Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek Aug 11, 2014 0:08:10	This is something that came up in another thread, and something I've noticed as well, so I figured I would start a separate thread to discuss. I've noticed that D&D has taken on a "more abilities" approach than in past editions, and it's caused some players to think in a very narrow perspective when it comes to dealing with encounters. I've noticed it with younger players and not those who grew up with older editions. It seems to me that these players just want to use their "cool abilities" instead of either thinking outside the box or defeating an encounter in a "lesser cool" way. I don't know, it's like when they have a character sheet full of powers they "need" to use them. I think I've seen more players charging in now than I did back in the day. Not sure it's as common as I'm seeing.
#2 Xeviat-DM Aug 11, 2014 0:13:22	Wizards have always been about their "cool abilities". Every edition has been moving closer to giving everyone the same level of cool.
#3 Veleria Aug 11, 2014 0:17:37	I have been playing 5e in playtest for several months and I found that after a few sessions with the loss of the powers players are getting far more creative and cinematic in describing their turns. I really liked 4e and played it like crazy for  many years but I found like the OP that powers replaced clever ideas. I am hopeful that 5e will reverse that somewhat.
#4 XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek Aug 11, 2014 0:19:13	I think if you started with 4th edition, it will be a bit harder to step out of that mind set.
#5 Noon Aug 11, 2014 1:08:18	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#6 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 1:54:00	You can role-play just as normal in 4th Ed (obviously), I think the point about Powers is that you feel you need to/are required/should use them (and they are very specific), and page 42 doesn't quite cut it, just treadmill DC/damage scaling.
#7 Kugnar Aug 11, 2014 3:06:25	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#8 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 3:08:03	The word "Cool" is taking a hit.
#9 Marandahir Aug 11, 2014 3:21:16	I think there's an honest criticism to level against 4e here, regardless of the OPs PoV. But I don't think the criticism is REALLY about thinking outside of the box, thought that could be argued, since it's comfortable when you have buttons to press to press the buttons.  But this is something that Wizards and other spellcasters have always had.  4e just gave buttons to everyone.  The real criticism towards 4e is taking things that should be possible without buttons, and making them require buttons.  Or, to put it another way, the rules seemed to imply that your buttons did one thing and one thing only, rather than being tools in your swiss-army knife, which you can and should use for various purposes.  Burning Hands doesn't just do flame damage to an enemy – it could be used as a flame-torch!  Page 42 rules (which have, in 4Essentials and now 5e, been made into the core checking rule) should bring the DM to think about the DC, give a bonus for the attack and damage rolls, and move on.  There were plenty of tables in 4e where that improvising continued, but there was a bit of an implication that improv of powers wasn't allowed.  And furthermore, that if you didn't have a power that could shove someone with your shield, you couldn't shove someone with your shield – which you still could do, it's just you wouldn't get the same bonuses as being trained in it.  It was about presentation in 4e, a presentation that made it a lot easier to say, "this is what I can do."  But at a certain point, a bunch of people started thinking that mean, "this is all I can do," which is a rather different statement.  Abilities for different character types are important.  But it's also very important to make sure that you're not charging a character for an ability that would be, ultimately, identical to a DM fiat call is someone creatively came up with the idea of doing that.  There's a good reason, besides page count, that the Battle Master Fighter has far fewer maneuvers than say, the 4e Fighter or the 4e Warlord.  So many maneuver ideas are things everyone should be able to accomplish just by using the core rules and their imagination, or at least everyone with the proper martial and/or skillful training.  By balancing powerful static bonuses on Fighters against the power and versatility of spells, they're encouraging Fighters to think about what they can do by improvising their tactics, but also allowing the player who's like, "I just want to hit the monster with my sword" to have fun and not have to feel like he or she is playing a Wizard dressed in martial combat gear.  I'm not saying that the 4e Fighter or Warlord WERE that, mind you.  Not at all.  That's the superficial difference there.  But there was a lot more tactical thinking baked into 4e, which a number of Fighter players love but a good number on the other hand don't want to deal with.  So you have this fundamental tension, and 4e didn't fulfil the desire for a basic Fighter, even post-Essentials.  Battle Master seems like a reasonable attempt to marry the two disciplines, and I think that 5e is taking some of the best of the 4e "power" design concepts and trimming the fat, so to speak, to make a streamlined, but still iconic, Samurai/Strategist/Master-of-War subclass here.   lawrencehoy wrote:
#10 Darth_Caffeineus Aug 11, 2014 3:24:09	As the ancient law giver sayeth, "fighters shall not have nice things."   If we tresspass against this most sacred law, then the entire fabric of the game shall unravel and our PCs shall be cast into "the box" evermore with neary a hope of thinking outside it's infernal confines.   So endith the lesson.
#11 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 3:31:25	Marandahir wrote:
#12 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 3:32:42	Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
#13 frothsof Aug 11, 2014 4:01:35	lawrencehoy wrote:
#14 ORC_Nashira Aug 11, 2014 4:09:00	I've removed content from this thread because of violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct
#15 Uchawi Aug 11, 2014 4:10:33	I think every class should have something cool to do, but how that is done will be debated until the end of time. The biggest thing 5E lacks is placing classes on an equal playing field when it comes to learning new ability or doing cool things. The bias is towards magic. I would be much happier if they created a mechanism for martial classes to learn maneuvers just like casters have spells. In that sense, feats would remain neutral or optional. I would also be happier if martial classes had more abilities that require saves that did not require the use of a spell. Once they start creating different sub-systems, it makes it harder for each class to have cool things.
#16 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 4:11:41	...Pathfinder...yeah....weird...   I have come up with my own band-aids to "fix" 3rd Ed.   I am loving 5th Ed, sort of the edition I wanted back in August 2000.
(Reply to #7) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Kugnar wrote:
(Reply to #15) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Uchawi wrote:
#19 Orzel Aug 11, 2014 5:33:13	I see it as the separation of class and playatyle. It is like MTG where a player might like Blue and aggression but suffer with no blue aggressive support. Some people want to be warriors and rely on button pushing. Some people want to be casters and rely on improvisation.
#20 Elfcrusher Aug 11, 2014 5:46:28	Wow and I thought *I* was a grognard...   If you don't want those darned kids pressing their Cool buttons, play The One Ring.
#21 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 6:03:29	Elfcrusher wrote:
#22 iserith Aug 11, 2014 6:30:10	"Cool powers" might be seen as a tad more reliable for Getting Stuff Done than lobbying the DM to "allow" your ideas to work.
#23 TiaNadiezja Aug 11, 2014 6:37:43	The reasons players tend to default to what's on their sheets are twofold, and neither has anything to do with a lack of creativity:   1. What's on your sheet is on your sheet. Your sheet is, and always has been, your utility belt - the set of preassembled tools you had and planned for as you built or advanced your character. Your eyes hit something that sounds good for the problem, you go with it.   2. You know how what's on your sheet works. Whether it's a Second Edition Thief rolling Open Locks or a Fourth Edition Warlord giving the ally who can climb up and reach the lever an extra turn, having rules for something makes it more reliable. You're not relying on the DM to maybe set a difficulty that gives you the success chance you want, or to allow the end result you're looking for - it's right there on your sheet. Knowing how something works is a huge argument in that something's favor.   I tend to be in favor of giving players more stuff on their sheet and letting them apply those things they know the inner workings of in new ways to solve problems over less stuff on the sheet and total guesswork improvisation. That's just me, though.
#24 Lawolf Aug 11, 2014 6:54:54	Anecdotally, the players with "cool powers" tend to be the ones who can do the most interesting and creative things. For example, our party wizard has done plenty of great improvisation with minor illusion. On the other hand, the party fighter soon learned that any "thinking outside of the box" has just dragged combats on and often leads to him getting KOd. He has even gone as far to say that 5e combat is boring.    So mr Xun, I think your premise is way off the mark.
#25 Rhenny Aug 11, 2014 7:02:55	I've found that with 5e, players are trying to do more than just use special powers.   Bounded Accuracy, using ability checks instead of "skills", fixed DCs for actions (at around DC 10 and DC 15) has made it so that even the untrained low charisma PC can attempt to interact or persuade (same goes for climbing, jumping, pushing/lifting/breaking down door, etc.).   For me, I rarely look at my character sheet while playing.   Also, because many of the special powers are couched in larger descriptive categories (like cunning action, action surge, even the feats), I find them easier to remember so that I don't have to look at my character sheet to take advantage of what my PC can do.   Of course, I'm an old gamer who started in the late 70s, but right now in my most current campaign I've got one 14 year old, 3 players in the 20-30s range, and 1 other in the 40+ category.    I think they are relying less and less on the character sheet as we play more.
#26 Vikingkingq Aug 11, 2014 7:29:38	Wow, this really seems like the wrong way to look at class abilities. I don't see them as buttons as much as they're tools, although I think that they could be designed to work a bit better as tools. As someone who really really likes Maneuver Fighters, I find that maneuvers actually enhance my tool-using behavior in a number of ways: Predictability - one of the things that discouraged "tool-using" in previous editions is that your ability to do so very much depended on DM fiat, both in terms of being able to do something at all, but also in terms of my chances of pulling something off. Most "tool-using" in martial classes involved taking penalties and often multiple rolls, each of which increased the chances of failing to accomplish anything and which could change from attempt to attempt (is a given stunt going to take a -2 to hit or a -4? Am I going to have to roll Strength plus attack or Strength plus Dex plus attack? Is the effect my stunt will have actually worth anything?). These kind of things discourage "tool-using," because it makes standard behavior the safer option and because it introduces uncertainty and people generally don't like uncertainty; attacking in part is good because I know how attacking works and can generally predict my chances of success. By contrast, a lot of "tool-using" with spells doesn't run into this problem: Grease plus Choking Cloud doesn't require multiple rolls or penalties to cast. Moving to maneuvers gives some of that certainty back to "tool-using" - I know that if I want to say, Trip and Push someone so I can toss them away and have them land prone, I can do that by spending two Superiority Dice and that I'll have an X% chance of success.  Incentives - as suggested above, adding penalties to "tool-using" behavior discourages people from doing so. In the past, this was doubly a problem because using a tool generally involved giving up a standard turn's worth of damage (especially problematic in 3rd when you had to stand still to get your full attack), which meant you were reducing your contribution to just dropping the enemy. It was always hard to balance "tool-using" against straight damage. The nice thing about maneuvers is that they stack on top of your attacks, which means you don't have to choose between damage and "tool-using" and in fact you might as well try to use a tool every single turn.  I think 5e does a good job of encouraging tool-use, but I think we can do even better in terms of making class abilities more like tools and encouraging tool-using behavior: first, we can set out suggestions for how abilities can affect the environment (fire spells creating light or damaging structures, combat maneuvers being used to topple a pillar over a ravine so the party can cross) and encourage DMs to allow for creative uses of abilities not found on the suggested list; second, we can set out suggestions for how abilities can interact (spell combinations a la Dragon Age, maneuver combinations that are more than the sum of the parts, etc.) to encourage people to treat their abilities with an air of experimentation; third, reduce the number of penalties and rolls that go along with stunts. There's a reason why RPGs with stunt chips and action points exist; giving people a mechanism for succeeding in a stunt makes them more likely to try them out.
#27 Karnos Aug 11, 2014 7:47:06	Lawolf wrote:
#28 h347h50 Aug 11, 2014 7:55:47	Karnos wrote:
#29 Lawolf Aug 11, 2014 8:21:24	Karnos wrote:
(Reply to #27) Orzel	Karnos wrote:
#31 iserith Aug 11, 2014 8:30:51	Lawolf wrote:
#32 Karnos Aug 11, 2014 8:43:14	Lawolf wrote:
#33 Orzel Aug 11, 2014 8:57:23	It's not a class issue. It is an archetype issue. D&D forces certain character arteypes to use certain playstyle. 5e seems to be the most lenient.
#34 Uskglass Aug 11, 2014 9:08:11	So is this suggesting that wizards, clerics and spellcasters in general should not rely on their spells, but rather look for other ways to confront challenges? There are several good 'free-form' systems out there for this kind of playstyle, but D&D is not one of them and it's never been - not saying it's bad at all, it just uses a different approach.
#35 kalil Aug 11, 2014 9:15:19	I always hated the pre-4th syndrome of "just look for the right spell to solve the problem". I was really happy that 4th did away with that nonsense and allowed for some actual creativity in problem solving again. Thats what we are talking about right? ...right?
#36 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 9:28:19	iserith wrote:
#37 Brock_Landers Aug 11, 2014 9:31:08	kalil wrote:
#38 iserith Aug 11, 2014 9:34:16	Brock_Landers wrote:
#39 Vladish Aug 11, 2014 9:41:41	Uskglass wrote:
(Reply to #37) Orzel	Brock_Landers wrote:
#41 Uskglass Aug 11, 2014 10:19:06	Vladish wrote:
#42 kalil Aug 11, 2014 10:19:36	Orzel wrote:
#43 Foxface Aug 11, 2014 10:26:55	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
(Reply to #42) Brock_Landers	kalil wrote:
(Reply to #43) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Foxface wrote:
#46 dmgorgon Aug 11, 2014 10:34:54	I think it's important to guide these folks along and help them improve their game.  When they see the DM improvising with his monstes and the other players following suit, such players will be encouraged to think outside their power cards.   Teach them to first describe what they are attempting to accomplish, let them roll, and then describe the results.   Even if they have power cards I would enforce such descriptions.
(Reply to #45) Lord_Ventnor	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
(Reply to #47) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Lord_Ventnor wrote:
(Reply to #48) Lord_Ventnor	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#50 mestewart3 Aug 11, 2014 10:47:38	This is one of the big reasons that I roll my eyes when older DMs & Players lay claim to some sort of higher gaming ability than the "noobs."  I ran 4e through pretty much its entire run and saw a huge amount of creativity used in how the party approached and delt with problems.  Yet I always hear on the internet from grognards that 4e killed their own or "kids these days" creativity.  From my experience that is more about you than the rules you are playing with.
#51 Foxface Aug 11, 2014 10:46:39	dmgorgon wrote:
#52 Foxface Aug 11, 2014 10:47:34	mestewart3 wrote:
#53 XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek Aug 11, 2014 10:48:07	Nobody has said anything in this entire thread about "killing creativity". Please go and defend 4th edition somewhere else.
#54 Orzel Aug 11, 2014 11:04:27	I've played with over a dozen DM. I usually improvise 3 times early in sensible ways in the first session. If I don't succeed at least once or get some result nearly as good as one on my sheet, I never improvise again (except for that one time I was just being silly). I call it the Kevin Garnett strategy.
#55 Foxface Aug 11, 2014 11:06:38	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#56 Uskglass Aug 11, 2014 11:11:39	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
(Reply to #5) Azzy1974	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #7) Azzy1974	Kugnar wrote:
(Reply to #55) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Foxface wrote:
(Reply to #50) Azzy1974	mestewart3 wrote:
#61 Foxface Aug 11, 2014 12:58:40	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#62 Orzel Aug 11, 2014 13:26:36	An old man once told me "You only NEED to be clever when you are outmatched the normal way.". That is the thing about creative gaming. People tend to resort to clever plans, trickery, and unfair fighting when your normal strategy doesn't work or another one surpassed it. Fighters had to be clever because they only have one good but situational action on the sheet. Casters had many on their sheet for different situations and only acted clever by running out or hoarding. 4e and to a lesser estant 5e tried to give every class a measure of good moves to look through before resorting to trickery.
#63 Samrin Aug 11, 2014 13:33:43	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
(Reply to #62) Vikingkingq	Orzel wrote:
#65 Gunthar Aug 11, 2014 13:39:40	Or, they gave you some built-in trickery to work from.
(Reply to #64) Orzel	Vikingkingq wrote:
#67 Uskglass Aug 11, 2014 14:24:47	Ok, this needs a recap as it got confusing:   The thread is not about any issue with 5e: that's good as it is The thread is a critique to an aspect of 4e actually (which is gone, by the way, but still...) Power-based codified abilities are not good for they lead to a narrow minded attitude towards problem solving Unless you play a caster in which case it requires you to be clever and ingenious, so it's good: the more the better
#68 Wuzzard Aug 11, 2014 14:45:45	Uskglass wrote:
#69 Uskglass Aug 11, 2014 15:34:47	Wuzzard wrote:
(Reply to #68) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Wuzzard wrote:
(Reply to #69) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	Uskglass wrote:
#72 Uchawi Aug 11, 2014 15:41:36	The bottom line is features of a game like roleplaying or creativity are constants, because it is dependent on the player. So placing that aside, what makes one class more creative than another regardless of the mechanic, whether it is abilities, skills, feats, maneuvers, spells or powers, is the amount at the players disposal. When you take that all into account, a spell caster comes out on top, because they have the most choices that impact creativity, and have the most flexibility to change those choices. Since spells are very broad, is also helps cover for a lack of creavity from a player. Where a figher no matter how creative they are based on mechanics has to have a DM willing to make up the difference in choices by allowing more ad hoc ability, or making sure magic items are available to compensate.
#73 MechaPilot Aug 11, 2014 15:43:21	If you're working on a home improvement project and you need to take apart a pipe, the first thing you do is look in your toolbox, not try to MacGuyver something out of barbecue tongs and dish towels.  If you have a tool that's built for the job, then it's natural to use it.  Unless you memorize what your tools are, which is incredibly easy when you only have a handful of them (as was the case with most 4e classes), then you need to actually look in your toolbox (i.e. character sheet).
#74 Uskglass Aug 11, 2014 16:17:14	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
(Reply to #71) Orzel	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#76 GhostStepper Aug 11, 2014 17:49:54	The OP only makes sense if you're petitioning to remove spell lists from casters. Casters have big lists of "powers". Casters have big lists of "buttons" to push to solve problems.   If the OP is not about removing spell lists with discrete, powerful spells, so that everyone across the board has to improvise then it can't be seen as anything other than "it's good when some people get powers and other people do not".
#77 demon_idol Aug 11, 2014 17:54:32	I used to DM living forgotten realms in 4e. I come from a 1e background, and I found that my DMing style encouraged alll sorts of 'out of the box' shennanigans. I think that the real trick is with the DM. Remember that there is a lot of fun to be had out of combat-- stealing stuff from wearhouses, conning NPCs, picking pockets, engineering trojan horses out of giant beer barrels that you are going to give as a gift to the orc hoard, etc.. Give the players a challenge that they have to solve with their wits. If you do that it doesn't matter what edition you are playing.   That being said, I think 5e is awesome with regards to fostering the mindset for this kind of thing to happen. The fact that it has things like wild magic tables, and backgrounds are just two examples.
(Reply to #66) Vikingkingq	Orzel wrote:
#79 Rastapopoulos Aug 11, 2014 22:02:07	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#80 Orethalion Aug 11, 2014 22:49:50	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #79) Lord_Ventnor	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#82 lawrencehoy Aug 12, 2014 3:35:47	Marandahir wrote:
#83 lawrencehoy Aug 12, 2014 3:37:23	frothsof wrote:
#84 Caliburn101. Aug 12, 2014 3:43:56	Brock_Landers wrote:
#85 Uskglass Aug 12, 2014 4:06:47	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #81) Uchawi	Lord_Ventnor wrote:
#87 Karnos Aug 12, 2014 5:31:40	Uskglass wrote:
#88 Karnos Aug 12, 2014 5:37:22	Uchawi wrote:
#89 Uskglass Aug 12, 2014 6:13:35	Karnos wrote:
#90 Orzel Aug 12, 2014 10:32:42	Seems the question is on the power, quality, quantity, versatility, and frequency of "buttons". Different axis and many of them.