy.

But I've been working on developing an evil character that would fit my playing style. ninja


Sort of evil but not like, screw the whole party over evil.

It's difficult to do without making your guy out to be a psychopath. ._.

Alignment isn't worth arguing over, 4e had that right. Ridiculous thing to anchor your cosmology to IMO

Yeah lol

Definitely expands on character potential, classes could do whatever but still be that class.  

[Takamura Kobayashi]

You Will Never Be A Man

BRING BACK THE FEATS!!!!! DOWN WITH POWERS!!!!!!

Unless You Are A Gentleman

 

[Suicidesoldier#1]

You know how there was like wolf stone born and like sunspray warrior and stuff?

I was thinking about making the dragon born. dramallama


But I didn't know what to do with it.

Sounds like fun.


Also, no need for weapon proficiencies and/or possible feats for utility and and feats for combat rather than just one to kill the builds; so two feats, utility and combat oriented.

Would be cool.  

[Arc Vembris]

Takamura Kobayashi

You Will Never Be A Man

BRING BACK THE FEATS!!!!! DOWN WITH POWERS!!!!!!

Unless You Are A Gentleman

Do you mean powers disguised as feats, like Pathfinder likes to do? As long as there are magic users there will be powers, but Mearls has said that one aim of the new system is to make different rule modules optional. Perhaps one fighter subclass could be just straight attacking with minor feat adjustments, while another could be a full-on warblade with stances and exploits an all.  

[Takamura Kobayashi]

Arc Vembris

Takamura Kobayashi

You Will Never Be A Man

BRING BACK THE FEATS!!!!! DOWN WITH POWERS!!!!!!

Unless You Are A Gentleman

Do you mean powers disguised as feats, like Pathfinder likes to do? As long as there are magic users there will be powers, but Mearls has said that one aim of the new system is to make different rule modules optional. Perhaps one fighter subclass could be just straight attacking with minor feat adjustments, while another could be a full-on warblade with stances and exploits an all.

You Will Never Be A Man

I mean in like v3.5. Where you had the feat tree's and prerequisites and things.

Unless You Are A Gentleman

 

[Arc Vembris]

Takamura Kobayashi

Arc Vembris

Takamura Kobayashi

You Will Never Be A Man

BRING BACK THE FEATS!!!!! DOWN WITH POWERS!!!!!!

Unless You Are A Gentleman

Do you mean powers disguised as feats, like Pathfinder likes to do? As long as there are magic users there will be powers, but Mearls has said that one aim of the new system is to make different rule modules optional. Perhaps one fighter subclass could be just straight attacking with minor feat adjustments, while another could be a full-on warblade with stances and exploits an all.

You Will Never Be A Man

I mean in like v3.5. Where you had the feat tree's and prerequisites and things.

Unless You Are A Gentleman

The good news is that D&DNext is being designed to be accessible to fans of any edition. You could play with feats and prereqs while I could play with powers, and a third player could go all OD&D within the same group.