[Tarrek]

Fans of dungeons and dragons have probably heard that a new edition of the game is being made. Play tests have begun, and I was just wondering if anyone here had gotten the chance to play it. If so, what do you think of the new edition?

[Quiet Man Cometh]

I'm having little to nothing to do with any edition after 3.5 thank you very much. I'm still peeved at them for putting the classes into two different player's guides for 4e and not including the bard in the first one.

[Suzerain of Sheol]

I was following it for a while back, really hoping they'd do something with it to get me interested in finally moving on from 3.5, but everything I read just sounded... "meh" to me. My main problem is that I can modify 3.5 however I want to to get the "perfect" system for my tastes, WotC is going to have a hard time competing with that. >_>

And I got totally suckered by the April Fools' "leak" on EnWorld this year. I thought it sounded way more interesting than the actual Next. :P

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Some of the April fools stuff is actually pretty neat. I still want to make a My Little Pony version with minis and such, though it would be more for my own amusements now. My niece has outgrown her ponies. She's moved onto Minecraft.

[Tarrek]

I've heard that Next will be more similar to older versions than 4th. I think they are moving away from the card game like feel. For example, the fighter has maneuvers or something that he can do that add some benefit to his attacks or something. I played a fighter in 3rd and 3.5, but got bored of the lack of options in combat for them. It sort of felt like all they could do was run up to something and chop it with the same repetitive actions. In 4th they felt more equal to the other classes in terms of choices, and I liked them more for that, but all the classes felt too similar with the way powers worked.

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Yeah. I felt that 4th was much more limiting in terms of character creation. It was well designed for a fast game but for rp purposes and world building, I felt it just didn't have the same depth.

I did like the shorter skill list at times, but I can apply that to 3.5 without thinking about it.

[Tarrek]

I think 4th was more geared towards combat so that is the way most games tended to go. I am looking forward to a more roleplaying oriented rule set.

[Obbiesan]

Im not sure and i have not been following but me and my friends had begun to play Pathfinder with 3.5 so As of now i dont see much of a point of going and playing a new D&D system after 4.0 being so.....bad and combat orientated

[Tarrek]

I wouldn't say bad. Combat oriented yes, but not bad. As for Pathfinder, I never played it, but to my knowledge it is just a lesser version of 3.0 and 3.5, but my knowledge isn't that much. What makes it different?

[Obbiesan]

Its an off shoot of 3.5 You are a bit more powerful and monsters have over all less health but more powers and ability with which to make you crispy human toast with. Also with how our DM works its quite fun. Also there are Arch-types of the basic classes so You can play a Barbarian who is specialized in killing giants, or wearing heavy armor, or even dual weilding 2 handers, it lets you sub out some skills, abilitys for a more customized base class which i like

[Quiet Man Cometh]

Is Pathfinder any different from DnD 3.5 in terms of core stats? I know there's lots of modified classes you can find. I thougth it was essentially a different setting with some feats and things particular to it, like how Eberron or Forgotten Realms differs from Greyhawk.