New Edition of “Dungeons & Dragons” Announced

This morning, in the New York Times, and followed up by a new Legends & Lore article, it was announced that Wizards of the Coast is working on the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons. The combination of the WotC staff playing in games of all editions, plus the hiring of Monte Cook, plus the subject of the previous Legends & Lore articles, all added up to a “D&D Greatest Hits” edition, with the goal of bringing D&D players of all stripes together instead of driving further “edition wars.”

At the beginning of December, I was flown out (along with a number of other folks) to Seattle to consult on some upcoming programs. While not the primary purpose of our visit there, we were able to find out about this new game before the official announcement happened. Many of the goals were outlined for us, and we were given a very early demo. While there is a limit to what I’m allowed to talk about- not just for the usual secrecy reasons that they are notorious for but because of how early into the process it all is- I’d like to  just put a few bullet points out there about my impressions of the entire presentation.

  • Wizards is aware of the divisions that have developed within the D&D community, and moreso, is aware that Pathfinder and other versions of D&D are doing quite well. My impression is that Wizards of the Coast is going to be walking a fine line between producing products that fans of other games will want, while also still wanting to sell its core rules to as many players as possible.
  • Many of those annoying issues that D&D fans have complained about for the past few years (regardless of their edition preference): There are plans to fix them, in ways that fans have suggested. Those changes, probably more than anything else, are what have me excited about what’s to come.
  • Along those lines, since the designers are trying to bring forward the best parts of every edition of D&D, expect this edition to be very DM-friendly.
  • As I mentioned, it’s still really early in the process. The takeaway from this is that there’s still plenty of time to make your voice heard in what you want to see. There will be a large playtest for this new edition, possibly starting as early as the spring. In order to make the best D&D they can, they’re looking for opinions from very diverse opinions of what D&D is. I’m sure this will register as a good thing to some of you, and a bad thing to others.
  • The message from the top levels of D&D is that they’re done trying to force a new game on players, and instead make the D&D game that fans are asking for.
  • How all this plays out and what the eventual game turns out to be all still remain to be seen, so I recommend reserving some judgment… for now.
If you’d like to try the latest version of D&D, D&D Experience is coming up at the end of the month. Not only am I one of the special guest bloggers, both ChattyDM and I will be running several tables of it (as will actual WotC employees) so sign up now if you’d like to give it a try.

For some further reading, check out coverage by ENWorldForbesThe Escapist, and CNN. For my prediction back in September before I had any real knowledge, check out The Future of D&D Might Be Its Past. For some wishes for what a new edition of D&D could have, here’s an older post from Sly Flourish. For a look back, here’s our post on the initial announcement of fourth edition. The classic take on why 5e will be terrible (from two and a half years ago) contains this quote:

Edible power cards that must be consumed to use a spell?!?! What an awful, though admittedly tasty, idea. –Mike Mearls

I can definitively tell you that the version that I played did not feature edible power cards.

Editor’s note: I predict a lot of strong feelings one way or the other on this topic, so I will be moderating the comments on this post very strongly. Edition wars (even among those editions not created yet), random vitrol, and normal violations of our comments policy will not be looked kindly upon. In addition, there will be questions that I just can not answer, so I hope you’ll respect that.

About Dave

Dave "The Game" Chalker is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of Critical Hits. Since 2005, he has been bringing readers game news and advice, as well as editing nearly everything published here. He is the designer of the Origins Award-winning Get Bit!, a freelance designer and developer, son of a science fiction author, and a Master of Arts. He lives in MD with e, their three dogs, and two cats.


  1. Deadlytoque says:

    So conflicted. Initially a bit choked, but this… modular, crowd-sourced thing? That actually really intrigues me.

  2. I’m becoming quite fatigued by the rules thrash to be honest. In the last 8 years we’ve had 2 edition rolls, and if presumably this is a 2013 or 2014 release that would make 3 editions in 10 years. You can argue about the merit of different core rules systems, but the net result is a lack of really good content and a big overemphasis on systems. Yet here we go again with another 3-4 year process of rolling all the same basic stuff out yet again, just when we were actually perhaps starting to get some focus on good 4e content, which was horribly, lets say that again, HORRIBLY, lacking since 2008. Maybe this sounds like a grump, but I really want to play, not spend my time re-acquiring all the content and supplements I want to use, once again negotiating through the morass of getting people going and up to speed with another variation of mechanics, etc.

    Good luck to WotC. Whatever they produce will speak for itself, but I’m a little skeptical that the community is ready for a new game. We’re tired. Maybe that puts WotC between a rock and a hard place, but such is life.

  3. To say I’m excited would be an understatement.

  4. DocAquatic says:

    “Many of those annoying issues that D&D fans have complained about for the past few years (regardless of their edition preference): There are plans to fix them, in ways that fans have suggested. Those changes, probably more than anything else, are what have me excited about what’s to come.”

    Have they said what annoying issues, exactly? I imagine that for the bulk of players with edition preferences, one player’s annoying issue is another one’s killer app, and one player’s ideal solution is another’s dealbreaker. With the wide spectrum of people playing D&D and claiming that their version is the one true way, I feel like the only way to create a genuine solution is a modular core system with rules for content creation, but that might just be my own game design preferences coming through.

  5. Glad to hear about the open approach. I’m hoping that this decision by WotC unifies the players base. D&D being a strong brand makes the entire RPG industry stronger.

  6. I think it’s a very smart move having a wide range of playtests for this. The open Beta Paizo did for Pathfinder ended up working wonders for them, so I’m hoping the new edition of D&D will be able to see similar positive results.

  7. TheMainEvent says:

    Color me intrigued about 5E, but the devil is in the details. I have to applaud WotC/Hasbro for looking at the market and their competitors and admitting that others may have good ideas too.

  8. GRR..GNASH…NERD RAGE…I don’t actually care. I played 2, 3, 3.5, 4E. I’ve been happy to play them all…well not 2, THAC0 hurt my head. I’m paid up to next December for DDI, and have signed up for the play testing this spring. I’m interested in seeing what they are planning.

    The only thing I’m not looking forward to is the vast amounts of complaining about a new edition.

  9. I’m actually excited by the announcement, and I’m glad they are going the route of player input. Hard not to see it as a necessary step, given the success that Paizo and other companies had with it.

    Mostly, I’m just happy that there might be an edition of D&D that interests me again. I was never a 4E hater, it just wasn’t a game I enjoyed playing. Pathfinder filled the niche for me quite nicely, but it does feel vaguely “wrong”, somehow, to not be playing D&D since that was the game that I started with back in 1980.

    So I’m definitely seeing the silver-lining in this half-full glass…

  10. WOTC lost me years ago. Actually, they never really had me. A combo of 1st and 2nd ed. AD&D along with 1st ed. Warhamer Fantasy Roleplay (along with other games in different genres) have kept me happy for decades.

    With a decent GM, almost any game (in any version) can be fun, so why fix what I feel isn’t broken?

    They can do whatever they like and I’ll wish them good luck and happy gaming.

  11. I question the process of “design by internet committee”. I wonder how easy it will be for people to make their voices _heard_ as opposed to just voiced.

    But I’ll definitely be there to see how well it works!

  12. I think it’s important to note that there’s a difference between “design our game for us” and this which is a robust playtesting process with heavy community involvement. Ultimately, the designers would be deciding how the game is made.

  13. I look forward to seeing this and buying it, if it suits me. The more D&D there is, the more we can all cherry-pick it for the things we find useful.

  14. > So conflicted. Initially a bit choked, but this… modular, crowd-sourced thing? That actually really intrigues me.

    It either fails spectactularly, or succeeds spectacularly.
    Or something in between.

    That’s my prophecy and I am sticking to it.

  15. I imagine sales of Brian’s t-shirt are going to go thru the roof:

    I hope for the best for 5e, but its tough to be all things to everyone. I can’t wait to see how it all turns out.

  16. I playtested this at the same time that Dave was there in a different group. I think Wizards is admitting to some errors, listening, and attempting to unify a fractured game community. Thanks for the link to the EN World pieces and I hope everybody stays positive with their feedback. I think we have all had too much negativity over the last four years about something that can be so much fun. Please check out some of my other thoughts.

  17. Fairly bummed about this.

    Question is where can we give our feedback. Just in response to the playtest material, or dump our thoughts on their site?

    I sure hope they have the manpower to process all of it. And the problem with an open playtest is a vocal minority can easily sway things their way. Not to mention that people like different things, so finding what suits everyone is going to be very, very difficult.

  18. Lou Wainwright says:

    [Sorry for the length. Turned into a blog post, not a comment. 🙂 ]

    I’ve played all the editions, although first by far the most. And while I have a lot of great feelings for 1st edition, I strongly doubt I would have started a real campaign with my 7 and 8 yo boys as I did last year with 4e. Heck, the fonts alone in the AD&D books scared my kids. Meanwhile, my boys LOVE 4e. My 4th grader just created and ran an original encounter for a group of his friends over the holidays. The power cards concept is so much easier to grasp than combat options had been in any previous version of the game, and for introducing the game to new gamers, being able to easily explain your combat choices is a critical barrier that has to be achieved.

    Now, I absolutely look forward to the kids getting older and introducing them to more complex RPGs. We’ll go into the superhero genre next, to keep it combat focused, and then, in a few years, may try something like Dresden Files, or In Nomine, and who knows, maybe eventually Amber or Nobilis. But that’s not a criticism of D&D. Once you’ve played other, more ‘fuzzy’ games, you can always come back to D&D and play it as a more mature game. I know, I have. But to do so requires an evolution of the players and especially the DM, and I suspect that to get that experience, they need to have broadened the games they play.

    In my opinion the key thing that WoTC needs to keep in mind is this; D&D is THE gateway game into Tabletop RPGs for most gamers, and it must do that as well as possible. I think the first goal of the core game is to aim at the teenage gamer who has 0-3 years of RPGs under their belt. The second priority should be to reconnect with lapsed/casual RPGers, who are looking to participate more in the hobby, and want to play/run a game that everyone is familiar with. The third priority should be to make the best RPG they can, with design principles that take advantage of 40 years of experimentation and development, that maintains the key traditions of D&D and the fantasy novel genre that is at its core, and that can support expansion into more complex sub-genre’s such as Planescape. If WoTC it nails those three things, in order, I think it will max out its revenue.

    Note, however, that that max is unlikely to be as high as they’d want. There is no magic bullet; core books will always sell better than any particular supplements/expansions, after a while people have enough books for their group and don’t have to keep keeping up. Better and better RPGs keep being created, and good games have long tails, so the market is always getting more crowded. As such, sustaining revenue growth after releasing any new edition will always be very tough. That’s why; if I was to suggest a fourth priority it would be this. Design the game system such that from the ground level it works well when ported to computers, including both Virtual Tabletop and cRPG games. Simply put, if WoTC wants to have any potential to grow the D&D market long term, it has to have D&D, done well, on computers, both to reduce the barrier to entry for players with no tabletop gaming experience, and to exploit the fact that an increasing number of people’s interactions with their friends is virtual.

  19. I’m excited to see what comes of this – a Greatest Hits of D&D would be awesome, as there are favorite parts of each edition that I would like to see brought back together with others.

    The design by committee thing makes me nervous, however. Reminds me of voting in the US. No one does it, and everyone complains about the results with the idea they are entitled to be taken care of. I think what could have been a great edition all ready got shot in the leg 🙁 Sure, it’s worked well for other companies, but I believe (no hard evidence of this, but my intuition after spending time w/ the intertubes) that the pool of ppl who play (for example) Pathfinder is not much larger percentage-wise than the pool of ppl who weighed in on it’s development – whereas w/ D&D the pool of ppl that participate will be much smaller than the pool of players.

    Regardless, I am excited to get ahold of my new core rules, and only have 2 requests up-front:
    * stop making my printed books useless with a never-ending stream or errata (WotC has sort of done this all ready)
    * dump the Microsoft tech for your online tools (heck, I think that WotC has shown it can’t manage software at all, and i recommend outsourcing the development of their tools all together)

  20. While I can’t explain it rationally, I feel that a new version of the game was due. While I’ve had long hours that I’ve enjoyed 4e… I also had long hours where I wasn’t enjoying it for reasons that most everyone reading this article today can make an educated guest about.

    I had heard the rumours about this and was expecting the announcement today to be a “this time we’re telling you we’ve started working on it” … am happy it is.

    Since I’ll be among the playtesters, I plan to bring my experiences of the last 2 years with other RPGs upfront and hope my voice will be heard… much like that of others who will make the effort to participate.

  21. Arthur Strum says:

    I think this is pretty great news. As commentors have said, 4E was chock full of content. Yet it failed to get traction. So content wasn’t the problem. The problem was truly the ruleset. Not that it was bad (it wasn’t), but that it was too highly contentious. It has had nearly 4 years to sink in and even though I like it, it seems to be struggling. If they’re truly intent on fixing it, and using our ideas to help shape it, this is a win win for everyone. I look foward to wotc finally getting their act together with regards to the D&D community. This is great news.

  22. Nate Barnes says:

    I’m sure glad I just sunk a ton of cash on 4E books…

  23. I have no great feelings either way. Only played 3.0 a couple times and never bothered with 3.5, 4th, or Pathfinder.

  24. Dave, I have one big question about what you played:

    Did you like it?

  25. I’m really excited about this part:

    In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play. — Mike Mearls,

    The crux of the problem with D&D is that it appeals to such a broad player base — all of whom want slightly different things. For example, I personally am burnt-out on complexity; but the success of Pathfinder shows that clearly there are a lot of players who still can’t get enough crunch. It’s a super tall order, but if they can really make an edition of D&D that is adaptable to all those various play styles, it would be a great thing for the industry.

  26. Thanks for asking, James! I did have fun playing it. Very much looking forward to seeing more of it.

  27. Mike Karkabe-Olson says:

    Well, I’m looking forward to an edition that truly incorporates the best of each, including 4e. For one, I hope the new addition will retain the use of 4e’s action system (its free, minor, move, and standard actions), and its use of a larger hit point scale (starting out with 25-30 hit points instead of 1-10), and its use of a bloodied value and a surge value (but with more intricacy in how healing occurs so it is more realistic). Those were, for the most part, awesome changes. I also hope the new edition will include a ritual system of some sort, though perhaps better refined than the current one. I like how rituals are treated separately from the normal spell list. I would also revamp the critical hits so that they are more drastic and variable, something like rolling on a chart that allows you to cause damage equal to ¼, ½, and ¾ the victim’s total hit points in one blow (before the victim was injured, in other words a fraction of the victim’s total uninjured hit point value), and I would have players roll a 12-sided die along with the 20-sided attack die when they attack (with a 12 on the 12-die resulting in a critical hit, but ONLY if the result on the 20-sided die also results in a hit). This eliminates the currently unbalanced system of only obtaining a critical on a 20 of the 20-die (unrealistic because it occurs too often as a percentage of hits when the attacker can only hit on an 18, 19, or 20, and not often enough if the attacker can hit on a 3-20).

    I would also incorporate more variance in combat modifiers of the “leveling up” process to make fighter-type classes stand out more, something akin to 1st edition AD&D, so that only fighter types and perhaps some striker types increase their attack modifiers every other level, while wizard types and pacifistic classes increase their attack modifiers by only 1 for every 3 or 4 levels gained, at least while using physical weapons (but not for spells, those should require hit rolls off the quicker advancement route since that, rather than physical weaponry, should be their forte). Currently, it seems like wizards and other classes are too capable of fighting effectively with physical weaponry when they should be more reliant on spells or “backstabbing,” etc.

    Additionally, I like how 4e includes some “special moves” or powers or effects, especially for classes that are not wizards, but I think perhaps they should be provided in a more limited, specialized way. Currently, there are too many of them and they blur the class lines too much; they should be much more limited. Currently, they often don’t make much “realistic” sense either or they are difficult to keep track of while playing, slowing the game down. So, again, I think it would be better to refine and reduce these special “moves” to make them more class specific and realistic, so that your choice is simply made when you choose your class, or by expending feats to gain another class’s special “move” or “power.” I also like the idea of providing more automated “on” choices as opposed to choices that have to be made constantly during combat. In this regard, I like the use of utility powers, overall, better than the current use of at-wills, encounters and dailies, though I don’t think the idea of encounter and daily powers should be eliminated completely; it is really cool to pull out something exotic once in a while that can be used once per encounter or per day.

    I also like the use of minions and swarms in 4e. I hope those ideas are retained. And I like the use of skill challenges, though I think they should be revamped and explained better in a way that is much more user-friendly and realistic. I would also get rid of the “specific number of failures needed to cause the challenge to fail” rule because it is too arbitrary and often destroys the integrity and fluidity of a skill challenge. A simpler solution, and less rules intrusive method, would be to reduce the “skill challenge” to a simple reward-based system in which the DM secretly keeps track of all skill rolls made during the entire adventure or “challenge” and rewards XP at the end based on the success of the entire challenge and/or total number of skill checks attempted (whether they succeeded or not because you should also learn from your mistakes, and that would also encourage players to make skill attempts even if they are not good at certain skills).

    On the other hand, saving throws, if they are going to be retained at all in the next system, should be more intricately done and follow the methods of earlier editions.

  28. sciamhach says:

    While the idea of cobbling together the best bits of past editions while saying they are implementing fans desired tweaks sounds interesting, I don’t think it’s going to result in a product that would make me abandon my preferred edition. I strongly suspect this will be a “too many sources spoil the game” situation.

  29. Arthur Strum says:

    “While the idea of cobbling together the best bits of past editions while saying they are implementing fans desired tweaks sounds interesting”

    That doesn’t sound interesting all actually. That sounds pretty bad.

    The idea of honing their design craft to a razors edge to formulate an ultimate rules edition based on 40 years of development experience and practice while weighing the value of what to include based on input from those who know the game best and play it the most.

    Now, THAT sounds interesting.

    It’s all in how you look at it. 🙂

  30. I’m afraid WotC lost me as a customer just over a year ago when they forced the new DDI on me and replaced the existing, useful character creator with a web-only version that was buggy, incomplete, and had fewer features and unreasonable limits (in particular, regarding print layout, number of characters, and online requirement). They showed a complete disregard for customers that left a sour taste that’s still in my mouth. I haven’t been a customer since; a new edition is unlikely to change that.

  31. Whilst I’m a huge fan of 4th Edition, I welcome any attempt to reconcile the fractious differences in the community. If the hobby is strengthened as a result, I’ll gladly put aside any gripes about the game reviving certain aspects I may otherwise have been happy to see the back of.

    One thing does make me feel a bit weary though: the churn of 5th edition books that we’ll almost certainly go through in order to make the game “complete”. For 4E we’re still seeing reboots of the same-old settings and adventure sites, and I want something new.

    Still, exciting times, and I look forward to the playtest.

  32. CrowOfPyke says:

    I am happy that Robert J. Schwalb will be working on rules content with Monte Cook. Robert wrote the Psionic Powers book for 4th edition. As someone who HATED psionics in previous editions (broken, hard to use, etc), I was *very* skeptical of psionics in 4th edition to the tune of “Oh gods, not psionics!” As it turned out, I was very happy with the Psionic Powers book – it was obviously playtested really well, and it overall it worked really well. Sure, past performance of a writer is no indicator that the next thing that they write will be just as good, but in this case I’d hedge my bets that way.

    My only request for 5th Edition DND? For the love of all that is holy about RPG’s, do NOT make any part of the new edition “collectible” like was done for the latest version of Gamma World!!! BLECH!!

  33. B.J. Morgan says:

    I feel a little squeamish and excited by this as a new player. For all intents and purposes, I’m still in the honeymoon phase of my D&D journey. Like an start-crossed love, I have just devoured everything I could about D&D. I’ve bought multiple books and I feel like I learn multiple new things every time I play. Now I have to start over again. My wallet cries foul.

  34. The message from the top levels of D&D is that they’re done trying to force a new game on players, and instead make the D&D game that fans are asking for.

    All else aside, this defeatism strikes me as lame — 4th edition will go down in nerd history as a failed game because of this kind of thing, when it still is what it’s always been: a very very clever design (the combat system and especially the DM-facing XP budget and encounter/monster design systems are fantastic) marred by (1) shockingly bad, even cowardly supporting content and (2) a huge variety of corporate failings, from shitcanning PDFs to keeping old material out of print to massive digital incompetence to unforgivably expensive books…

    Not to mention (3) inertia, which is why you get ‘fans…asking for’ basically WHAT I GREW UP PLAYING, PLUS NEW AWESOME. Good luck with that.

  35. Wayne Peacock says:


    Tell us four things as you move forward and are exposed to the rules:

    Do you think it is (more) fun to play? Why?

    Do you think it is (more) fun to DM? Why?

  36. For 4E we’re still seeing reboots of the same-old settings and adventure sites, and I want something new.

    Yeah, the single most depressing thing about this is the inexplicable decision by a WotC rep to reassure gamers that the goddamn Forgotten Realms will be the first fully-supported campaign world. As if we needed to be reminded that the money guys see ‘big audience’ and ‘lowest common denominator’ as equivalent…

    In my dreamworld they assign the task of writing the out-of-the-box sample campaign world(s) to Ken Hite, of course.

  37. Hey Wayne,
    It wasn’t directed at me but I can answer the player part of that with a solid “yes”. It was a lot more fun to play than 4E in my opinion. One of the reasons was it was much quicker to get around to my turn, even tho we were playing it for the first time. From talking with Mike Mearls and seeing him DM in action I would have to say that it looks a lot more fun to DM. The reason being this is an attempt to return the game back to the hands of the DM a bit. I can’t wait to start my playtesting and sharing the results with WotC and all my fellow gamers.

  38. Wayne Peacock says:


    Glad you enjoyed it. Personally, I find 4e to be one of the most GM friendly versions of the game. (To be specific, my prep is much quicker in 4e than in 3.x). I hope that continues and is improved though.

    I am glad the turn-timing decreased. That will be an improvement!

  39. Hopefully they make a game that:
    a) doesn’t make it impossible for PCs to die
    b) doesn’t make it incredibly easy for PCs to get to 20th level in short order
    c) gets away from forcing an RPG to be a wargame with PC flavor added and get back to a pure RPG. Enough of these grids and constructions to be required!

    I’m not holding my breath though.

  40. Roger Alix-Gaudreau says:

    I have played and loved every edition of the game, but each edition eventually grew stale for me. Maybe I’m a change junkie or something, but I experience great wonder in exploring something new. I felt that each new edition improved on the one that went before, usually because it addressed whatever finally made me annoyed and disgruntled with the game.

    The only thing I’m sad about (and that’s really too strong a word) is that I’m not done with 4E yet. I haven’t played it out, seen all it can do and become annoyed at its quirks and foibles yet. That won’t stop me from trying out 5E (or whatever they call it) and contributing my opinions. I may not play the official release right away — I prefer to wrap up campaigns in the edition they started, which made my groups slow to adopt 3.5 and 4E, which may in turn explain why I’m not through with 4E yet, since I’ve only been playing it for 2.5 years. But maybe this time I’ll switch early and either convert my campaign or start a new one with the new edition. It all depends on how much fun my friends and I have while playtesting it.

  41. Bryce Miller says:

    Curious about 4e compatibility. Will my current 4e books be compatible with the new edition?

  42. I LIKE this a LOT: “The message from the top levels of D&D is that they’re done trying to force a new game on players, and instead make the D&D game that fans are asking for.”

  43. Mr Trelawney says:

    I only have a few requests when it comes to my D&D:

    1. Create a dynamic system that allows for easy entry for new players as well as endless experimentation for more advanced players (I felt 4E did this pretty well). I like the idea of incorporating player feedback and ideas into the finished product

    2. A longer life cycle for products – As a gamer I am turned off when reference materials become out of date nearly as soon as they are printed, editions change just as the bugs are really worked out of previous material, or materials are simply removed from the market. This, combined with the higher price of books, simply leads me to spend my entertainment dollars elsewhere or make up my own rules. The relatively quick change from 3 to 3.5 to 4 really bothered me and left me feeling like a abused consumer.

    3. Improved game materials – While the physical books themselves are superior in production value (who can forget those 2E players hadbooks that fell out of their covers?) the actual content often seemed sloppy or hastely written/edited in the 3-4E products. Numerous typos and the need for subsequent FAQ and errata really takes away from the products.

    4. I’d like to see WoTC move away from the Warcrafting of D&D (i.e. striker, controller, etc.). Rather than lumping player classes into groups and creating endless classes at that, I’d rather return to a system more akin to 2E with fewer base classes and the opportunity to create kits for those classes. The recent Neverwinter campaign book actually used something similar to this that I really liked. If a player really wants to go buffet style for their powers and skills, the 4E model for multi-classing works pretty well.

    I might just be a grumpy old guy but I would love to see something that feels like 2E but looks like 4E, if that makes sense.

  44. I’m excited, and feel this was a necessary step to keep the D&D brand relevant. If they hadn’t done this, Pathfinder would likely be a year or two at most away from market dominance as well as brand name dominance, something I had never previously thought possible. As for me, I bought all 4E books and played it extensively, but I am a D&Der at heart and I do not play favorites with editions, having played 2nd, 3rd, Pathfinder and various spin offs like S&W and C&C all within the last three years as well as 4E. As a collector who enjoys the hobby and all it produces, I look forward to seeing the next edition, and participating in this process.

  45. I am happy that they will be trying to appease everyone. I am crossing my fingers that they may be able to bring some of the players back to the game for the new edition. I am not holding my breath for this. I don’t think they will be able to satisfy the masses, especially the ones who are edition-centric to their own game.

    I have loved every edition I have played. There are pros and cons to all the editions. There will always be haters, and always be lovers.

    Here a cheer for them for trying!!


  1. […] Critical Hits: New Edition of “Dungeons & Dragons” Announced […]

  2. […] but I had to turn it down due to a scheduling conflict. That’s where certain bloggers and members of the press were invited to participate in a playtest/demo of the new D&D.  From […]

  3. […] Dave over at Critical Hits says: If you’d like to try the latest version of D&D, D&D Experience is coming up at the end of the month. Not only am I one of the special guest bloggers, both ChattyDM and I will be running several tables of it (as will actual WotC employees) so sign up now if you’d like to give it a try. […]

  4. […] e CNN, estavam no meio blogueiros gringos como o Morrus do site Enworld e Dave “The Game” do Critical Hits.  Aparentemente este grupo teve acesso a uma sessão de perguntas e respostas onde foi colocado […]

  5. […] Critical Hits: “New Edition of Dungeons & Dragons Announced” […]

  6. […] do we know about it so far? Not much sadly – thankfully plenty of excellent websites have already given it a go, and the reports so far is that the new D&D is fun to […]

  7. […] do mais famoso RPG do mundo pegou todo mundo em um ataque de oportunidade ontem. As notícias podem ser lidas em vários lugares na internet, mas os detalhes ainda são […]

  8. […] Mike Mearls. The invitees include (with links to their articles): NewbieDM (who did not attend), Dave “The Game” Chalker, Christopher Hackler, Ethan Gilsdorf for the New York Times, Greg Tito for The […]

  9. […] Dave “The Game” Chalker at Critical Hits (link) […]

  10. […] approach to the complexity level of the rules as characters and monsters advance. I'd like D&D5e to offer more support for role-playing, world-building, and pickup and one-shot games. German […]

  11. […] Critical Hits: New Edition of “Dungeons & Dragons” Announced […]

  12. […] Critical Hits has a great selection of mainstream links and information about the new edition. […]

  13. […] have a lot of other things I want to talk about here on Critical Hits, but with Monday’s announcement of a new style of Dungeons & Dragons in the works it feels wrong to talk about anything else. The 4th edition of D&D brought about the only long […]

  14. […] provide feedback. This has caused all sorts of responses from naysayers, to the confused, to the cautiously hopeful. I fall into the […]

  15. […] The recent annoucement that D&D was going to get a new iteration has garnered a lot of reactions on the web. I decided to refrain from early judgement but, much like when 4e was announced, I take an optimistic approach to it. I happen to respect and even quite like the work of the three main designers working on it so that helps my somewhat positive outlook. […]

  16. […] The recent annoucement that D&D was going to get a new iteration has garnered a lot of reactions on the web. I decided to refrain from early judgement but, much like when 4e was announced, I take an optimistic approach to it. I happen to respect and even quite like the work of the three main designers working on it so that helps my somewhat positive outlook. […]