There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true. My question is: what do we like about 4th edition that we want to see preserved. What is good about 4th? I want this thread to stay focused on 4th edition, its merits and also perhaps its problems.
What I like about 4th which I want to see preserved:
1) The basic combat system. This is the first d&d system where the basic combat rules are clean and easy to interpret and do not get in the way. 3rd edition was a nightmare to run. Basic combat is now a solved problem near as I can see.
2) The concept of different power sources. I think this is really useful.
3) The 4 defense scores. This is part of #1 but it also helps define characters, etc.
4) The equality of the classes. Fighters level up in power with wizards.
5) The concept of the different roles.
6) Themes as way to flesh out a character. (Is this just Dark Sun?)
7) The emphasis on the d20.
8) The short, digestible stat block of monsters
9) Minions! Love’em.
Here are things I think that should be changed or what I do not like:
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game. This is in part due to problem #1.
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
3) Not enough variation in characters.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
7) Death does not seem real.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
9) More skills.
There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true.
Why?
There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true.
Why?
Because if we do not assume this is true, then there is no reason for his thread. He lays the assumption that it is true as a premise for the discussion.
Or are you asking why there has been a lot of speculation?
1) Abstraction over nailing everything down
2) Balance between classes
3) Ability to quickly prep encounters and sessions as the DM
4) Inherent bonusses as an option
IMPROVE:
1) Skill Challenges
2) Ritual Casting and Utility Powers
SCRAP
1) feats and items that give an always-on combat bonus (boring and generally too good)
ADD
1) More advice on how to play (how to create an interesting character, how to design a backstory, how to narrate conflict, etc. none of this even needs to have any relation to 5e, it could be an entire book on "how to roleplay in a fantasy world")
2) More inspiration. Lists of plot hooks, character quirks, background templates, item/city/country/people names, etc. Explanations on "how to handle improvisation" and "how to improvise properly"
3) Stacking limiters. No more "I put all my feats/powers/items/theme/paragon path/epic destiny/etc towards this one thing, so it's basically all I can do". Let characters be more organic. Force them to diversify.
4) Virtues and Vices. Or basically, benefits to having (and roleplaying) weaknesses in your character.
Think that'd be a start.
There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true.Why?
Because if we do not assume this is true, then there is no reason for his thread. He lays the assumption that it is true as a premise for the discussion.
Or are you asking why there has been a lot of speculation?
If you will check the boards, you will see that there has been discussion. I do not want get into it here because I just want focus on the pluses and minuses of 4th Edition. This thread is about 4th edition.
I really, really agree on skill challenges. Brilliant idea, terribly flawed in execution and it doesn't help that the early 4e adventures have a lot of poorly designed ones that seem thrown in just for the sake of having a skill challenge (i.e. it seems that almost every Scales of War adventure has a 'go from point a to point b' challenge). This unfortunately meant that a lot of us had to break bad habits when designing our own. I see a lot of potential with the concept though, it just can use a lot of work.
There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true.Why?
Because if we do not assume this is true, then there is no reason for his thread.
Was kindof my point. I'm all for discussions about what 4e does well and doesn't do well, what we like and what has to change.
But it shouldn't require rampant speculation in order to do that. What happens if that assumption is wrong? The major, truly incompatible changes are relegated to the dustbin of the internet, to be long forgotten by the time they actually are working on 5e. What do we do with the rest, though? The stuff that could be slight tweaks and modifications and improvements that are compatible with the Rules Update process? I'm talking about things on the level of the Stealth redesign, here. Significant, major changes, yet still close enough that they can be published within the edition. Those could be implemented regardless of when 5e comes out.
Which would we, as the community, rather have more discussion on? Things that are practical to implement now, or things we might have to wait 1, 2, 5, or 8 years for? Which is this thread more likely to generate, though?
I don't disagree with the premise of evaluating 4e to figure out a More Perfect System. I'm challenging the premise that framing the discussion as "What do you want to see in 5e" is as good an endeavor - for us at this moment - as working from within the edition.
I like the balance (classes) in 4E, but something should be done to make characters feel more unique.
Spell rituals - some of them just seem too costly or require too much time to cast.
I really don't like "level required" magic items, seems too Warcrafty - gives me a similar feeling to "bind on acquire" types of items (although I realize that's a totally separate thing).
I'm glad Vancian spellcasting is (mostly) gone. If they went all the way and got rid of the need to memorize spell repertoires entirely, I'd be happier. Once you know a spell, you shouldn't forget it completely, just seems odd.
I like the balance (classes) in 4E, but something should be done to make characters feel more unique.
Spell rituals - some of them just seem too costly or require too much time to cast.
I really don't like "level required" magic items, seems too Warcrafty - gives me a similar feeling to "bind on acquire" types of items (although I realize that's a totally separate thing).
There are no level required magic items, though. The level on the magic items is not a restriction. It's not like a level 1 character is incapable of using a level 3 magic item.
The only exception is LFR. It has a level +4 limit on magic items. At least it used to. I haven't played much since Essentials.
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
Here is a good chance to work on encounter design (also make sure you are using the most up to date monster stats!). Adding in traps and hazards to an encounter, and throwing in skill challenges can help make combat more exciting (so it doesn't feel like it drags) while at the same time speeding it up (since there are less things that have hit points)
Also, using things like "auto-hit" powers on enemies and average damage will reduce die rolls as well.
Another option is to have "outs" of combat, ways that you can speed up certain fights. For example - in a large room of undead, successfully destroying the black crystal (as a skill challenge) will destroy all the undead. It allows for a way to end the combat faster than it would have been.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game. This is in part due to problem #1.
This is mostly a perception thing - as a DM a few things you can do that can help
- place objects in the room that can be used to "do things": ropes to swing from, candelabras to throw, fire places to kick monsters into, etc.
- if you use power cards, print one out for each player for rule 42 (i.e. do something cool rule)
- reward the players - even if something the are proposing seems out of ordinary that logically might fail, let them do it.
- take lead as DM, if you don't describe the action of the monsters then the players really can't be expected to either.
- as DM before an encounter read through the stat block and think of a few ways a power might manifest itself and jot them down ahead of time.
- Garthanos can probably chime in with a million and one ways to refluff powers too to make them more interesting.2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
I agree they could tweak them to make them work better, but here are some things you can do to make them run a bit better
- Never tell the players they are in a skill challenge, there is no point
- don't bother with init (if you want, go in the order of their init modifier)
- make sure to check with each player, ask them how they want to handle the situation, make sure to give them plenty of clues to work off of
- don't dwell on a element for too long - don't make them make multiple nature checks to navigate the forest, make a single roll - success/failure - and move onto the next element of the skill challenge.3) Not enough variation in characters.
You'd be surprised!
- Many classes have at least 2-3 builds, some have far more than that.
- Through the use of multiclass and hybrid you can make some really interesting options
- Refluff, Refluff, refluff!
As a practice exercise - try building a fighter a few different ways, try building one who focuses on INT instead of STR (and it can be done). Try building a wizard who is more of a defender. They may not be 100% optimized, but it can be done and they can still function!
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
MME helps with this. As a DM before you place an object, think of what it looks like, think of who might of used it before, think of why it might be created, why would this particular enchantment be on it?
When you think about it, a sword with cold properties would be very different than a sword that is brutal: The cold weapon might have a slight blue color to it, and be chilly to the touch, it may have been created to stop a fire elemental that was destroying the farms...while the brutal weapon may have chips in the blade and a blood red gem in the hilt. It might have been owned by an evil warrior who took no mercy.
As you can see, you can create some great individiuality on the magic items with just a couple of short notes.5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.
I have no feedback for this - I do think the Points of Light campaign is pretty decent though, and Neverwinter (while part of Realms) is a good read and chock full of stuff!6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
The newer MM books tend to have examples of some encounters in them, that coupled with the DMG you can usually put together balanced encounters pretty quick. 7) Death does not seem real.
Do you mean death doesn't seem permanent because of the raise dead spell or are the combats not challenging enough where death seems like a plausible outcome?
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
Page 42 of the DMG is your friend - it's basically if someone wants to do something, if it's favorable, they get a +2, if its eh - you just roll, and if it's unfavorable its' a -2. That's all you really need.
Beyond that is just practice and experience, something that a book really can't teach. That said, have you tried picking up "4e for dummies"? (not ment to be an insult, it really exists and I do own copy of it)9) More skills.
Perhaps some examples of skills you think are missing?
KEEP:
1) Abstraction over nailing everything down
2) Balance between classes
3) Ability to quickly prep encounters and sessions as the DM
4) Inherent bonusses as an option
IMPROVE:
1) Skill Challenges
2) Ritual Casting and Utility Powers
SCRAP
1) feats and items that give an always-on combat bonus (boring and generally too good)
ADD
1) More advice on how to play (how to create an interesting character, how to design a backstory, how to narrate conflict, etc. none of this even needs to have any relation to 5e, it could be an entire book on "how to roleplay in a fantasy world")
2) More inspiration. Lists of plot hooks, character quirks, background templates, item/city/country/people names, etc. Explanations on "how to handle improvisation" and "how to improvise properly"
3) Stacking limiters. No more "I put all my feats/powers/items/theme/paragon path/epic destiny/etc towards this one thing, so it's basically all I can do". Let characters be more organic. Force them to diversify.
4) Virtues and Vices. Or basically, benefits to having (and roleplaying) weaknesses in your character.
Think that'd be a start.
I agree with almost everything in your list, but I think that your first point about abstraction needs refinement. I think that the abstraction does at times get in the way of roleplaying. It would be better if there was someway to have a general resolution system that was abstract, one that could be used with modifiers based on roleplaying.
Another abstraction problem: there are character powers that abstract roleplaying (an example is the warlord power: Lamb to the slaughter). That power should not exist. It is a great concept, but it turns a roleplaying situation (baiting an enemy into charging) into a power with a single dice role.
1) The basic combat system. This is the first d&d system where the basic combat rules are clean and easy to interpret and do not get in the way. 3rd edition was a nightmare to run. Basic combat is now a solved problem near as I can see.
I agree, the combat rules are basically good.
2) The concept of different power sources. I think this is really useful.
They're a good premise, but I've never really been able to distinguish between "martial" and "arcane", they seem pretty arbitrary, with generally generating the same (damage + effect) effects.. On the other hand, old D&D's "necromantic" and "evocation", those I can tell a difference.
3) The 4 defense scores. This is part of #1 but it also helps define characters, etc.
I like it, mostly, but I do find I miss the D&D's system of half a dozen different save categories. The "3 dump stat" design of 4e characters make this system twitchy, I'd rather have defenses be strictly level based, or at least not tied so closely to attributes. Still, I'll call it a wash.
4) The equality of the classes. Fighters level up in power with wizards.
A good theory, but the principle just hasn't been executed well for me. I'd like classes to be have more definition than what they do in fights, and I'm willing to risk theoretical balance problems from it.
5) The concept of the different roles.
The miserable execution of this, combined with characters being so pigeonholed, makes this a bad thing for me. Again, I want characters to be more than just what they do in battle.
6) Themes as way to flesh out a character. (Is this just Dark Sun?)
Yep, these are good.
7) The emphasis on the d20.
Sure, whatever.
8) The short, digestible stat block of monsters
Works for me.
9) Minions! Love’em.
I hate these things...way too often "is it a minion?" is asked. They make no sense except as band-aids for problems with fights taking too long. There needs to be a better system than having some monsters being especially vulnerable to being slain by bookkeeping.
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
Indeed. I think part of this ties into how hard it is to do anything to a character that can't be overcome in 5 minutes of chillin'.
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
Definitely needs a different set of rules. I'm willing to listen to "Skill Challenge Rules, v23.8".
3) Not enough variation in characters.
Agreed, and much of this would probably come from classes being defined in ways besides combat.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
I think pretty much any "you can make whatever you want" system will have this problem. Either items are unique, and people complain about imbalances, or they're all generic, and people complain they're boring.
5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.
Yes, one thing lacking in 4e was a good set of adventures and modules...there was just nothing that created much in the way of fun memories.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
Huh? I find encounter creation to be a snap in 4e, I don't know how it could be any easier.
7) Death does not seem real.
I think this goes back to the 'nothing lasts longer than 5 minutes' issue, nothing really seems real. On the one hand, the second wind/surge mechanic solves some problems, but on the other, almost everything in the game seems pointless because of it.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
There needs to be more options for roleplaying outside of battle; combine this with faster battles, and I think this problem won't be so bad.
9) More skills.
I'm torn with this one. I think a more generic 'stunt' system to cover everything outside of the skills would be better. I don't think the game needs a Craft (silver item) skill, so much as some general guidelines on what else the characters can do besides fight.
3) Not enough variation in characters.
You'd be surprised!
- Many classes have at least 2-3 builds, some have far more than that.
2-3 is NOT a lot of variation, and my point is that the whole concept of a "build" is the anti-thesis of role-playing.
I agree with almost everything in your list, but I think that your first point about abstraction needs refinement. I think that the abstraction does at times get in the way of roleplaying. It would be better if there was someway to have a general resolution system that was abstract, one that could be used with modifiers based on roleplaying.
If abstraction is getting in the way of your roleplaying, you're probably not using enough of it. It shouldn't ever get in the way of roleplaying.
I don't want to speculate on editions that haven't come out yet, rather, I will offer some advice on some things that may make some of your pain points less painful for the immediate future.1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
Here is a good chance to work on encounter design (also make sure you are using the most up to date monster stats!). Adding in traps and hazards to an encounter, and throwing in skill challenges can help make combat more exciting (so it doesn't feel like it drags) while at the same time speeding it up (since there are less things that have hit points)
Also, using things like "auto-hit" powers on enemies and average damage will reduce die rolls as well.
Another option is to have "outs" of combat, ways that you can speed up certain fights. For example - in a large room of undead, successfully destroying the black crystal (as a skill challenge) will destroy all the undead. It allows for a way to end the combat faster than it would have been.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game. This is in part due to problem #1.This is mostly a perception thing - as a DM a few things you can do that can help
- place objects in the room that can be used to "do things": ropes to swing from, candelabras to throw, fire places to kick monsters into, etc.
- if you use power cards, print one out for each player for rule 42 (i.e. do something cool rule)
- reward the players - even if something the are proposing seems out of ordinary that logically might fail, let them do it.
- take lead as DM, if you don't describe the action of the monsters then the players really can't be expected to either.
- as DM before an encounter read through the stat block and think of a few ways a power might manifest itself and jot them down ahead of time.
- Garthanos can probably chime in with a million and one ways to refluff powers too to make them more interesting.2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).I agree they could tweak them to make them work better, but here are some things you can do to make them run a bit better
- Never tell the players they are in a skill challenge, there is no point
- don't bother with init (if you want, go in the order of their init modifier)
- make sure to check with each player, ask them how they want to handle the situation, make sure to give them plenty of clues to work off of
- don't dwell on a element for too long - don't make them make multiple nature checks to navigate the forest, make a single roll - success/failure - and move onto the next element of the skill challenge.3) Not enough variation in characters.
You'd be surprised!
- Many classes have at least 2-3 builds, some have far more than that.
- Through the use of multiclass and hybrid you can make some really interesting options
- Refluff, Refluff, refluff!
As a practice exercise - try building a fighter a few different ways, try building one who focuses on INT instead of STR (and it can be done). Try building a wizard who is more of a defender. They may not be 100% optimized, but it can be done and they can still function!
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.MME helps with this. As a DM before you place an object, think of what it looks like, think of who might of used it before, think of why it might be created, why would this particular enchantment be on it?
When you think about it, a sword with cold properties would be very different than a sword that is brutal: The cold weapon might have a slight blue color to it, and be chilly to the touch, it may have been created to stop a fire elemental that was destroying the farms...while the brutal weapon may have chips in the blade and a blood red gem in the hilt. It might have been owned by an evil warrior who took no mercy.
As you can see, you can create some great individiuality on the magic items with just a couple of short notes.5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.I have no feedback for this - I do think the Points of Light campaign is pretty decent though, and Neverwinter (while part of Realms) is a good read and chock full of stuff!
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.The newer MM books tend to have examples of some encounters in them, that coupled with the DMG you can usually put together balanced encounters pretty quick.
7) Death does not seem real.
Do you mean death doesn't seem permanent because of the raise dead spell or are the combats not challenging enough where death seems like a plausible outcome?
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
Page 42 of the DMG is your friend - it's basically if someone wants to do something, if it's favorable, they get a +2, if its eh - you just roll, and if it's unfavorable its' a -2. That's all you really need.
Beyond that is just practice and experience, something that a book really can't teach. That said, have you tried picking up "4e for dummies"? (not ment to be an insult, it really exists and I do own copy of it)9) More skills.
Perhaps some examples of skills you think are missing?
You sound like a complete WOTC apologist. I have been roleplaying for 40 years. I play in two 4th edition campaigns. I know a ton of gamers. The consensus of nearly all the people I talk to is that D&D 4th edition is the least roleplaying-friendly system around.
There is clearly a feel to this system that is different. Ignoring it will not make it go away. I know how to compensate for it, but I should not have to.
And for the record, I really like 4th edition.
my point is that the whole concept of a "build" is the anti-thesis of role-playing.
That's just not the case. In fact, if you take a well-defined character who has Something That Makes Them Unique, they by definition have a build. Roleplaying the virtuous knight in shining armor who would lay down his life for a total stranger is not incompatible with him being a mechanically-effective, shield-wearing Paladin.
Now, if your players are bad at roleplaying, and so just pick mechanically-consistent builds because that's all they know how to do, then that's still not the character's fault.
An optimized character is not antithetical to roleplaying. It's not even related to roleplaying. Roleplaying is a player quality, not a character quality.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
Huh? I find encounter creation to be a snap in 4e, I don't know how it could be any easier.
Yeah, I should not have put this in. My error. Encounter creation is easy.
[You sound like a complete WOTC apologist. I have been roleplaying for 40 years. I play in two 4th edition campaigns. I know a ton of gamers. The consensus of nearly all the people I talk to is that D&D 4th edition is the least roleplaying-friendly system around.There is clearly a feel to this system that is different. Ignoring it will not make it go away. I know how to compensate for it, but I should not have to.
And for the record, I really like 4th edition.
Wow, you know, you're welcome for trying to point out some ways that your pain points might not be so bad if you put some work into it. (Some being the operative word - nothing I posted there takes more than a minute or two)
I am not an apologist, but when someone posts something about the system that is clearly wrong and seems to show inexperience with the system I'm going to point it out, preferably in a helpful manner.
Everything you posted came across as needing rules for roleplaying, I'm sorry after 40 years they stopped hand holding your roleplay experience. I must be really freaking awesome to not need it anymore after just 25.
Considering D&D is only 36 years old, what system were you using before D&D?
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
Chainmail wasn't really a roleplaying game though, that was a miniature wargame.
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
Chainmail wasn't really a roleplaying game though, that was a miniature wargame.
You don't need rules for role playing, remember?
Regardless, differentiating between 36 and 40 years is splitting hairs.
You sound like a complete WOTC apologist.
And you sound like someone who came in here with his mind made up and preconceptions cemented in place, unwilling to listen and not actually wanting a discussion.
Just sayin'.
4) The equality of the classes. Fighters level up in power with wizards.
5) The concept of the different roles & sources.
These are particularly important positives that need to be preserved - but have already started to be abandoned in Essentials.
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
I don't get this. If a group doesn't enjoy combats, maybe they shouldn't have so many or should cut them short, fine. If you /do/ enjoy that aspect of the game, why is playing it for an hour instead of 20 minutes a bad thing? The complaint just makes no sense to me. If you don't like interesting tactical combats, don't have 'em. Have fewer combats, have enemies flee or surrender when bloodied, use combats where one side is badly overmatched - they'll end faster. There are lots of ways to use the system as is to have fewer and shorter combats, so you have more time for whatever it is you'd rather be doing. Altering the game so that you can't have an interesting, challenging tactical combat isn't necessary, and would make the game worse, with narrower apeal.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game.
I have to strongly object to this. There are no such things as rules for roleplaying or rules that 'encourage roleplay.' RPGs give you a mechanism to control a single player character, that's all the enabling of RP that needs - or can - be done by the system. Usually, when someone is saying a system 'encourages RP' they're just rationalizing a failing of the system. Sometimes it's taken so far as to assert that systems should be mechanically unsound because is encourages 'role not roll' playing. It's all BS. A good system doesn't detract from RP, a bad one doesn't encourage it, it just sits there being so bad the players try to avoid it.
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
Some vague idea of how they could be improved might help. I agree that Skill Challenges were a great idea, but weren't initially well-implemented. They /have/ improved though.
3) Not enough variation in characters.
Don't really see that as a problem with 4e. Some Essentials classes, sure, are so choiceless that one character of that class is much like another.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
Factoring Enhancement bonuses into 4e progression was a good idea for encounter balance, but not a great idea for verisimilitude. It simultaneously makes magic items too necessary, but also makes them uninteresting. Dumping Enhancement bonuses entirely may be the way to go. Magic items become virtually optional, so they can be relatively few, and more unique without having to be terribly powerful to make an impression.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
It takes less time for the DM to create a solid encounter than it does for the player to create a character. Heck, it takes less time to build an encounter than to play through it. I can't see how it needs to be any faster or easier - nor how it could be. This is one area where it'd be safe for 4e to 'rest on it's laurels.' Just don't go screwing it up. One way to screw it up, for instance, would be to give monsters fewer hps and higher damage - because that would make encounter balance swingier.
7) Death does not seem real.
A long-standing problem. As long as Raise Dead is available, death will seem more like an inconvenience. Of course, the PCs are supposed to be the Heroes of these Epic stories that span 30 levels. If they died at level 2, they couldn't be the stars of a 30-level Epic, could they? Maybe, we should just accept that PCs have 'plot armor,' and leave it at that.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle.
Completely backwards. Abstract resolution systems leave the players and DM maximum freedom in describing (RPing) their battles.
More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
9) More skills.
Bad idea. Expanding the skill list just gives PCs more things they will be bad at. Oh, they might have a broader choice of things they can be good at, but, once the choice is made, the list of things they're bad it is longer the bigger the list. A game needs just enough skills to cover everything characters need to do in the genre. Splitting a skill up into multiple skills just creates oddities, like the character who can sneak like a cat, but can't hide in a dark room, or the one who can track a falcon on a cloudy day but can't figure out which way is north (you can totally build those character is 3.0).
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
Chainmail wasn't really a roleplaying game though, that was a miniature wargame.
You don't need rules for role playing, remember?
Regardless, differentiating between 36 and 40 years is splitting hairs.
You are correct - you could be roleplaying the general in a sense. And it is spiltting hairs, that is why I didn't even bring it up in my response back.
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
Chainmail wasn't really a roleplaying game though, that was a miniature wargame.
You don't need rules for role playing, remember?
Regardless, differentiating between 36 and 40 years is splitting hairs.
You are correct - you could be roleplaying the general in a sense. And it is spiltting hairs, that is why I didn't even bring it up in my response back.
Oh, I know. That was meant more for Hocus than for you, since his statement spawned this side trek.
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
I stand corrected. I actually failed to do the math. I started in 76. Not that the amount of time actually matters. I should not have brought it up. For the record though -- started in high school in 76-77. Played at university. Played in one campaign for 20 + years, same world, different characters over generations. Played D&D 3rd edition for its span. Also played RuneQuest and diceless and GURPS.
So, yeah I have a lot of experience in a lot of systems. I have also written for computer games, and had work published in gaming magazines.
So based on all that crap, I think I can say that while I like 4th edition, it does tend to be a more tactical system than say RuneQuest or even 3rd edition, I think that the emphasis on combat takes away from roleplaying: typically you spend a majority of your time playing out long combats. I see those as problems with the system, NOT the players or the DM. There are all kinds of ways to game the system to fix that, but that does not make the fundamental problem go away.
40 years of roleplaying. That's awesome.
Considering D&D is only 36 years old, what system were you using before D&D?
Look I do not want a flame war. So I will try and keep this civil. You systematically went down my list of problems and came up with a way that the player or DM could come up with a "solution." All of which I am already familiar with. (I read sly flourish.) But the players and the DM should not always have to be the one to change. The whole point of my starting this thread is to discuss merits and flaws of the system, NOT my pain points. I do not even view them as pain points and I don't appreciate someone else characterizing them that way.
And yes, when you basically go down the list of problems and explain how none of them are real problems with the system, that makes you seem like apologist -- or actually even a bit worse.
4) The equality of the classes. Fighters level up in power with wizards.
5) The concept of the different roles & sources.
These are particularly important positives that need to be preserved - but have already started to be abandoned in Essentials.1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
I don't get this. If a group doesn't enjoy combats, maybe they shouldn't have so many or should cut them short, fine. If you /do/ enjoy that aspect of the game, why is playing it for an hour instead of 20 minutes a bad thing? The complaint just makes no sense to me. If you don't like interesting tactical combats, don't have 'em. Have fewer combats, have enemies flee or surrender when bloodied, use combats where one side is badly overmatched - they'll end faster. There are lots of ways to use the system as is to have fewer and shorter combats, so you have more time for whatever it is you'd rather be doing. Altering the game so that you can't have an interesting, challenging tactical combat isn't necessary, and would make the game worse, with narrower apeal.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game.
I have to strongly object to this. There are no such things as rules for roleplaying or rules that 'encourage roleplay.' RPGs give you a mechanism to control a single player character, that's all the enabling of RP that needs - or can - be done by the system. Usually, when someone is saying a system 'encourages RP' they're just rationalizing a failing of the system. Sometimes it's taken so far as to assert that systems should be mechanically unsound because is encourages 'role not roll' playing. It's all BS. A good system doesn't detract from RP, a bad one doesn't encourage it, it just sits there being so bad the players try to avoid it.
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
Some vague idea of how they could be improved might help. I agree that Skill Challenges were a great idea, but weren't initially well-implemented. They /have/ improved though.
3) Not enough variation in characters.
Don't really see that as a problem with 4e. Some Essentials classes, sure, are so choiceless that one character of that class is much like another.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
Factoring Enhancement bonuses into 4e progression was a good idea for encounter balance, but not a great idea for verisimilitude. It simultaneously makes magic items too necessary, but also makes them uninteresting. Dumping Enhancement bonuses entirely may be the way to go. Magic items become virtually optional, so they can be relatively few, and more unique without having to be terribly powerful to make an impression.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
It takes less time for the DM to create a solid encounter than it does for the player to create a character. Heck, it takes less time to build an encounter than to play through it. I can't see how it needs to be any faster or easier - nor how it could be. This is one area where it'd be safe for 4e to 'rest on it's laurels.' Just don't go screwing it up. One way to screw it up, for instance, would be to give monsters fewer hps and higher damage - because that would make encounter balance swingier.
7) Death does not seem real.
A long-standing problem. As long as Raise Dead is available, death will seem more like an inconvenience. Of course, the PCs are supposed to be the Heroes of these Epic stories that span 30 levels. If they died at level 2, they couldn't be the stars of a 30-level Epic, could they? Maybe, we should just accept that PCs have 'plot armor,' and leave it at that.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle.
Completely backwards. Abstract resolution systems leave the players and DM maximum freedom in describing (RPing) their battles.
More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?9) More skills.
Bad idea. Expanding the skill list just gives PCs more things they will be bad at. Oh, they might have a broader choice of things they can be good at, but, once the choice is made, the list of things they're bad it is longer the bigger the list. A game needs just enough skills to cover everything characters need to do in the genre. Splitting a skill up into multiple skills just creates oddities, like the character who can sneak like a cat, but can't hide in a dark room, or the one who can track a falcon on a cloudy day but can't figure out which way is north (you can totally build those character is 3.0).
Wow. I want a discussion, but about the topic. Not how to roleplay better or DM better. I want a discussion about the stengths and weakness of the system. Another post had a very different list than mine. I thought that was great.
40 years of roleplaying. That's awesome.
Considering D&D is only 36 years old, what system were you using before D&D?Look I do not want a flame war. So I will try and keep this civil. You systematically went down my list of problems and came up with a way that the player or DM could come up with a "solution." All of which I am already familiar with. (I read sly flourish.) But the players and the DM should not always have to be the one to change. The whole point of my starting this thread is to discuss merits and flaws of the system, NOT my pain points. I do not even view them as pain points and I don't appreciate someone else characterizing them that way.
And yes, when you basically go down the list of problems and explain how none of them are real problems with the system, that makes you seem like apologist -- or actually even a bit worse.
Huh?
I truly hope you quoted the wrong person.
That, or I blacked out and have no memory of stating anything of the sort.
As far as your list goes, most of what I see are the simple re-hashings of things a hundred other posters have said. This does not belittle any of the items you have stated, but it does make it look like "more of the same" that we have all seen so many times now. I think this is one of the reasons you're catching the heat that you are catching.
40 years of roleplaying. That's awesome.
Considering D&D is only 36 years old, what system were you using before D&D?Look I do not want a flame war. So I will try and keep this civil. You systematically went down my list of problems and came up with a way that the player or DM could come up with a "solution." All of which I am already familiar with. (I read sly flourish.) But the players and the DM should not always have to be the one to change. The whole point of my starting this thread is to discuss merits and flaws of the system, NOT my pain points. I do not even view them as pain points and I don't appreciate someone else characterizing them that way.
And yes, when you basically go down the list of problems and explain how none of them are real problems with the system, that makes you seem like apologist -- or actually even a bit worse.
First of all, I posted it - not Hocus.
Second, you aren't changing anything. I'm using the rules as writen, with the guidelines provided in the books. What am I changing?
You don't want to refluff? Fine - don't refluff.
But you complained that the characters didn't have enough variation and without even refluffing you can build multiple different types of the same character - if by doing nothing by choosing some different feats up front, different powers, and different class abilities. Even changing the race can have a huge impact - a Stormsoul Genasis Wizard can be very different than a tiefling Wizard - all I did was choose a different race.
What are you, as the player or DM, changing?
What are you "changing" when you build encounters smarter (and I'm sorry - building encounters for combat in 4e is MUCH faster compared to GURPS, WoD, and 4e with less pre-work)
What are you "changing" as the DM when you add a couple of sentences about a sword? A sword +1 was just a sword +1 in every previous edition - that was almost always the job of the DM to make it interesting
The only things I had suggested "changing" was how you run skill challenges and the option of refluffing.
That was the point of my response. WotC has done quite a few things wrong with 4e - we are missing alot of support for some of the classes, we haven't seen a new ritual in some time, and martial practices haven't seen anything new since Martial Powers 2. Roleplaying was not one of them.
Wow. I want a discussion, but about the topic. Not how to roleplay better or DM better. I want a discussion about the stengths and weakness of the system. Another post had a very different list than mine. I thought that was great.
The thing is, if you want a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the system, and you post a list of things you see as "weak" you have to be willing to accept people are going to come here and say "That's not a weakness of the system because...."
Otherwise it's not a discussion
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
I don't get this. If a group doesn't enjoy combats, maybe they shouldn't have so many or should cut them short, fine. If you /do/ enjoy that aspect of the game, why is playing it for an hour instead of 20 minutes a bad thing? The complaint just makes no sense to me. If you don't like interesting tactical combats, don't have 'em. Have fewer combats, have enemies flee or surrender when bloodied, use combats where one side is badly overmatched - they'll end faster. There are lots of ways to use the system as is to have fewer and shorter combats, so you have more time for whatever it is you'd rather be doing. Altering the game so that you can't have an interesting, challenging tactical combat isn't necessary, and would make the game worse, with narrower apeal.
I do like tactical battles and I do like long battles, just not all the time. I see a problem in that: 1) often the PCs have so many choices in front of them that they take too long (at least some PCs). 2) There should be a way to have a balanced fight that can resolve in fewer rounds. Many of the monsters have large hit points so it takes a long time to take the, down, even if you are clever. The term used to be a sumo wrestler in padding, I think.
Perhaps the problem I see is that an unbalanced fight does not put one side in danger, maybe a high-level minion that can kill PCs, but can also be taken out by a lucky shot is a solution.
Beyond doing something artificial like having a short-circuit in the encounter (see sly flourish), I do not see a way of having a short combat where the players are either not in danger or totally overwhelmed.
Perhaps the problem I see is that an unbalanced fight does not put one side in danger, maybe a high-level minion that can kill PCs, but can also be taken out by a lucky shot is a solution.
That's kinda the opposite of "tactical battle"
Also, there's a great way to have a fast, balanced, tactical, fun battle. You run it like a skill challenge.
Anyway, not everyone wants battles to be fast and swingy. At best, what you'd want in a next system is an integrated option to speed things up; maybe some guidelines for it, like "monsters half HP and double damage" and the designers making sure that it works that way. That way you can have both types.
Although you mostly can already, there's a reason the new MMIII and newer monsters have less defense and more offense.
40 years of roleplaying. That's awesome.
Considering D&D is only 36 years old, what system were you using before D&D?Look I do not want a flame war. So I will try and keep this civil. You systematically went down my list of problems and came up with a way that the player or DM could come up with a "solution." All of which I am already familiar with. (I read sly flourish.) But the players and the DM should not always have to be the one to change. The whole point of my starting this thread is to discuss merits and flaws of the system, NOT my pain points. I do not even view them as pain points and I don't appreciate someone else characterizing them that way.
And yes, when you basically go down the list of problems and explain how none of them are real problems with the system, that makes you seem like apologist -- or actually even a bit worse.
Huh?
I truly hope you quoted the wrong person.
That, or I blacked out and have no memory of stating anything of the sort.
As far as your list goes, most of what I see are the simple re-hashings of things a hundred other posters have said. This does not belittle any of the items you have stated, but it does make it look like "more of the same" that we have all seen so many times now. I think this is one of the reasons you're catching the heat that you are catching.
He did
SCRAP1) feats and items that give an always-on combat bonus (boring and generally too good)
I would wish for the exact opposite, scrapping the "if the monster was born in a month containing an "a" and the power is used at full moon while being withing X steps of ..." powers/feats/whatever.
They are just there to be forgotten until you collected them all and thus the bonus is always on and you don't need to bother remembering and can just use it
There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true. My question is: what do we like about 4th edition that we want to see preserved. What is good about 4th? I want this thread to stay focused on 4th edition, its merits and also perhaps its problems.
What I like about 4th which I want to see preserved:
1) The basic combat system. This is the first d&d system where the basic combat rules are clean and easy to interpret and do not get in the way. 3rd edition was a nightmare to run. Basic combat is now a solved problem near as I can see.
2) The concept of different power sources. I think this is really useful.
3) The 4 defense scores. This is part of #1 but it also helps define characters, etc.
4) The equality of the classes. Fighters level up in power with wizards.
5) The concept of the different roles.
6) Themes as way to flesh out a character. (Is this just Dark Sun?)
7) The emphasis on the d20.
8) The short, digestible stat block of monsters
9) Minions! Love’em.
Here are things I think that should be changed or what I do not like:1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game. This is in part due to problem #1.
4e has perfectly fine RP support. Jacking up monster damage and reducing hit points isn't going to create a satisfactory solution. All you'll end up with is 2-3 round combats (or one round at high levels). That won't be at all tactically interesting. There are plenty of ways to speed up combat, but it will require some streamlining and other related adjustments. Certainly worth doing though.
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
SCs work beautifully for us. The original workup on them in DMG1 was rather flawed, which got things off to a rough start, and really understanding how the concept is best used and presented is tricky, but once you get it, and once you incorporate the better mechanics that exist in DMG2 and RC, it is a pretty solid system and one that is rather needed as a way to create more variation in how different situations are approached, given the way the core skill system is already streamlined.
3) Not enough variation in characters.
Meh, there seems like a vast difference between a fighter and a wizard to me. I'd MUCH rather have PCs continue to be built on a common framework. There is a LOT of customization allowed with 4e already.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.
OK, yeah, nothing too radical there.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
I can't imagine a more streamlined encounter generation system being possible than the one 4e has now. I mean, sure, if someone can dream one up, bring it on, but I don't think it is possible. 4e is already a 10 on this score, if 11 is possible nobody has figured it out yet.
7) Death does not seem real.
I don't know how it could be 'more real'. Aside from there being no such thing as Raise Dead, at which point it is as real as imaginary death can get. You can obviously just remove the Raise Dead ritual from your game. There's a WIDE variety of tastes here. Given that a player can pretty much remake exactly the same character he was playing last week if the the DM says "nope, you can't be raised" and for the PLAYER death is kind of a speed bump no matter what it is somewhat pointless to restrict it much. If it makes good story sense for someone to stay dead, well, then either the players agree and leave the dead lie, or they don't, in which case should the DM's wishes trump everyone else's? There's no one-size-fits-all answer to that.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
Well, I thought page 42 was pretty clear and pretty well covered it. OTOH more words on the subject are fine. The mechanics are quite solid. Not sure how you would 'flesh it out' more really, it is a dirt simple and really reliable set of mechanics as it is. Putting some explanation of how it works into the PHB and pointing out that players are expected to improvise would IMHO be worth the most for the least page count.
9) More skills.
Yeah, not at all interested in some long 3.x-ish open-ended skill list. It is just a bad idea overall. Rewrite and polish up skill powers, maybe do some tweaking on the skill system like making training give a smaller bonus and allow some specific 'tricks', and maybe combine the skill power and martial practice concepts in some way. I'd keep the actual skill list pretty much exactly as it is now, short and sweet. Long skill lists quickly become prohibitive lists of what you CAN'T do. The short closed-ended list is in contrast proscriptive, which is much better. Beyond that all the obscure 3.x skills added basically zip to the game that isn't already covered by background etc. Keep it that way.
"7) Death does not seem real."
D&D in itself IS the problem.
I do like tactical battles and I do like long battles, just not all the time. I see a problem in that: 1) often the PCs have so many choices in front of them that they take too long (at least some PCs). 2) There should be a way to have a balanced fight that can resolve in fewer rounds. Many of the monsters have large hit points so it takes a long time to take the, down, even if you are clever. The term used to be a sumo wrestler in padding, I think.
Well, the concept here is to make the monsters last long enough for tactics to matter. Recall 1e combat in which usually 1 or maybe 2 hits would take out pretty much any monster except the real big bad guys like dragons. There's no point in flanking, debuffing, controlling, etc monsters that are deaders with one hit anyway, just kill 'em and quit wasting time. Magic Users etc might do it simply because they could whack 10 monsters in one shot with a big spell, but that was hardly tactical either most of the time. You could have loads of little glass cannon monsters to pick up the threat level, but again it is hardly worth using tactics on them. In order for there to some reasonable scope for tactics you need a system where combat lasts something like 5 or 6 rounds (enough to allow for tactical situations to evolve) and where each monster lasts a couple rounds so there's a point to immobilizing it, knocking it prone, stunning it, etc vs just one-hitting them being the only answer that matters.
So, it isn't a simple question of more damage and less hit points, unless you're just not interested in tactics at all. There are some answers IMHO which I can discuss below.
Perhaps the problem I see is that an unbalanced fight does not put one side in danger, maybe a high-level minion that can kill PCs, but can also be taken out by a lucky shot is a solution.
I would say that would again be doing for any sense of tactics, whoever gets surprise/initiative wins, or gets unlucky and loses, all in the span of 4-5 die rolls.
However, I do understand the genesis of the issue with unbalanced fight not being threatening. The desire is to have some situations where say a group of monsters jumps the PCs, threatens them, but then is defeated fairly quickly. It is entirely true, this is not the easiest type of encounter to build in 4e if you strictly follow the guidelines for monster design and encounter construction. OTOH it isn't actually impossible. Even a minion can easily use things like Bull Rush to shove PCs into all kinds of hurt for instance. You can also design some powers that a monster can have that would work too, it just has to have a dangerous effect (see things like Cockatrice or Medusa). Clearly some greater lattitude here would be helpful though.
Beyond doing something artificial like having a short-circuit in the encounter (see sly flourish), I do not see a way of having a short combat where the players are either not in danger or totally overwhelmed.
I don't think 'short-circuits' are all that artificial really. A dangerous lurker monster for instance would most likely not engage and then fight to the death, it would probably it, gank someone or disable them, drag them off, and have lunch. Quite quick (though hard to pull off). Monsters that surrender are certainly quite reasonable. I extensively use story considerations too. The PCs don't have to have the goal of duking it out to the death all the time. Honestly that isn't even really a very common trope.
Frankly in my redesigning of the 4e combat system my approach would be not to make ordinary attacks stronger and defenses/hitpoints weaker, but to increase the value of tactics. Make surprise, flanking, cover, etc more significant. This INCREASES the benefits of using good tactics. Now you can reduce the numbers of fiddly buff and debuff type effects and such, which streamlines the system. Give monsters somewhat more varied stats too, so that they generally have more significant strong and weak points (IE increase the variance of defense numbers at a given level). All of this will tend to make fights a bit faster, but it will also do it without degrading tactics to nothing. It will also increase the value of STRATEGY somewhat over tactics. Pick the right types of weapons and magic, engineer getting surprise or a strong terrain advantage, etc before you even engage and you can amplify the power of your group a good bit. This also helps deal with the 'weak but threatening' issue where you can't really have monsters that threaten but are then easy to kill off. A weaker force with surprise or a strong terrain advantage, or clever strategy can get a solid jump on a party and really threaten them right off, yet once the players figure out how to negate their advantage they'll go down easily enough.
There are other things I would do. Carefully go through and remove mechanics that aren't really adding a lot of value. For instance minor actions are mainly used for bonus attacks right now, which actually is a problem. Just get rid of them. If it is minor enough for a minor action, the PC just does it (IE it becomes a free action). Likewise all the different variations of out-of-turn actions can be swept away and just replaced with a single immediate action (which can interrupt). Defenders will need some redesign of their mechanics to let them be effective without 1 OA/turn, but all of that is easily managed.
I would also increase the advantages from powers (IE their effects) but cut back a bit on the number of them. Let them be a bit more decisive when used and reduce analysis paralysis. That also allows for getting rid of a lot of ongoing type effects and all the tracking they require. If you blow a daily, well, it just goes to the end of the encounter or as long as the caster is still standing, etc.
Basically I think you can make combat go maybe 50-100% faster than it does now, actually widen the scope of player strategy and tactics, and not loose any of the better aspects of 4e combat. That pretty much addresses the desires of the people that want shorter combat and the people that want combat to be detailed and tactical at the same time.
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
Chainmail wasn't really a roleplaying game though, that was a miniature wargame.
You don't need rules for role playing, remember?
Regardless, differentiating between 36 and 40 years is splitting hairs.
Chainmail being Roleplayed then is about the same as Magic the Gathering Roleplaying the Wizard the Deck is representing. Just not the same, dude, just not the same.
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.The complaint just makes no sense to me. If you don't like interesting tactical combats, don't have 'em. Have fewer combats, have enemies flee or surrender when bloodied, use combats where one side is badly overmatched - they'll end faster. There are lots of ways to use the system as is to have fewer and shorter combats, so you have more time for whatever it is you'd rather be doing. Altering the game so that you can't have an interesting, challenging tactical combat isn't necessary, and would make the game worse, with narrower apeal.
I do like tactical battles and I do like long battles, just not all the time. I see a problem in that: 1) often the PCs have so many choices in front of them that they take too long (at least some PCs).
Just to get this bit out of the way - I'll get back to what I hope you're really talking about - that 'too many choices' complaint is very often a cypher for "how dare they let the fighter have as many options as the magic-user!"
2) There should be a way to have a balanced fight that can resolve in fewer rounds. Many of the monsters have large hit points so it takes a long time to take the, down, even if you are clever. The term used to be a sumo wrestler in padding, I think.
Why is it important a fight /both/ resolve in only a few rounds /and/ be somehow 'balanced?' The basic D&D at-level encounter will cost the PCs some resources, but is more or less a forgone conclusion in their favor - it's their fight to lose, if they really work at it. A fight that might go either way is probably closer to level+5. Clearly, you don't want a fight that could go either way that resolves in a round or two, it'd be far too swingy to be useable in a seriuos campaign.
If you want a shorter fight, it needs to be a less equal fight - one that involves mostly minions on the monster side, or that is level-1 or level-2 or less. It won't be a very exciting fight, but that goes with the territory of being very short. If you want a fight to be short but very important, you can put some other goal on the table besides beating the monsters. Killing 4 at-level minions, for instance, can be done by most parties in a round (by most controllers in a round with a little luck), but, if it's vital all 4 minions be killed before they sound an alarm or throw a lever that seals a passage way, or complete the blood sacrifice that summons a demon or something, well then, the very short 'easy' fight suddenly becomes more dramatic.
Perhaps the problem I see is that an unbalanced fight does not put one side in danger, maybe a high-level minion that can kill PCs, but can also be taken out by a lucky shot is a solution.
The typical at-level 'long tactical fight' that 4e presumes as the average doesn't put the PCs in a lot of danger, either. The players are supposed to be the heroes, they're supposed to have long stories, possibly spanning 30 levels, if they face a 50/50 chance of dying in most fights, their stories will be a /lot/ shorter than that. Even a 1-in-10 chance of biting it per combat is going to lead to PCs dying every level. That either ends campaigns or makes dying in them trivial.
The typical 4e encounter is meant to consume resources, not to gank the PCs. A 'tough' fight might have the potential of killing one or more of the PCs, but such should NOT be the majority encounters - and shouldn't be short, either, it should be a climactic battle to be savored.
Short fights, by their nature, likely involve one side being overmatched, either in actual numbers or power, or by overwhelming surprise or some other factor.
Bottom line, if you want the occassional short fight, throw out the occassional trivial fight, but jazz it up with an additional PC goal on a very quick time line.
Chainmail was originally published in 1971.
Chainmail wasn't really a roleplaying game though, that was a miniature wargame.
You don't need rules for role playing, remember?
Regardless, differentiating between 36 and 40 years is splitting hairs.
Chainmail being Roleplayed then is about the same as Magic the Gathering Roleplaying the Wizard the Deck is representing. Just not the same, dude, just not the same.
It was said in jest because of Scottevil's previous post regarding not needing rules to roleplay. See the smiley, dude?
40 years of roleplaying. That's awesome.
Considering D&D is only 36 years old, what system were you using before D&D?Look I do not want a flame war. So I will try and keep this civil. You systematically went down my list of problems and came up with a way that the player or DM could come up with a "solution." All of which I am already familiar with. (I read sly flourish.) But the players and the DM should not always have to be the one to change. The whole point of my starting this thread is to discuss merits and flaws of the system, NOT my pain points. I do not even view them as pain points and I don't appreciate someone else characterizing them that way.
And yes, when you basically go down the list of problems and explain how none of them are real problems with the system, that makes you seem like apologist -- or actually even a bit worse.
Huh?
I truly hope you quoted the wrong person.
That, or I blacked out and have no memory of stating anything of the sort.
As far as your list goes, most of what I see are the simple re-hashings of things a hundred other posters have said. This does not belittle any of the items you have stated, but it does make it look like "more of the same" that we have all seen so many times now. I think this is one of the reasons you're catching the heat that you are catching.
If it is more of the same, than that would be a general problem with the system. Are there ways around it? Sure, but that does not mean the base problem does not exist.
If it is more of the same, than that would be a general problem with the system. Are there ways around it? Sure, but that does not mean the base problem does not exist.
Hence why I said, "This does not belittle any of the items you have stated...".
7) The emphasis on the d20.
3D6 Bell-curve systems work better.
I say we kill the d20. March up to its door and string it up. Replace it with a system that favors a more statistically predictable result, one that represents the difficulty in becoming proficient in a task and the difficulty in truly excelling in it, but has a nice, fat bell curve sweet spot at the skilled level. Losing my nova rounds to crappy d20 rolls is getting old.
7) The emphasis on the d20.
3D6 Bell-curve systems work better.I say we kill the d20. March up to its door and string it up. Replace it with a system that favors a more statistically predictable result, one that represents the difficulty in becoming proficient in a task and the difficulty in truly excelling in it, but has a nice, fat bell curve sweet spot at the skilled level. Losing my nova rounds to crappy d20 rolls is getting old.
Well the problem with the bell curve is it can make you feel very safe and very predictable. With the d20 there is always a chance for a miss and a chance for a crit. It is more capricious, and that, I think, heightens the thrill of the game and the feeling of danger. I go back and forth on this. I am fine with systems that do use dice pools/bell curves, but I also like the iconic and unpredictable nature of the d20.
It is still totally possible to have a crit system w/ a 3d6 bell curve. You could easily adjust it so that a 16 or higher would indicate a crit, that’s a 4.6% chance. Similarly with a auto miss.
However, with a bell curve system you would also have the advantage of adjusting the crit range based on a character’s skill. Right now, a wizard has the same chance as getting a crit on a melee basic attack as a fighter; with a bell curve system you could adjust it so that the character crits if he beats the target number by a certain amount. That target number would be determined by the skill of the character acting. For example, you could say that an average combatant (the thief / cleric combat progression) would normally hit an average defense on a roll of 10 or higher, a skilled combatant (fighter) on a roll of 8 or higher, and an unskilled (wizard) on a roll of 12 or higher. Then just say that any roll that beats the target number by 6 or more is a crit which means the thief / cleric crits about 5% of the time, the fighter about 10% and the wizard .5% of the time.
The bell curve system also favors planning and deft character creation.
3D6 Bell-curve systems work better [than d20 systems].
I am of the exact opposite opinion.
That two rational, intelligent, well-mannered players of roleplaying games can have such opposite-and-mutually-exclusive opinions on this topic indicates it is far more a matter of preference than of anything approaching reality or fact.
It is still totally possible to have a crit system w/ a 3d6 bell curve. You could easily adjust it so that a 16 or higher would indicate a crit, that’s a 4.6% chance. Similarly with a auto miss.
However, with a bell curve system you would also have the advantage of adjusting the crit range based on a character’s skill. Right now, a wizard has the same chance as getting a crit on a melee basic attack as a fighter; with a bell curve system you could adjust it so that the character crits if he beats the target number by a certain amount. That target number would be determined by the skill of the character acting. For example, you could say that an average combatant (the thief / cleric combat progression) would normally hit an average defense on a roll of 10 or higher, a skilled combatant (fighter) on a roll of 8 or higher, and an unskilled (wizard) on a roll of 12 or higher. Then just say that any roll that beats the target number by 6 or more is a crit which means the thief / cleric crits about 5% of the time, the fighter about 10% and the wizard .5% of the time.
The bell curve system also favors planning and deft character creation.
You missed my point. I am talking about the "feel" based on the probability bad the dice mechanic. A liner scale is more threatening no matter what your level. Even a paragon level character can miss of he/she rolls bad, and can still get crited on a twenty. A bell curve system makes really bad rolls and really good rolls less likely They still happen just left often -- sure you can adjust it based on ranges, but hopefully you see my point.
Their is a psychological element in roll playing,. which most of the comments in this thread seem totally oblivious to. It kind of flabbergasts me.
A liner scale is more threatening no matter what your level. Even a paragon level character can miss of he/she rolls bad, and can still get crited on a twenty.
There’s been a trend on this board lately promoting a system favoring threatening / challenging the PCs. I’ve seen in discussions about changing up the daily power system. A desire to make the PCs feel threatened. I don’t think that’s a good value for the DM / Player relationship.
There is another benefit of the 3d6 system that falls squarely into the psychological though: you get to roll more dice. I don’t roll enough dice in 4e even when I roll damage and striker dice with to-hit rolls. I miss having a giant handful of dice in my hand when belting out fireballs.
But that’s just me.
A liner scale is more threatening no matter what your level. Even a paragon level character can miss of he/she rolls bad, and can still get crited on a twenty.There’s been a trend on this board lately promoting a system favoring threatening / challenging the PCs. I’ve seen in discussions about changing up the daily power system. A desire to make the PCs feel threatened. I don’t think that’s a good value for the DM / Player relationship.
There is another benefit of the 3d6 system that falls squarely into the psychological though: you get to roll more dice. I don’t roll enough dice in 4e even when I roll damage and striker dice with to-hit rolls. I miss having a giant handful of dice in my hand when belting out fireballs.
But that’s just me.
Those are two good points.
I still think as a player that it is important to sweat. But that might be a minority feeling.
As to number of dice, yes you are right: it is nice to have a handful of dice. I often roll all my dice at once,
the d20 and the damage dice, but it is not quite the same.
I do like tactical battles and I do like long battles, just not all the time. I see a problem in that: 1) often the PCs have so many choices in front of them that they take too long (at least some PCs). 2) There should be a way to have a balanced fight that can resolve in fewer rounds. Many of the monsters have large hit points so it takes a long time to take the, down, even if you are clever. The term used to be a sumo wrestler in padding, I think.
Well, the concept here is to make the monsters last long enough for tactics to matter. Recall 1e combat in which usually 1 or maybe 2 hits would take out pretty much any monster except the real big bad guys like dragons. There's no point in flanking, debuffing, controlling, etc monsters that are deaders with one hit anyway, just kill 'em and quit wasting time. Magic Users etc might do it simply because they could whack 10 monsters in one shot with a big spell, but that was hardly tactical either most of the time. You could have loads of little glass cannon monsters to pick up the threat level, but again it is hardly worth using tactics on them. In order for there to some reasonable scope for tactics you need a system where combat lasts something like 5 or 6 rounds (enough to allow for tactical situations to evolve) and where each monster lasts a couple rounds so there's a point to immobilizing it, knocking it prone, stunning it, etc vs just one-hitting them being the only answer that matters.
So, it isn't a simple question of more damage and less hit points, unless you're just not interested in tactics at all. There are some answers IMHO which I can discuss below.
Perhaps the problem I see is that an unbalanced fight does not put one side in danger, maybe a high-level minion that can kill PCs, but can also be taken out by a lucky shot is a solution.I would say that would again be doing for any sense of tactics, whoever gets surprise/initiative wins, or gets unlucky and loses, all in the span of 4-5 die rolls.
However, I do understand the genesis of the issue with unbalanced fight not being threatening. The desire is to have some situations where say a group of monsters jumps the PCs, threatens them, but then is defeated fairly quickly. It is entirely true, this is not the easiest type of encounter to build in 4e if you strictly follow the guidelines for monster design and encounter construction. OTOH it isn't actually impossible. Even a minion can easily use things like Bull Rush to shove PCs into all kinds of hurt for instance. You can also design some powers that a monster can have that would work too, it just has to have a dangerous effect (see things like Cockatrice or Medusa). Clearly some greater lattitude here would be helpful though.
Beyond doing something artificial like having a short-circuit in the encounter (see sly flourish), I do not see a way of having a short combat where the players are either not in danger or totally overwhelmed.
I don't think 'short-circuits' are all that artificial really. A dangerous lurker monster for instance would most likely not engage and then fight to the death, it would probably it, gank someone or disable them, drag them off, and have lunch. Quite quick (though hard to pull off). Monsters that surrender are certainly quite reasonable. I extensively use story considerations too. The PCs don't have to have the goal of duking it out to the death all the time. Honestly that isn't even really a very common trope.
Frankly in my redesigning of the 4e combat system my approach would be not to make ordinary attacks stronger and defenses/hitpoints weaker, but to increase the value of tactics. Make surprise, flanking, cover, etc more significant. This INCREASES the benefits of using good tactics. Now you can reduce the numbers of fiddly buff and debuff type effects and such, which streamlines the system. Give monsters somewhat more varied stats too, so that they generally have more significant strong and weak points (IE increase the variance of defense numbers at a given level). All of this will tend to make fights a bit faster, but it will also do it without degrading tactics to nothing. It will also increase the value of STRATEGY somewhat over tactics. Pick the right types of weapons and magic, engineer getting surprise or a strong terrain advantage, etc before you even engage and you can amplify the power of your group a good bit. This also helps deal with the 'weak but threatening' issue where you can't really have monsters that threaten but are then easy to kill off. A weaker force with surprise or a strong terrain advantage, or clever strategy can get a solid jump on a party and really threaten them right off, yet once the players figure out how to negate their advantage they'll go down easily enough.
There are other things I would do. Carefully go through and remove mechanics that aren't really adding a lot of value. For instance minor actions are mainly used for bonus attacks right now, which actually is a problem. Just get rid of them. If it is minor enough for a minor action, the PC just does it (IE it becomes a free action). Likewise all the different variations of out-of-turn actions can be swept away and just replaced with a single immediate action (which can interrupt). Defenders will need some redesign of their mechanics to let them be effective without 1 OA/turn, but all of that is easily managed.
I would also increase the advantages from powers (IE their effects) but cut back a bit on the number of them. Let them be a bit more decisive when used and reduce analysis paralysis. That also allows for getting rid of a lot of ongoing type effects and all the tracking they require. If you blow a daily, well, it just goes to the end of the encounter or as long as the caster is still standing, etc.
Basically I think you can make combat go maybe 50-100% faster than it does now, actually widen the scope of player strategy and tactics, and not loose any of the better aspects of 4e combat. That pretty much addresses the desires of the people that want shorter combat and the people that want combat to be detailed and tactical at the same time.
One of the best responses to this issue I've seen.
May be there will be another kind of Essential line in a couple of years but it will support old material.
Slowly but surely we will forget the old ranger and the old warlord and play the new one.
Idem for feat, item, power and so on.
They are not in a position to take the risk of another edition.
For me 4th is the best edition so far,
and the points you want to change are not problems in my group.
1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
It's all depend of players and DM organisation. And mainly "Combat" is the core of Dnd. You complain about taking too much time being in the core of game?
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
It's not perfect, but it's enough to have fun and rule a portion of the role play. Skill were not better in dnd 3.5.
3) Not enough variation in characters.
If you have a party that cover the 4 roles there will be enough variation. The rest come with role play.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
It's realy easy to create item. The basic rule are there. That's DM job.
5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.
This is not a edition problem.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
Cosmetic change can be done easily. The XP budget work fine for us.
7) Death does not seem real.
In fact. But nobody want to die in Dnd. Player want challenge wich is very different from death.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
The system seem to me enough simple to imporvise.
Level + 3 vs reflex. You make the monster Dazed. All the aspect of combat are well defined. You just have to use them.
9) More skills.
That was a mistake and dnd 3.5. More and more skill with more skill point. You were having a lot of useless skills.
A new Edition can re-organize the aspect of this. My hope is that each class keeps it's own power source and Roles become Build specific. I would hope that Dailies are elemenated completely, perhaps replaced by Recharged powers or some of the mechanics that Essentials have introduced with a better intergration.
I also hope that Power Points finally die when Psionics are remade.
There has been a lot of speculation about 4th edition ending and a newer edition coming out sometime in the near future (1-2 years). Let's assume that is true. My question is: what do we like about 4th edition that we want to see preserved. What is good about 4th? I want this thread to stay focused on 4th edition, its merits and also perhaps its problems.
What I like about 4th which I want to see preserved:
1) The basic combat system. This is the first d&d system where the basic combat rules are clean and easy to interpret and do not get in the way. 3rd edition was a nightmare to run. Basic combat is now a solved problem near as I can see.
2) The concept of different power sources. I think this is really useful.
3) The 4 defense scores. This is part of #1 but it also helps define characters, etc.
4) The equality of the classes. Fighters level up in power with wizards.
5) The concept of the different roles.
6) Themes as way to flesh out a character. (Is this just Dark Sun?)
7) The emphasis on the d20.
8) The short, digestible stat block of monsters
9) Minions! Love’em.
Here are things I think that should be changed or what I do not like:1) Battles take too long. Monsters should have less hit points and do more damage.
The system does not lend it self to roleplaying and just ends up being a kind of one unit skirmish game. This is in part due to problem #1.
2) Skill challenges (great idea that does not work).
3) Not enough variation in characters.
4) Need a way to make magic item more individual.
5) Need a solid, supported world that is new.
6) Need faster way to create a balanced encounter.
7) Death does not seem real.
8) With so many abstractions in the powers of players (and monsters) there are no options for roleplaying in battle. More kind of general rules on how to allow for improvisation would be helpful. This is there with the level for damage tables -- I think it just needs to be emphasized and maybe fleshed out a bit. Maybe via a DM guide?
9) More skills.
i pretty much agree with everything there, especially how all the classes are so similar. i think they need to focus more on the roleplaying. that's dnd's strong suit, and it needs to stay that way. love me some lawful good paladin!
i pretty much agree with everything there, especially how all the classes are so similar. i think they need to focus more on the roleplaying. that's dnd's strong suit, and it needs to stay that way. love me some lawful good paladin!
But... You can BE a Lawful Good Paladin in 4E.
And isn't it a bit weird to say that characters are too similar, while disliking that two Paladins can be of different alignments?
i pretty much agree with everything there, especially how all the classes are so similar. i think they need to focus more on the roleplaying. that's dnd's strong suit, and it needs to stay that way. love me some lawful good paladin!
But... You can BE a Lawful Good Paladin in 4E.
And isn't it a bit weird to say that characters are too similar, while disliking that two Paladins can be of different alignments?
Key word ignorance the classes have very distinct choices on the field of battle (or off) and distinct capabilities - even within a single class huge variation can be achieved... My rogue is nobleman duellist fencer who likes to isolate the target so he isnt distracted and anothers rogue is a battlefield assassin hunting for combat advantage by flanking opposite ends of field for play style. My princess has never picked up a weapon yet contributes like action adventure non combatants do by inspiring, distracting and acting like bait and so on... and my other warlord is like Odin chargeing in to battle with Glaive in hand (he is also a ritualist), The princess doesnt have much need for magic items so she makes a point of making gifts to her allies and protectors.
Shrug oops none of them out shine every body else and all contribute to play with similar frequency must be identical.... right.. what a crock.
That Rogue in 2.5 or PF or whatever can be built in alot more different ways though and you cant really deny that and thats not counting multiclassing. Its one of the best (and worst) things of 3.5. Rogue 5/Fighter3/Duelist XYZ is fair enough, Rogue 2/Fighter1/barb 1/Rang1/wiz1/ etc etc etc not so much. The 4th ed rogue is likely better comparative to the rest of the party but the 3.5 rogue is probably more interesting in the way its built. IMHO of course.
Hide in plain sight for example is more intereting to me than another XYZ damage power with status effect.
Considering that the Cunning Sneak only needs 3 squares movement + cover/concealment to hide, this is actually slightly better than Hide in Plain Sight, which requires shadows.
Our party still has fond memories of a certain 7' minotaur Cunning Sneak
That Rogue in 2.5 or PF or whatever can be built in alot more different ways though and you cant really deny that and thats not counting multiclassing.
Name five that are distinct and functional and only so mechanically and not through roleplaying and can't be easily done the same way in 4e.
Its one of the best (and worst) things of 3.5. Rogue 5/Fighter3/Duelist XYZ is fair enough, Rogue 2/Fighter1/barb 1/Rang1/wiz1/ etc etc etc not so much. The 4th ed rogue is likely better comparative to the rest of the party but the 3.5 rogue is probably more interesting in the way its built. IMHO of course.
Once you get enough splatbooks and multiclasses and prestige classes, what's really left that you can call "rogue"? Only 25% of a Rogue 5 / Fighter 5 / Duelist 10 is actually "a Rogue", the rest is just a hodgepodge of different classes mingled together for maximum mechanical gain. Although not to become powerful; just to become viable.
Not to mention that Rogue/Wizard, Rogue/Fighter, Rogue/Barbarian and any other combination are actually perfectly viable in 4e (both MC and Hybrid) rather then a 90% chance of destroying your character if you aren't a system master.
Hide in plain sight for example is more intereting to me than another XYZ damage power with status effect.
You mean the Cunning Sneak?
My DDI runs out later this month after 3 years and 4th ed is over for us, so its back to 3.5 for the occasional game but most likely its game over D&D for us.
Just can't bring yourself around to admitting 3.5 still has some advantages over 4th
Sure I can. This just isn't one of them. I've still not seen any examples of how you can build more Rogues in 3.5e then you can in 4e.
Multiclassing doesn't really exist in 4th ed as it is really take a feat poach a paragon path.
And there's Hybriding. Which is, basically, all the multiclassing you mechanically need to build any character you want. The main thing 3.5e multiclassing did was force you to take 12 levels in 5 different classes to be a viable character and give you ridiculous mechanical benefits as well as completely destroying any kind of "concept" in favor of getting more power so you were viable. (Unless you were a Wizard, straight Wizard worked just fine)
There's no need for more multiclassing ability on a character concept level. The only thing more multiclassing adds is more mechanical shenanigans. Which is, you know, fine. If that's what you 're looking for. But don't come with that "I can't build my character" nonsense because concepts are perfectly workable.
Classes are kinda boring and pointless.
You're just making them as such. Many groups don't have this problem at all. I don't feel like the classes are the same at all unless people make them out to be. For example in my homegame the fighter and barbarian are fairly alike because they chose to be while the two Rogues with almost the same build and powers are wildly different because they chose to be.
Anyone, unless you actually start listing pure Rogue builds that are wildly different from each other and can't be duplicated in 4e, I'll just assume you don't know any and that you are, thus, wrong and refusing to admit it.
And builds don't need variables. I don't consider "Rogue with Dagger" to be substantially different from "Rogue with Rapier", nor is there much difference between "Rogue with Bluff" and "Rogue with Open Lock". All of these concepts can easily be ported to 4e. I'm talking actual different builds. Like the difference between an Artful Dodger and a Brutal Scoundrel and a Cunning Sneak.
After 3 years of DMing 4th ed and having DDI we are bored with the power source structure of it. We are also struggling to get anyone to play 4th ed, and I have never played it because I am the only 4th ed DM I know of. Its actually easier to play 3.0 here let alone the 3.5/PF/4th ed arguement one could have.
Most necromancer concepts and illusionist concepts don't port over to 4th ed that well.
I have never had the chance to play 4th ed only DM it. I would probably play a wizard or cleric/warlord if I did have the chance to play. DDI is running out, I dont want to spend the $$$ to renew it and none of the players lie 4th ed enough to pay for it even sharing the $70 yearly cost.
We've all seen the shtick about "classes all look the same", and "the classes are boring and repetitive" many, many times since 4E came out. And, thinking about it, if you're looking at them in the book, it's very easy to come to that conclusion. After all...and I've said this before...there are only so many ways you can write "1[W] + ability mod damage + effect" before it looks like simple repetition. I flip to some random class in the PHB, and I see "1[W] + ability mod damage + effect". I flip another dozen pages and see "1[W] + ability mod damage + effect". After doing that a few times, it's very easy to get it into your mind that they're all the same with the only real differences being keywords and fluff.
For me as a DM, this has been the hardest obstacle for me to overcome when trying to bring in new players. Someone will come up, look interested in playing, and I'll give them the PHB so they can roll up a character. They start flipping pages. Their previous smiles start to fade as they see "1[W] + ability mod damage + effect" over and over and over from class to class. I have to take away the book and talk to them. Ask them what character concept they are looking to build, then basically hold their hand and help them through PC creation, explaining the whole time that just because Class X has a dozen powers that say "1[W] + ability mod damage + effect" just like Class Y does, that means nothing in actual game-play. And I always get the raised eyebrow look that just screams "you're lying to me".
So...I have to sit them down and make them watch a session or two so they can see how these same-looking powers actually play out. Once they see it for themselves, they change their minds...well, the ones who actually want to play change their minds. The ones who came to the table thinking that 4E will be no different than 3.X usually end up leaving, as their minds were made up before they ever sat down to begin with.
I hate the way the books read. Hate it. I hate watching the excitement drain out of a potential player as they plunder through the books and see what looks like the same thing over and over again. I truly wish there were a way to rewrite the whole thing so it didn't read like a high school text book with the same things printed on every other page, but that part is beyond me. I don't know how to make 4E presentably fun to a new player. I always end up having potential players sit in on a game session or two before they "get it" and want to play.
Making it hard to play an Illusionist or Necromancer is certainly true. I was hoping there'd be a fun and playable Necromancer by now. Illusionist is a complicated thing but I feel it should've definately been possible to get a serious non-combat Illusionist going on the ritual side, but that's really lacking. These two things are actually missing from the game and could've been handled better (though not the way 3.5 did it because they required far too much DM intervention and rules mangling (for the illusionst) or took up too much time for a turn (for the minion heavy necromancer)
But conceptionally, those things were much better possible in 3.5e then they are now.
Boredom with a structure is a personal preference, not a system problem.
Most necromancer concepts and illusionist concepts don't port over to 4th ed that well.
Ok, I can kinda see not having that good a necromancer because you can't raise a horde of undead, but seriously, that's a balance issue. But, there are a billion necromancy and illusion powers, and I fail to see how "selecting spells with 'illusion' in their keywords" in 3e is any different than "selecting spells with 'illusion' in their keywords" in 4e.
Pluisjen one of my favourite 3.5 classes was the Beguiler and Bard. Bard does exist in 4th ed but it may as well be a different class. The 3rd ed Bard wasn't that different from the 2nd ed Bard. I liked Druids in 2nd ed and varient Druids (wildshapeless) in 3.5. I do like some 4th ed classes like Wizard better than 3.5 ones so it goes both ways. No more DDI means no more 4th ed so its either 3.5 or 2nd ed or nothing really as thats the books we have as we did not buy real 4th ed books beyond the 1st 3.
The main things that changed (especially with the Beguiler for what know from it) is that you can't walk up to an enemy, roll a Diplomacy check, and suddenly he's your best friend for life.
Which, ultimately, is gamebreaking, nonsensical, and very annoying for both your DM and fellow players.
Other then that, the Bard is still everything he was, plus he's now actually pulling his weight even without diplomancy shenanigans.
It has the side effect of making the classes boring though. Roles matter more and one brutal rogue will probably look like another brutal rogue.
That might be a perfect example error, my Nobleman duellist "may" use the brutal rogue as a chasis.. but its play style and choices in fight are considerably different - backrounds, feats and power choices are all involved.
(And then promptly began house-ruling new martial practices for his characters).
I am curious about that... I was just considering that Martial Practices may not be currently up to snuff
The speciality of WotC are the rules, the d20 system, because other publishin companies can do books about background without bigger dificulty (but metaplot). WotC sells books about magic item, weapons, spells, powers, feats, races, monsters.... because it thinks it´s trying to be the best, the number 1, it does.
* Today retroclons of D&D are being made. Why are they bought? Because some fans look for something they don´t find in the current edition or they miss something from the "old school".
* I imagine D&D fans doesn´t only want create stories and characters but they wish use the rules to play with other players and show the adventures of their loved PCs. Game rules are the tool to prove the character isn´t only words on a paper, but a being who is living a adventure. D&D fans could play with other system of rules game, but they think the d20 system is the right challenge (and it´s more difficoult find players who use other game system.
* Please, Hasbro. Giorzi Preciosi is earning lots of money by "Gormiti" franchise... and they is a cartoon tv show. Why not a D&D cartoon teleserie? D&D has got a bigger list of monster that Pokemon. Why not action figures of Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms....? Childre who play those toys could be fans of the rpg later (and don´t forget the collectors).
The key is WotC sells d20 system. Today you haven´t got to buy books about background because you can get from internet, movies, comics..
Thing is, the d20 system is out there in the SRD, open-source, fairly easy for anyone to use. So WotC isn't selling D&D on the strength of the d20 system, even if 4e can still be said to be using the d20 system (it's certainly not using the SRD). 4e split from the d20 open-source platform, with the more restrictive GSL, and forged it's own unique mechanical aproach (which, though a great improvement, by D&D standards, in only just up to par for the hobby, today).
No, WotC is trading on three things: the D&D name, the meager D&D intellectual property (Illithids and Beholders and Displacer Beast and a handful of other trademarkable droplets in a sea of public-domain orcs, dragons, and the like, plus a huge list of easily forgotten propper nouns), and, most of all, the nostalgia of the 40-something D&Der.
Hasbro isn´t selling D&D enough good. I have just said it. The franchise can be a true mine of gold. It isn´t only books (rpg and novels) but it can be toys for children (action figures). If WotC creates the class of summoner or beast trainer we could have got the Hasbro equivalent to Pokemon, Digimon, Bakugan..Today I can see the action figures of Code Lyoko in the toy shops. Why not a new D&D cartoon? (or a supernatural romance movie about a werewolf and a panther-woman set in Ravenloft
). D&D isn´t only "PCs go to dungeons and kill all monsters". Fighting is funny, but I want create stories like for example the hilarious love-hate relation of a tomboy (female)half-orc shaman and a metrosexual half-elf ranger, or the religious confict of clerics versus psionic ardents, or a war between two kingdoms what are ruled by giants and dragons, or helping a fraal (from Alternity, it was a canon AD&D monster) to stop the mindslayer invasion, or about mecha-golems (giants robots) rided by gnomes who fight againts crazy war machines created by a ancient civilitation of mad scientific goblins...
The rules have to be a tool to help create stories, not a obstacle. I want stats of monsters and PCs because I wish see the action, when heroes is facing dangers and enemies, but I´m not going to buy a book about boring list of powers about moving x spaces. I want cool material what help feel my PCs are special, different, like the dress of the dolls. Powers about moving could be useful for fighting, but like collector I want things to help to have a unique identity or mark/sign for my characters (like wizard´s familiar, ranger´s animal companion, paladin´s exotic mounts).
I don´t know about 4th ed books what are being published by other companies, but It looks (for me) creating new worlds of fantasy was easier by 3rd ed that the 4th. Ed. Now I can´t create a new campaign with rules of 4th Ed. I can´t get the inspiration. I don´t see character from a book who is adquiring life, but character from the screen of a arcade. For me Sims Medieval are more roleplay and stories what killing hundres monster from World of Warcraft.
I wish the return of monster classes and templates (like half-dragon, half-troll, half-golem or half-celestial) for PCs, and the return of all true dragons (all with age level age, even sun, moon and stellar dragons from Spelljammer too) and golems (too from Dark Sun, like wood or chitin golem) and Ravenloft like the doll, the mechanic and the bones golem). I would like the possibility of playing all humanoid monsters like goblins and hobgoblins. I want a new d20 Modern with a soucerbook about superheroes (d20 spectacular...why wasn´t it published?)...and soucerbook about ages of clockpunk, teslapunk and atompunk/pulp (variations of steampunk genre).
A truth is that a LOT, A REALLY LARGE lot of third party stuff was just *BAD*.
If I remember well, by example, Green Ronin was disliked for bad books.
There was gems like Nyambe setting. But in a lot of crud.
And WOTC's move had made sense, seeing the load of crap they allowed to exist as well...
It's easy to make a world with 4th ed. Let the imagination wild.
I did, and it is awesome.
A lot of what you said already exist, it's just also a matter of fluff, mon ami.
There is also nostalgia playing there..
A truth is that a LOT, A REALLY LARGE lot of third party stuff was just *BAD*.
If I remember well, by example, Green Ronin was disliked for bad books.
There was gems like Nyambe setting. But in a lot of crud.
And WOTC's move had made sense, seeing the load of crap they allowed to exist as well...
It's easy to make a world with 4th ed. Let the imagination wild.
I did, and it is awesome.
A lot of what you said already exist, it's just also a matter of fluff, mon ami.
Green Ronin's stuff was hit or miss (mostly miss). I did like the Mongoose stuff, though.
Does WotC even have a Licensing staff(er)? Or is there really not enough market interest in D&D branded products to generate more licensed merch?
Please, there are three movies of transformers, and the second film of G.I.Joe is coming soon. The D&D movie wasn´t really a AAA blockbuster but.. the second one... Hercules´ Journeys (played by Kevin Sorbo) and Xena weren´t AAA teleseries but they weren´t bad. I meant a D&D movie of level like "Hercules´Journey" wouldn´t be so bad (the main point is the story is funny).
Hasbro can make a line of toys of D&D and there aren´t troubles and headaches about copyright. Are there? If Hasbro wants vehicules toys of D&D only steampunk machines from Eberron are enough (or get sci-fi settings like Alternity:Star*Drive, Star Frontiers, Gamma World and Metamorphosis Alpha).
There are cartoons of W.I.T.C.H (what if Will Bandon´s name would be Bridgitte?) and Winx, and Duel Masters and Yu-gi-oh, the games of cards. There are new cartoon show of G.I.Joe, Action man and Transformers. Why not D&D? Is too difficult a anime of D&D or about settings like d20 Past?
* Do you imagine a cannon core PC class like pet master, a type os summoner+beast trainer?
* If there is a new D&D board game... Like player I want feel like exploring a labyrinth. The funrnitures and "atrezzo" of Hero Quest can be optional, but I miss feeling I am not only opening doors and killing monster, but the way of each quest/mission is very different of others. It isn´t only a sucession/serie of rooms or corridors, but it has to be a no-lineal routes the player can´t guess where is the end (last door or final boss). I want feel my PCs are within a labyrith.
I have heard there is a project about the third movie of D&D. It will be about the book of evil darkness.
I´m afraid executives of Hasbro don´t know D&D exists and it may WotC doesn´t want it because it wishs lesser creative control.
(PLEASE! A MOVIE OF BATTLESHIP?)
* What was wrong about the animation movie of Dragonlance, the rhythm of action or what?
The rules have to be a tool to help create stories, not a obstacle. I want stats of monsters and PCs because I wish see the action, when heroes is facing dangers and enemies
Right, it's not Inkeepers & Blacksmiths, it's D&D.
I don´t know about 4th ed books what are being published by other companies, but It looks (for me) creating new worlds of fantasy was easier by 3rd ed that the 4th. Ed.
It is still much easier for a 3rd party to create product under the d20 OGL than the 4e GSL, in the business sense.
In the creative sense, 3e wove mechanics into all aspects of modeling the world. So, by changing mechanics, you could change the world implied by them, customizing it to your idea of a campaign setting. It was a deal of work, and required some non-trivial system mastery, but you could do it. In 4e, the mechanics focus on modeling the PCs and their challenges, and the world is a backdrop that you merely describe, you don't need to extensively house-rule the system to caft a setting.
I have heard there is a project about the third movie of D&D. It will be about the book of evil darkness.
There is a movie about the book of Vile Darkness. The book coming out is a tie in to the movie. The movie will be up there with such cinematic materpieces such as Mansquito, Malibu Shark Attack, Mega Python vs. Gatoroid, and Piranaconda aka Syfy Channel Original Movies. If you expect anything out of the movie beyond a B-movie, you are in for horrible amounts of disapointment.