With fewer and fewer releases of fourth edition products, it is becoming apparent that the current experimental edition of DnD is coming to a close. With that in mind, what would you like to see in the next revision of DnD (or perhaps DnD 4.75?)
To keep things simple, just list three changes you think could benefit the current version of DnD.
Change #2: See change #1
Change #3: All of the above
Such threads always end up trolled-flamming.
First indeed, close or consolidate such needless threads into ONE. Pinned. And heavily moded.
Such threads always end up trolled-flamming.
They certainly don't have to trolled or end in a flamming wreck at the bottom of the sea. A thread like this does not really need firsts and seconds not adding anything to the discussion. Posts like that are, in some ways, worse than any troll or flame post.
1. Less emphasis on combat.
2. Reduce the number of classes and broaden them out. There are a number of ways to do this including removing most of the powers and instead have class interact with the remaining power in different ways. Another solution could be to harken back to 2nd edition and use the parts that worked. No, I'm not talking about Thac0 because we all hated it. (Hasbaro, an important concept to remember, cannot really go back to 3rd edition without losing face and more of its market share)
3. Reinsitute the old OGL. I do understand that some products were terrible from the OGL but a number of current 4th edition products are about as lackluster as well.
1. Less emphasis on combat.
2. Reduce the number of classes and broaden them out. There are a number of ways to do this including removing most of the powers and instead have class interact with the remaining power in different ways. Another solution could be to harken back to 2nd edition and use the parts that worked. No, I'm not talking about Thac0 because we all hated it. (Hasbaro, an important concept to remember, cannot really go back to 3rd edition without losing face and more of its market share)
1) Never (shouldn't) happen, the game is primarily about killing (I know I'm going to get a ton of flack for this).
2) I do agree with this, I first loved the AEDU format for classes, but having tons of independant claases, that are all 1st level features, then 100+powers, rinse, repeat, got old. And please get rid of Daily powers.
2. Decouple powers from class, and make them a function of Source, instead. Doing so reduces the number of powers the game needs by a factor of at least 4, and loses little, if anything.
3. Decouple Role support from powers, and concentrate them in class features. It already mostly works that way for most classes/roles. The controller is the sticking point (controllers have most of their role-support concentrated in their powers - wizards, particular in daily powers, for instance), but something along the lines of Metamagic as class features could do the trick.
1) Never (shouldn't) happen, the game is primarily about killing (I know I'm going to get a ton of flack for this).
Right now it is based on the mathematical emphasis on XP from monsters, but a while back there was a certain Greyhawk supplement that changed that from the kind of state it is (was) in now, to having very little XP from monsters and much more from "quest XP", thereby making it a lot less about "killing things and taking their stuff" and much more about simply "taking their stuff".
So, I wouldn't say "the game [of D&D in general] is primarily about killing". It's gone through various iterations of just how important killing stuff is. Right now? Killing stuff is important, it's true. At various other points during its long and storied history? Not as much. So, this isn't so much "flack [sic]" but an historical nitpick.
Also, yeah, there definitely have been a lot of these threads lately. In fact I just posted in one like two days ago...
2. Decouple powers from class, and make them a function of Source, instead. Doing so reduces the number of powers the game needs by a factor of at least 4, and loses little, if anything.
3. Decouple Role support from powers, and concentrate them in class features. It already mostly works that way for most classes/roles. The controller is the sticking point (controllers have most of their role-support concentrated in their powers - wizards, particular in daily powers, for instance), but something along the lines of Metamagic as class features could do the trick.
These sort of sound along the lines of "classless" stuff, which was actually something I brought up in the last thread of this type. I love the class archetypes, don't get me wrong, but using the current power structure you need to make like a hundred new powers every time you make a "4e classic" class, and with such weak multiclassing options compared to, say, 3rd edition, really most people don't get to dip their hands in different class's pies, so to speak, in terms of powers and features. So, something like this, where a class is more an archetype than a, well, a "class", I think at least is pretty cool because it increases player options and decreases the strain on Development resources at WotC.
community.wizards.com/dantracker/blog/?p...
2) Add more classes and paragon paths
3) take the game to level 40
I only get 3?
1- Class-splosion. I want 15 or so in PHB 1 minimum. (They should be less involved than 4e's classes. I recomend all roles have a communal powers pool if you keep the powers idea, or you can go with 3.X style two page writeups)
2- +X items are gone. Any +X math fixes your system needs for advancement are built in.
3- Distinct tiers with tangible differences. Level 1-10 you do traditional adventure stuff. Aquire gold, save princesses, control of a Town/forest/small area is the end goal. Gold pieces are your base wealth measure. Level 11-20 you do a kingmaker style game. Your stats from level 1-10 barely matter and it is almost a completely different game. You lead armies, conqure territory, and rule your subjects. Your eventual end goal is a kingdom. Your base unit of wealth is the town. Level 21+ you do wars of the Gods. Trying to take down dieties and assume their place. Your base unit of wealth is a kingdom, and the end goal is a plane or more. A sweet magic item you find at level 9 should be a trinket/plaything at level 11, and a boring waste of space at 21.
With fewer and fewer releases of fourth edition products, it is becoming apparent that the current experimental edition of DnD is coming to a close. With that in mind, what would you like to see in the next revision of DnD (or perhaps DnD 4.75?)
To keep things simple, just list three changes you think could benefit the current version of DnD.
What do you mean "experimental"? That sounds like a troll/bait, so please explain.
Over the next couple years I'd like to see some more experimental books. The 4e equivalent of 3e's Unearthed Arcana: a big book of optional rules. Not just "here's a new optional mechanic to add onto your game" but variant rules. Alternate ways of doing heal and healing surges, different ways of using Skills, alternate race options, completely revised Skill Challenge rules, different ways to use magic items, alternate advancement and XP, etc. A big book of house rules.
Really pushing the system and doing new things with the rules.
Plus, you know, a big book detailing the Feywild and a Shadowfell book that isn't just an urban campaign setting in disguise. A super Ravenloft product would be nice.
Then, after that, a 5e that's completely different than 4e. Totally different.
As e-publishing and print-on-demand really takes off there's no reason WotC can't keep selling 4e to people who want to keep playing 4e, so 5e could cater to a very different audience while the 4e fans keep playing that edition.
2. Decouple powers from class, and make them a function of Source, instead. Doing so reduces the number of powers the game needs by a factor of at least 4, and loses little, if anything.
3. Decouple Role support from powers, and concentrate them in class features. It already mostly works that way for most classes/roles. The controller is the sticking point (controllers have most of their role-support concentrated in their powers - wizards, particular in daily powers, for instance), but something along the lines of Metamagic as class features could do the trick.
These sort of sound along the lines of "classless" stuff, which was actually something I brought up in the last thread of this type. I love the class archetypes, don't get me wrong, but using the current power structure you need to make like a hundred new powers every time you make a "4e classic" class, and with such weak multiclassing options compared to, say, 3rd edition, really most people don't get to dip their hands in different class's pies, so to speak, in terms of powers and features. So, something like this, where a class is more an archetype than a, well, a "class", I think at least is pretty cool because it increases player options and decreases the strain on Development resources at WotC.
Yes, if powers were grouped by Source, you could put Role support into the Roles themselves - 'role features,' I suppose - and then Class would be nothing more than the intersection of Source & Role.
No power creep. Buying splat books should give you more options, not more powerful options.
Fewer powers. This could be accomplished by tieing some powers to the power source (which would actually make power sources matter), making powers scale (so you don't have to recreate a higher level version of what is essentially the same power), and eliminating the trap powers.
Include inherent bonuses from the beginning.
Better guidelines for skill challenges.
Design the books better so they don't make your eyes bleed the first time you read through them.
Better rules for multiclassing.
No feat taxes.
For future 4e direction:
Well, we had a mid-stream on-ramp appear (Essentials); how about an off-ramp? Call it "D&D Tangentials"
.-DS
With fewer and fewer releases of fourth edition products, it is becoming apparent that the current experimental edition of DnD is coming to a close.
3 years is one hell of a long "experimental editon".
This is, of course, my opinion.
One thing that always bothers me is the exponential development of power between levels of the characters. As DM is very difficult, for me, to allocate those god-like PC's in my campaigns. I have tried some solutions over time, but nothing worked effectively.
I mean, if a group of six PC's holds enough power to dethrone a king, why not do it?
(yeah, English is not my 1st language)
I mean, if a group of six PC's holds enough power to dethrone a king, why not do it?
(yeah, English is not my 1st language)
I'd like a deflation of numeric values... like 1/10. HPs in the 100 by the last levels, maybe? keep numbers smallers, but equivalent, like 10/100 and 1/10, see?
More fluffy; D&D based less on pseudo medieval, faux european stuff. More neutral on cultural and technological aspects, to have things like Dark Sun and an asian inspired setting with gunpowder both, playing WELL.
1) Never (shouldn't) happen, the game is primarily about killing (I know I'm going to get a ton of flack for this).
2) I do agree with this, I first loved the AEDU format for classes, but having tons of independant claases, that are all 1st level features, then 100+powers, rinse, repeat, got old. And please get rid of Daily powers.
One of the major problems with 4th edition was the combat was (and pretty much is) generally the only way to deal with another group. Whether that group was some mercenaries, a chromatic dragon, a metallic dragon, or a metallically chromatic dragon talking to some mercenaries.
When I first looked at 4th edition, I wanted to try a cleric because no one else I know wanted to heal or support the party. After looking at the power, I only noticed that 4th edition clerics all belowed to dieties of war and only able to support allies through attacks (not counting the basic cure and some of the odd support only abilities, of course).
Part of the problem is the lack of initiative to look into alternatives to combat or other ways to deal with 'monsters'. Another part of the problem is the toned down skill set or that DnD is only a brand name to attach a skirmish game to. Maybe the removal of subdual damage (or non-lethal damage) hurt the game. I do agree that some combats are unavoidable, but not all of them are. There should always be a place for a kit like the Natural Philosopher and others.
To Domn: Maybe PCs should not be god-like but rather just above average.
To Rustmonster: 3 years is not really that long compared to the 11 years of 3rd edition. That edition is still going strong. I just played a 2nd edition campaign two years ago. Pending on Corporate matters, we could see 5th edition by Winter 2012.
This is a problem with the DEEP CORE OF D&D ITSELF.
D&D was NEVER a deeply engaging, thespian like rping, well, rpg.
You want a deeply intelectual game, you'd rather go to things like Dogs in the Vineyard by example.
Some peoples should face the truth of the past.
One of the major problems with 4th edition was the combat was (and pretty much is) generally the only way to deal with another group. Whether that group was some mercenaries, a chromatic dragon, a metallic dragon, or a metallically chromatic dragon talking to some mercenaries.
I'd say it's not really that it's the only way to deal with another group, it's that combat is a reward that gives a reward. A fight is (generally) fun. The fact that a single fight gives you as much XP as is recommended you would receive from completing the entire quest means that the math (the recommended math, there's nothing stopping us from changing it obviously) points to fighting as the way to go. If the expectation was that the quest XP was worth more than the fighting XP, maybe peoples' attitudes about fighting being the only viable solution would change. Again, I'll point to the Greyhawk supplement from back in the day - by slashing wandering monster XP drastically fighting them went from a totally fine way to level up to a totally bonkers nuts idea and you avoided fighting monsters at any cost.
I'd say it's not really that it's the only way to deal with another group, it's that combat is a reward that gives a reward. A fight is (generally) fun. The fact that a single fight gives you as much XP as is recommended you would receive from completing the entire quest means that the math (the recommended math, there's nothing stopping us from changing it obviously) points to fighting as the way to go. If the expectation was that the quest XP was worth more than the fighting XP, maybe peoples' attitudes about fighting being the only viable solution would change. Again, I'll point to the Greyhawk supplement from back in the day - by slashing wandering monster XP drastically fighting them went from a totally fine way to level up to a totally bonkers nuts idea and you avoided fighting monsters at any cost.
For many, many years as a DM my groups have found it best to level the party when we all feel it's appropriate (not at all discounting what you're saying, or saying our ways are correct etc).
One thing I ignore in 4th Ed (which I love), is XP and the Parcel system (and +X items).
I mean, combat is fun already, there's no need to bias the XP system in its favor, too, right? A lot of complaints about "4e doesn't support roleplaying" just means that it should award more XP to roleplaying/relative quest completion as opposed to fighting, at least that's what I've found. There's nothing stopping you from negotiating your way through a combat without a fight at all, except that you probably won't be awarded full XP because it's not as hard, so that discourages you from doing it. Bit of a tangent I guess.
Not sure how I feel about parcel system. I've mostly ignored it but I suppose it's a reasonable guideline for how much money worth of stuff to hand out?
As for +X items, I'm still not sure how I feel about those. The words "+1 magic sword" always seemed to be more significant to me as a kid, maybe make plusses do something other than just adding to attack and damage...? Haven't had much of a chance to come up with ideas there, really. One thing I've been doing after studying up on things like the Fourthcore Armory (although I got this idea specifically from Revenge of the Iron Lich and Crucible of the Gods) is basically it's pretty easy to make an item that utterly obliterates some dangerous foe, as long as that's the only foe that it can do that to. Like if this sword is forged for the express purpose of destroying Black Dragon XYZ, and it deals like +20 damage on a hit (or whatever) vs Black Dragon XYZ, that's not really too math breaking since it's only good against Black Dragon XYZ and nobody else so your players won't Monte Haul your campaign out of control since otherwise it's just your average +2 magic sword that maybe glows in the presence of dragons or something.
Now, just because I ordinarily don't use XP beyond monster balance (and a lot of people don't) doesn't mean we should ignore it as a strong player incentive, though. If you manage to run a game like back in the old days and you're okay with allowing different characters in the party different amounts of XP (especially viable in a "rotating cast" open table type format) it can turn into a very powerful way to dictate preferred player behavior. In a modern 4e game, where the party is tight knit, private table, and everybody levels up at the same time and without using XP rewards this same kind of effect is often achieved with rewards like Greg Bilsland's Fun Point system. XP is like a Fun Point system built into the game, and with much less crazy effects to track to boot - a very easy way to create a Pavlovian response in players and insure that the game you're running is in the style it was envisioned to be in. (As an example, if you want a very "kick in the door and kick some butt" type game, as many 4e modules are, the high XP reward from monsters is great - it encourages kicking monster butt. If you want a less high octane experience you could reduce the XP from monsters and buff the XP from quests/exploration/roleplaying - I think the DMG2 has some ideas about this somewhere near the beginning).
1) the rules for XP (in terms of awarding it - the stuff is too useful for balancing encounters to ignore entirely!
2) Not sure how I feel about parcel system. I've mostly ignored it but I suppose it's a reasonable guideline for how much money worth of stuff to hand out?
3) As for +X items, I'm still not sure how I feel about those. The words "+1 magic sword" always seemed to be more significant to me as a kid, maybe make plusses do something other than just adding to attack and damage...?
1) Total, a guideline, I have always guaged/eye-balled any encounter vs. the players in all editions (the dreaded "math" word etc).
2) Yep (another guideline, for me, personally), but this sense of entitlement has got to go.
3) Absolutely , the +5 Vorpal Sword was kick-ass back in the day, but now, not so much, would rather just have a Vorpal sword.
Hehe, just wanted to say good work on chopping my post down; I do get a bit long-winded at times
"...I like your style, dude..."
One of the major problems with 4th edition was the combat was (and pretty much is) generally the only way to deal with another group. Whether that group was some mercenaries, a chromatic dragon, a metallic dragon, or a metallically chromatic dragon talking to some mercenaries.
That's not true. You can talk to them, bargin with them, sneak past them, trick them, or anything you could do in previous editions. Absolutly nothing is stopping you from doing those things, and the game gives you more than enough tools to attempt them, as well as the fact that a great deal of it is just, you know, roleplaying.
When I first looked at 4th edition, I wanted to try a cleric because no one else I know wanted to heal or support the party. After looking at the power, I only noticed that 4th edition clerics all belowed to dieties of war and only able to support allies through attacks (not counting the basic cure and some of the odd support only abilities, of course).
There is only like one deity of war. I don't have my books with me right now, but off the top of my head I know there is a god of travel, a god of magic, and a god of nature. I can only think of Kord being a god of war.
The reason most Cleric powers cause damage as well as their support abilities is because the devs realized that in battle the Cleric shouldn't be reduced to a buffbot. They decided to allow the Cleric to fight and participate in combat just like any other character even WHILE using their unique support abilities. However, people have made pacifist Cleric builds as well.
Part of the problem is the lack of initiative to look into alternatives to combat or other ways to deal with 'monsters'.
It is a lack of initiative. But not from the devs. This is a problem with your group. You can deal with NPCs in 4E inb every way you could in previosu editions. The only thing causing you to treat everything as "DURP LET'S KILL EVERYTHING!" is you.
Another part of the problem is the toned down skill set
Toned down from what? 3E? The edition that made ridiculous divisions in skills that usually forced you to take three or more skills to do things that need only take one? The edition that won't even let you have a background as a farmer unless you pay for it by sacrificing adventure-related skills to put points into a useless, meaningless number?
The 4E skill set covers adventure-related skills because that is what you will need numbers for on your adventures. It is literally all the system needs. It is better to go as simple as needed and no further than to pile on more useless crap just so you can say "OOOOOO look at all the skills!"
or that DnD is only a brand name to attach a skirmish game to.
Not even being subtle anymore, eh?
4E is not a skirmish game. There is just as much roleplaying and story potential in it as any other edition of D&D, a franchise that, might I remind you, was the result of slapping the idea of roleplaying onto a skirmish wargame. D&D has always been a combat-heavy roleplaying system. It just so happens that most of the previous editions had bad combat rules, a quality some people think means that they must have therefore been better for roleplaying, a theory that was is pitiably wrong. 4E proved that you don't have to sacrifice good rules to have good roleplaying.
Maybe the removal of subdual damage (or non-lethal damage) hurt the game.
Any enemy reduced to 0 HP may be knocked out instead of killed if the player chooses. This is a rule that has been in 4E since the first books were released. You keep showing your ignorance of the system.
I do agree that some combats are unavoidable, but not all of them are.
Luckily 4E allows you to avoid combat. Just like every other edition.
There should always be a place for a kit like the Natural Philosopher and others.
Could you explain this? Not all of us know what that is.
To Domn: Maybe PCs should not be god-like but rather just above average.
PCs are not god-like, at least not until the get to incredibly high levels (Epic tier, where some of them are literally almost gods). Are they more heroic than previous edition counterparts? Yes. This was done because D&D is a game of heroic fantasy. It is about heroes overcoming great odds to make the world a better place. Unfortunatly, in previosu editions, this meant countless false-starts as character who THOUGHT they were heroes died uncerimonious deaths until you got lucky and got some to a higher level so they can actually accomplish things without dieing from the slightest breeze. As someone else said, the PCs in 4E are those privilaged few who are actually destined to be heroes. The game just cuts out all those false-starts.
To Rustmonster: 3 years is not really that long compared to the 11 years of 3rd edition.
Yes, it is only 25% as long. But unlike you, I've seen no indication that the edition is done yet. In fact, they are still making and planning products for it. I'm sure that people were claiming that 3E was done three years in as well, and comparing that to how long 2E was out.
And of course, that "11 years" is only if we are generous and don't dock them for 3.5, a complete reboot of the system that explicitly replaced the previous material in the game.
That edition is still going strong.
Pathfinder is going strong. 3E isn't supported by anyone anymore. Nitpick, maybe, but it makes a difference since it is essentially the same "Here is a game almost exactly like your old one, but we want you to stop using your old books and use these new ones instead " thing as 3.5.
I just played a 2nd edition campaign two years ago.
And I'm sure when 5E comes out, many will still play 4E. This means literally nothing. What's your point?
Pending on Corporate matters, we could see 5th edition by Winter 2012.
If I remember correctly, 4E took 3 years to produce. If we assume that 5E takes the same amount of time, they would have needed to start on it very, very early in 4E production. Some people seem to just think games poof into existance. Not to mention how no player would buy it when it came so shortly after 4E was released. Contrary to what you likely believe, corperations aren't stupid.
People fortold the doom of it at GenCon, people fortod the doom of it last year, people fortold the doom of it shortly after it was released. None of them were right. But as you show, doomsayers keep making new predictions, each juuuuuust around the corner, ignoring all of their previous failures, because eventually they will be right. However, there is no indication that 4E is going away any time soon. People point at Essentials, people point at Legends and Lore, but they keep making products, and they keep making plans for the next year, and the game just keep going despite all the signs of the end that are spawned from a mixture of heresay, wild accusations, imaginary evidence, and malicious wishful thinking.
My favourite estimate as to the end of 4E is the one Wrecan put forward of the 40th anniversary of D&D. If forgot which year it was, but it seemed to give 4E a nice healthy run, as well as being a perfect time to release a new game. I have no doubt that 4E will eventually give way to 5E, at which time I will decide for myself, just as with 4E, if I want to play the game. But the only thing pointing to 4E being "experimental" is your own impotent distaste of the game and your frustarted hopes that a game enjoyed by many, many others will soon end.
IIRC the tables in DMG1 recommend like 7 at-level fights worth of XP per level, with only 30% (or was it 20%?) coming from quest completion? It just shuts sandbox down and makes it very hard to run when most of your XP comes from fighting monsters because the players become more interesting in fighting monsters than exploring around or whatever.
I just looked for the tables you refer to and found no such thing.
I found tables that work out to about 7 at-level encounters per level. Identified types of encounters include combat, skill challenges, traps, and puzzles.
And yes, the XP recommended for completing a quest is about the same as the XP for an at-level encounter.
I've been in a game that averaged under three fights per level. But it had the recommended number of encounter.
Oh, and yes, there's a lot more mechanical guidance about building combat encounters than the other sorts. That's because those encounters are mechanically similar. There are also guidelines for putting skill challenges, traps, and puzzles inside combat encounters, and for putting combat inside skill-challenge encounters.
2. Less prevalent math. Let us play our characters in combat rather than our character sheets, letting us play our characters out of combat instead of having the dice dictate everything we can do. Bring back asymmetrical classes instead of homogenized balance. The math gets in the way of everything, from character builds to differing amounts of optimization creating rifts to discouraging DMs and players from venturing away from the texts.
3. Higher expectations of player/DM intelligence and intuitiveness, lower expectations of player patience when starting to play. I don't want to take a half hour trying to figure out what to do, and I very much don't want to take an hour explaining the game to my girlfriend while she makes dozens of choices she understands to have mechanical impact without any knowledge of the actual mechanics. Don't protect us from Gotcha! DMs, we can tell them off ourselves. You don't need to protect DMs from Pun-Pun, they can kick him out themselves, and you don't need to protect DMs from making mistakes because if the mistakes are honest the players will be understanding.
I found tables that work out to about 7 at-level encounters per level. Identified types of encounters include combat, skill challenges, traps, and puzzles.
Point taken, though I think the simple fact that I easily conflated "encounter" and "fight" should say something about the way they present what an encounter is.
When I first looked at 4th edition, I wanted to try a cleric because no one else I know wanted to heal or support the party. After looking at the power, I only noticed that 4th edition clerics all belowed to dieties of war and only able to support allies through attacks.
There are almost certainly clerics sedately preaching the gospel of gods of sweetness and light, and not making attacks as part of their 'prayers' - they're running orphanages and having tea with parishoners, though, rather than adventuring.
To Rustmonster: 3 years is not really that long compared to the 11 years of 3rd edition.
3.0 lasted 3 years. 3.5 lasted 5. Pathfinder has been around about 3, and is still going strong.
You can lump them together, if you like, but Pathfinder isn't even a WotC product.
I found tables that work out to about 7 at-level encounters per level. Identified types of encounters include combat, skill challenges, traps, and puzzles.
Point taken, though I think the simple fact that I easily conflated "encounter" and "fight" should say something about the way they present what an encounter is.
I would say it has more to do with what you have read, and more importantly have not read.
"A well-crafted encounter is a key scene in the story of your adventure and in the overarching story of the characters in your campaign. If you build your adventure like a structured fantasy story, sharing similar dramatic structure with novels, movies, and plays, then an encounter equals a scene in that story." ~DMG2, page 38
An encounter can be:
- all traps
- all monsters
- all skill challenges/checks
- traps and monsters
- traps and skill challenges/checks
- monsters and skill challenges/checks
- traps, monsters and skill challenges/checks
- roleplaying only elements that compose a scene and move the story forward to the next scene
- roleplaying interspersed with combat
- roleplaying interspersed with traps
- roleplaying interspersed with skill checks
- roleplaying interspersed with combat and traps
- roleplaying interspersed with traps and skill checks
- roleplaying interspersed with combat, traps and skill checks
- any other kind of scene or element that substantially moves the story forward.
In most official modules you will find skill challenges, and you will find combats that are rewarded with XP. You will also find quest rewards. You won't find encounters made entirely of traps (and rarely you will find puzzles rewarded with XP even though the DMG recommends it a lot of the time, such as when failing a puzzle results in failure for the adventure), and you won't find them rewarding you XP for just sitting there roleplaying like the DMG2 presents optional rules for (although I suppose it should be noted that all rules in D&D are really "optional").
What does this lead you to believe very easily? That an encounter is
A) A fight
B) A skill challenge
and most certainly not
C) "any element that moves your story substantially forward".
In fact, it doesn't just "lead" me to believe that. The DMG1 outright informs me that not just "any element that moves your story substantially forward" is an encounter. According to DMG1, something is only an encounter "with a risk of failure". So, before you try to act like the Roleplaying King here why don't you just calm down? You can make mistakes, too, just like me.
Newer modules do seem to be stepping in the right direction from what I've heard about Gardmore Abbey, but the point remains - the vast majority of existing material points to using fighting and skill challenges as the vast majority of the XP a character will receive over the course of the module, and the original DMG devotes the vast majority of its time talking about encounters to speaking at length about fights (to which it devotes 15 pages under the only section titled BUILDING ENCOUNTERS), skill challenges (4 pages under the subsequent section Building Non-combat Encounters, as if to imply that a "real" encounter is a combat), and traps and hazards (approximately 7 pages), while to puzzles it devotes ~4 pages, and to XP from roleplaying 0 pages, as it seems to consider XP from roleplaying "not an encounter" unless you have a risk of failure, in which case it recommends a skill challenge instead.
Oh but surely the DMG2 with its divine wisdom will save us, no? Well, as it turns out, that no isn't sarcastic - it won't. It has a section titled Advanced Encounters. How does it begin?
"This chapter expands the information presented in Chapter 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide to give you tips, techniques, and a few tricks to make dynamic, exciting combat encounters for your game." (Emphasis mine).
Well, turns out that we know where DMG2 stands on encounters, huh?
How about its helpful advice for "encounters" with larger groups? "More monsters not tougher ones", "Design encounter areas that accomodate a large group of player characters as well as numerous monsters", recruit players to help you manage your monsters and status effects.
DMG2 devotes 6 entire pages to alternate kinds of encounters in that section. Six. It devotes twelve pages to fights with monsters and ten pages to traps, which are disabled using primarily skills and have stat blocks not unlike monsters. It has twenty pages on skill challenges in the next section. It has 31 pages devoted to customizing monsters.
How about the examples of paragon tier material in the back of the book? It gives you a lot of great fluff, but when it comes to example "encounters"? You get "a typical street encounter" involving a fight against monsters. You get a typical sewer encounter, which is another fight against monsters. How about the example adventure? It starts with some hooks, and then cuts to the first "encounter"... a battle with monsters! How about the next "encounter"? Another battle with monsters! Encounter D3? Another battle with monsters! The skill checks to do research? No XP reward is mentioned, only sitting there on the monster stat blocks. Encounter D4 is another combat encounter, now with a hazard stat block included. Are you seeing the pattern here? You are only recommended to award one "encounter" worth of quest XP for a quest that contains five combat encounters. If you can't see the problem here I don't think I'm the one who needs to understand anything.
What's more, DMG1 presents, optionally, that "if you want to, you can attach a treasure reward to a quest as well as XP [...] just like an encounter". So now it's telling us that "by default" the quest doesn't get you loot while the other kinds of encounters do? Who would ever want to do a quest instead of just go fight monsters in an arena?
---------
People aren't idiots, man, stop acting like we are. If you sat down and read the Chaos Scar adventures, and the H series modules, and you read the HS series of modules, you checked the E series of modules... you'd come away with the distinct impression that, hey, this DMG2 stuff is pretty optional and not at all representative of the "party line". If you read the DMG1 and DMG2 you would find, just like I have, that the vast, vast, vast majority of material assumes that you are getting the majority of your experience point budget from fighting.
I agree with the premise of your list, but the evidence does not support it.
It's not about what that one small passage of the DMG2 encourages, it's about what the vast majority of official modules and material encourages. DMG2 is wonderful and I'm glad you love it so much but the DMG2 is not the final word on all things experience point related.
In most official modules you will find skill challenges, and you will find combats that are rewarded with XP. You will also find quest rewards. You won't find encounters made entirely of traps (and rarely you will find puzzles rewarded with XP even though the DMG recommends it a lot of the time, such as when failing a puzzle results in failure for the adventure), and you won't find them rewarding you XP for just sitting there roleplaying like the DMG2 presents optional rules for (although I suppose it should be noted that all rules in D&D are really "optional").
What does this lead you to believe very easily? That an encounter is
A) A fight
B) A skill challenge
and most certainly not
C) "any element that moves your story substantially forward".
In fact, it doesn't just "lead" me to believe that. The DMG1 outright informs me that not just "any element that moves your story substantially forward" is an encounter. According to DMG1, something is only an encounter "with a risk of failure". So, before you try to act like the Roleplaying King here why don't you just calm down? You can make mistakes, too, just like me.
Newer modules do seem to be stepping in the right direction from what I've heard about Gardmore Abbey, but the point remains - the vast majority of existing material points to using fighting and skill challenges as the vast majority of the XP a character will receive over the course of the module, and the original DMG devotes the vast majority of its time talking about encounters to speaking at length about fights (to which it devotes 15 pages under the only section titled BUILDING ENCOUNTERS), skill challenges (4 pages under the subsequent section Building Non-combat Encounters, as if to imply that a "real" encounter is a combat), and traps and hazards (approximately 7 pages), while to puzzles it devotes ~4 pages, and to XP from roleplaying 0 pages, as it seems to consider XP from roleplaying "not an encounter" unless you have a risk of failure, in which case it recommends a skill challenge instead.
Oh but surely the DMG2 with its divine wisdom will save us, no? Well, as it turns out, that no isn't sarcastic - it won't. It has a section titled Advanced Encounters. How does it begin?
"This chapter expands the information presented in Chapter 4 of the Dungeon Master's Guide to give you tips, techniques, and a few tricks to make dynamic, exciting combat encounters for your game." (Emphasis mine).
Well, turns out that we know where DMG2 stands on encounters, huh?
How about its helpful advice for "encounters" with larger groups? "More monsters not tougher ones", "Design encounter areas that accomodate a large group of player characters as well as numerous monsters", recruit players to help you manage your monsters and status effects.
DMG2 devotes 6 entire pages to alternate kinds of encounters in that section. Six. It devotes twelve pages to fights with monsters and ten pages to traps, which are disabled using primarily skills and have stat blocks not unlike monsters. It has twenty pages on skill challenges in the next section. It has 31 pages devoted to customizing monsters.
How about the examples of paragon tier material in the back of the book? It gives you a lot of great fluff, but when it comes to example "encounters"? You get "a typical street encounter" involving a fight against monsters. You get a typical sewer encounter, which is another fight against monsters. How about the example adventure? It starts with some hooks, and then cuts to the first "encounter"... a battle with monsters! How about the next "encounter"? Another battle with monsters! Encounter D3? Another battle with monsters! The skill checks to do research? No XP reward is mentioned, only sitting there on the monster stat blocks. Encounter D4 is another combat encounter, now with a hazard stat block included. Are you seeing the pattern here? You are only recommended to award one "encounter" worth of quest XP for a quest that contains five combat encounters. If you can't see the problem here I don't think I'm the one who needs to understand anything.
What's more, DMG1 presents, optionally, that "if you want to, you can attach a treasure reward to a quest as well as XP [...] just like an encounter". So now it's telling us that "by default" the quest doesn't get you loot while the other kinds of encounters do? Who would ever want to do a quest instead of just go fight monsters in an arena?
---------
People aren't idiots, man, stop acting like we are. If you sat down and read the Chaos Scar adventures, and the H series modules, and you read the HS series of modules, you checked the E series of modules... you'd come away with the distinct impression that, hey, this DMG2 stuff is pretty optional and not at all representative of the "party line". If you read the DMG1 and DMG2 you would find, just like I have, that the vast, vast, vast majority of material assumes that you are getting the majority of your experience point budget from fighting.
I agree with the premise of your list, but the evidence does not support it.
Twelve pages, including the encounter as story and the player motivation section, which contains specific suggestions on how to create roleplay within combat, as well as suggestions for outside of it for the player types.
Now, by evidence of pages, you are right, the DMGs do focus quite a bit on combat and skill challenges. I am not specifically surprised either that modules focus on ridgid combat and skill challenges; it's honestly impossible to accurately write characters that will engage every player, and the DM should need to take charge of that. Similar to why skill challenges and combat monsters should be seen as suggestions. Too many of one monster or skill type could make the module horribly easy or terrifically hard for teams of players that either lack cohesion or a specific role. The game is made and published modules published with those conceits in mind, with the expectation that DMs can modify them, have the ability and know-how to modify them, and add the role-playing bits that could possibly be wasted space otherwise. Combat and skill challenges have the most fiddly bits, so having them written out just seems to make more sense; roleplaying is a fly by the seat of one's pants thing in my experience, and depends solely on the players and their characters. In essence making anything past a few pages on Roleplaying itself would be an exercise in futility. There's just not much to say about it, and while one could characterize all the people in a town, give the villain a terrible back story of horror, etc, none of it would be linked to the PCs, so why should they care? Perhaps that's a very minor play experience, and people think we need hardbacks devoted to something roleplaying, but honestly what would you put? Act out your character and have fun? What else is there? Perhaps I'm missing why the ration of pages is such a problem. I myself am not using the amount of pages to measure how important a mechanic or design element is; only how complex it can be and still adhere to math. The less about a mathematical system it is, the less pages it really needs, as far as I can figure.
On the "no encounters made all of traps. Yeah, the design of the module has been brought into question (I prefer their rewrite), but one of the encounters in KotS was all traps. I've skimmed through the other predesigned modules, but few have really caught my eye. I always figured the default was making up your own stuff, not looking to the modules for inspiration for anything besides maybe "How to set up battle because it can be really complex".
Again, this might just be me being new to this kind of thing, but I figured from what I read that using the modules was a good idea only when you added the role-playing layer yourself; I figured that was as it should be. Is this not the norm? How would one write modules with role-play information of any use to players when each character can be quite an amalgam different and disparate elements?
I would like to see less parent classes and then just a lot of sub classes.
Like nowadays every new arcane caster is a wizard and can take wizard powers, 5e should have only a few parent classes with a lot of subclasses.
So bladesinger, arcanist, mage, witch, warlock, hexblade, swordmage and sorcerer would all be subclasses of the wizard class.
Templar, warpriest, runepriest, avenger, invoker would be among the subclasses of the cleric parent class, etc.
This way all subclasses will have a lot more support, since every time they release an article with witch powers, a swordmage or sorcerer would also be free to poach from these powers.
I would like to see less parent classes and then just a lot of sub classes.
Like nowadays every new arcane caster is a wizard and can take wizard powers, 5e should have only a few parent classes with a lot of subclasses.
So bladesinger, arcanist, mage, witch, warlock, hexblade, swordmage and sorcerer would all be subclasses of the wizard class.
Templar, warpriest, runepriest, avenger, invoker would be among the subclasses of the cleric parent class, etc.
This way all subclasses will have a lot more support, since every time they release an article with witch powers, a swordmage or sorcerer would also be free to poach from these powers.
Totally, like 2nd Ed's groups (Priest, Rogue, Warrior and Wizard).
I would like to see less parent classes and then just a lot of sub classes.
[...]
This way all subclasses will have a lot more support, since every time they release an article with witch powers, a swordmage or sorcerer would also be free to poach from these powers.
+1
Twelve pages, including the encounter as story and the player motivation section, which contains specific suggestions on how to create roleplay within combat, as well as suggestions for outside of it for the player types.
Ah, but you see, that's not exactly what we're arguing about is it? Roleplaying in combat? I love roleplaying in combat, I think 4e supports it a lot. What I'm talking about, though, is the amount of support for where XP comes from, not anything about roleplaying. I'm not "that guy" who says roleplaying is gone in 4e, believe me.
Now, by evidence of pages, you are right, the DMGs do focus quite a bit on combat and skill challenges. I am not specifically surprised either that modules focus on ridgid combat and skill challenges; it's honestly impossible to accurately write characters that will engage every player, and the DM should need to take charge of that. Similar to why skill challenges and combat monsters should be seen as suggestions. Too many of one monster or skill type could make the module horribly easy or terrifically hard for teams of players that either lack cohesion or a specific role. The game is made and published modules published with those conceits in mind, with the expectation that DMs can modify them, have the ability and know-how to modify them, and add the role-playing bits that could possibly be wasted space otherwise. Combat and skill challenges have the most fiddly bits, so having them written out just seems to make more sense; roleplaying is a fly by the seat of one's pants thing in my experience, and depends solely on the players and their characters. In essence making anything past a few pages on Roleplaying itself would be an exercise in futility. There's just not much to say about it, and while one could characterize all the people in a town, give the villain a terrible back story of horror, etc, none of it would be linked to the PCs, so why should they care? Perhaps that's a very minor play experience, and people think we need hardbacks devoted to something roleplaying, but honestly what would you put? Act out your character and have fun? What else is there? Perhaps I'm missing why the ration of pages is such a problem. I myself am not using the amount of pages to measure how important a mechanic or design element is; only how complex it can be and still adhere to math. The less about a mathematical system it is, the less pages it really needs, as far as I can figure.
Alright, look, we can argue about the amount of paragraphs devoted to combat or to roleplaying XP rewards all we want, but let's crack open Madness at Gardmore Abbey and actually look at it, shall we? Let's see what the "official super adventure" looks like and hopefully the practical breakdown will make all parts of this issue apparent and obvious.
Using handy-dandy Microsoft Excel, we can collate this data (encounters where you could fight or do other things I split the XP into whatever pieces seems to best represent [% chance of doing this] * [xp from doing this] and adding those up into a whole).
Results? The total amount of XP from fighting or overcoming monsters (without roleplaying or using a skill challenge) is ~52,175 XP. From skill challenges you'd get 7200 XP, and from roleplaying encounters 5200 XP. It's possible that the adventurers might fight the Orcs numerous times, however, adding even more to the monster XP. How about quest rewards? The adventure suggests a maximum (as the above XPs are maximums) of ~23,000 XP of quest rewards. That gives us around 40,000 xp of non-bashing monsters, and 50,000 xp of bashing monsters. It's not bad, but the monster xp rewards are still more than the non-monster xp rewards, and this is the most recent, evolved and arguably "best" adventure module published for 4th edition. If you look back at the modules from a year ago or more it is painfully tilted in combat's favor instead of by just a little bit.
So, yeah. Basically: encounter has a pretty heavy emphasis on being a combat encounter rather than a non-combat encounter, and combat encounters are more plentiful than quest rewards and other sources of experience points.
On the "no encounters made all of traps. Yeah, the design of the module has been brought into question (I prefer their rewrite), but one of the encounters in KotS was all traps. I've skimmed through the other predesigned modules, but few have really caught my eye. I always figured the default was making up your own stuff, not looking to the modules for inspiration for anything besides maybe "How to set up battle because it can be really complex".
Okay, well, you got me on there literally being no all-trap encounters. I figured there would be at least one or two somewhere, but there aren't a whole lot of encounters that don't involve monsters in officially published modules
Again, this might just be me being new to this kind of thing, but I figured from what I read that using the modules was a good idea only when you added the role-playing layer yourself; I figured that was as it should be. Is this not the norm? How would one write modules with role-play information of any use to players when each character can be quite an amalgam different and disparate elements?
Well, that's not really my point here (although I'd wager some material put out by White Wolf might point you in the right direction to answer this query since they're very obsessed over non-combat material). Again, my point is very specific: quest reward XP is very low compared to encounter XP rewards, and encounters are most often combat encounters to the point that the combat encounter rewards the players better than other ways to get XP. Combat is already fun, but it's now both fun and more rewarding than another fun thing ("doing the objective", as it were). It's a similar problem video games have in, like, capture the flag matches. You can capture the flag, but if you don't get as many points for capturing the flag as you do for just shooting somebody (and they're both about as hard), why would you ever not just shoot somebody?
Now, this is a roleplaying game, so obviously there is some bonus incentive to roleplay. But as far as the "game" part is concerned, you win harder and more quickly by smashing monsters using official WotC material*. When the rules encourage a certain behavior it should be no surprise when that behavior begins to crop up, and as a result when people complain about it (like that person I originally replied to).
Points made
Fair enough. I will not argue that the point could be made that, taking impressions from only official stuff, not home games, one might assume that the combat was all you were supposed to do because that's mainly where the level up comes from. I do argue that the guides do not specifically tell you to do this, though many pages are devoted to making combat interesting through story, and RP, as well as making traps, skill challenges (though in DMG2 they frame them more abstractly that "encounter length"), and yes, the quest reward XP as written is just awful; to be fair there are quite a few improvise and have fun, do -out0of combat stuff suggestions all around those books, which I have read cover to cover. I suppose though, in support of a previous point (in a separate thread), if i champion newbie DM stuff in the first DMG, part of that would have to be how to support a game based less targeted on the combat, if that was the kind of game the players were wanting.
Also, I just can't read White Wolf stuff. Not sure why, but most of their material is written in such a way as to make me unable to ever desire using any of their systems.
--------------
I agree, for sure, that it's not too hard a problem to fix, especially with a few of the more experimental rules (like rewarding XP for roleplaying based on time roleplayed) that are beginning to gain traction (you can see this in at least two IIRC of the encounters out of the ~30 in Gardmore Abbey). I also agree that they do offer at least some good mentions of a lot of ways to give XP that doesn't involve combat, I just think that maybe they should be a bit more... I don't know, large and obvious? In the case of skill challenges definitely better explained. Most especially, though, I think they should be supported better by the official adventures, since the official adventures is how D&D is "supposed" to be played according to the publisher. A lot of people like playing the game the way it's designed to be played, after all, and not everyone likes to muck about with the suggested XP distribution.
The DMGs don't tell you "most of your encounters should be combat" outright, you're correct, but it seems to come across that way in a lot of areas. The official adventures do it, that much is for sure, so how much chance does Joe DM have of avoiding the seductive allure of a combat heavy adventure when he makes his own with an example like that? He would look at it and go "well, I guess that's how you're supposed to do it".
I mean, yeah, there are rules for drama rewards, but they're presented as very optional ("If you aspire to this style of play"), and they reward less XP (4 monsters per hour) than the way encounters are (nominally) designed (5 monsters per hour). In practice it might come out pretty close if you don't have the fastest combat group in the world, but I think a lot of the phrasing seems to point towards fighting as being "the way to go", while all of its suggestions about non-combat rewards and information are all "well, if you want to do this..."
As for the "need another book to make characters" thing...it's really no different than D&D. If you pick up just the Martial Power book or just the Eberron Player's Guide, you're going to run into the same problem of needing other books to play. Actually it's worse, as you will need the PHB, DMG, MM, and whatever else to supplement the book you have already. With WW games, you only need the WoD core rules book and whatever setting book you intend to play in. Again, YMMV as to whether or not this appeals to you.
I fully admit my mistake when it came to not reading through the WoD core rulebook first, that was awful silly of me, and don't think that's bad design since obviously you can't play D&D if you don't pick up the player's handbook up first (or whatever) so it's the same kind of problem (I actually really like the Saga Edition Star Wars RPG for that since its Core rulebook is, well, the Core rulebook - you only really need that one as a DM or player, though I suppose it helps that Star Wars as an RPG takes place in precisely one setting: Star Wars).
The only thing that I thought was kind of wonky is that the character creation rules are on page, what, like 60-something? I mean sure give me an appreciation for the setting first but 60 pages is a lot! I guess it's kind of necessary, though, since the characters are tied so closely to the setting fluff. Ah well, another day I shall play you, Mage, a day on which I have read the WoD core rulebook first... lol.
I would like to see less parent classes and then just a lot of sub classes.
Like nowadays every new arcane caster is a wizard and can take wizard powers, 5e should have only a few parent classes with a lot of subclasses.
So bladesinger, arcanist, mage, witch, warlock, hexblade, swordmage and sorcerer would all be subclasses of the wizard class.
Templar, warpriest, runepriest, avenger, invoker would be among the subclasses of the cleric parent class, etc.
This way all subclasses will have a lot more support, since every time they release an article with witch powers, a swordmage or sorcerer would also be free to poach from these powers.
Totally, like 2nd Ed's groups (Priest, Rogue, Warrior and Wizard).
Essentials+ subclasses aren't a very tidy or consistent or intuitive mechanic. In that sense, 2e's Group/Class/Kit heirarchy was /better/. 4e's Source/Class/Build heirarchy was fine, but it didn't provide much design leverage - a new class required a new slate of 100+ powers, and even a new build generally demanded a new power or two at each level a power was gained.
While using sub-classes to gain some leverage by re-using powers is working in the sense of lightenning the developers' burden, it's not delivering the best results.
A better aproach - than either Essentials+ or 4e - would have been to group powers under Source. That would cut the number of powers needed by a factor of /at least/ 4. Classes would then be differentiated (and given support for thier Roles) by features, and perhaps the occassional obligatory or optional 'special' class power. Builds could sit below class for extra customization. Relieved of the burden of long class power lists, new Classes would be as easy to make as Essentials+ sub-classes, but as balanced and choice-rich as 4e classes.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I want magic items to be a bonus and not a must.
Better and more detailed skill/craft system.
I want to see tiers go away. I would like for the game to go to level 20 while "Epic" levels are optional and almost a whole game on to itself. 4th's sweet spot for me is levels 1 through 10 and I feel like this is where the game starts to be a bore feast.
I want magic items to be a bonus and not a must.
Better and more detailed skill/craft system.
It didn't work the first times, won't work more now.
As it is.
Like underwater basket crafting?
I want to see tiers go away. I would like for the game to go to level 20 while "Epic" levels are optional and almost a whole game on to itself. 4th's sweet spot for me is levels 1 through 10 and I feel like this is where the game starts to be a bore feast.
I want magic items to be a bonus and not a must.
Better and more detailed skill/craft system.
It didn't work the first times, won't work more now.
As it is.
Like underwater basket crafting?
Care to explain just how it "didn't" work before?
Magic items should be a reward and not a part of your build.
Is that the only example you know of or do you just listen to other people too much?
Better and more detailed skill/craft system.
Like underwater basket crafting?
I find myself increasingly unconvinced that skills have any place in D&D, at all. While D&D remains a class/level based system, class and level should remain the primary basis for resolution systems. Skills are lovely in skill-based systems, where characters improve piecemeal. In spite of a succession of grafted-on systems, that's just not D&D. 4e's 1/2-level aproach is a fair compromise, I'm just not sure it's called for.
I want to see tiers go away. I would like for the game to go to level 20 while "Epic" levels are optional and almost a whole game on to itself. 4th's sweet spot for me is levels 1 through 10 and I feel like this is where the game starts to be a bore feast.
I fail to see how tiers affect that. You could stop all your games at 20. What's wrong with having support built in from the start instead of tacked on as a separate system later on?
I want magic items to be a bonus and not a must.
I can definitely get behind this.
Better and more detailed skill/craft system.
I really don't care about this. I see no need for it, but if it was offered as an optional rule or a separate system that didn't compete with adventuring skills, I'd have no issue with it. But of course, there's nothing preventing that from being implemented in 4e.
Fewer Classes and Races
Rework Magic Items
Ditch Powers, Feats and Roles
Fewer Classes and Races
Rework Magic Items
Back to past?
Feats are a big plus for me. It helped make the characters more uniques.
And there is never too much races and classes, as long they are flavorfull and all.
Ditch Powers, Feats and Roles
So what exactly would you have left? Powers and feats are just abilities, things the character can do. Roles have been around forever, if you want to ditch roles you either go back to the "spellcasters do everything" mindset and then expand that to all the classes or make it a classless system.
Ditch Powers, Feats and Roles
So what exactly would you have left? Powers and feats are just abilities, things the character can do. Roles have been around forever, if you want to ditch roles you either go back to the "spellcasters do everything" mindset and then expand that to all the classes or make it a classless system.
I find the Feats hate sadly myself.
Could the thing rethinked and streamlined? maybe. But it was great for me.... I created nice characters with them.
And you are right, naga. It would be a points buys system, like Earthdawn.
One thing i dislike about 4e (and i really wish they would change) is the MMO mentality. In some aspects, this is done well; powers can make a fighter or paladin contribute just as much as a Wizard, or the formerly much maligned druid. But in some aspects, i dont; i dislike the NECESSITY of magic items, feat taxs, and i absolutely hate the +1/2 level mods, which dont really acomplish much but inflate the math.
And i intensly dislike the minis. They are cool, but the fact that wizards was pushing them like pokemon cards makes me decline to use them in any coampaign i run.
And one last rant: I absolutely, positively LOATH how the CB has next to no homebrew support at all: if i want to play as the improved orc found on these very forums, i have write it all out long hand. This is annoying because it doesnt let me customize it the way i want it; If i want to use pre errata magic missile... i have to write in long hand. In short, it renders the CB next to useless in many situations, and this is made ever more annoying that there are no alternatives.
So wotc... if your listening, use your wizardy powers and have CB do better homebrew support, dammit!
a classless system can be done, and done well, but then it wouldnt be DnD. A powerless system might also be done, and done well, but one of the things i appreciate 4e for is balance. If nothing else, it makes the fighter as epic as i really want him to be.
One thing i dislike about 4e (and i really wish they would change) is the MMO mentality. In some aspects, this is done well; powers can make a fighter or paladin contribute just as much as a Wizard, or the formerly much maligned druid. But in some aspects, i dont; i dislike the NECESSITY of magic items, feat taxs, and i absolutely hate the +1/2 level mods, which dont really acomplish much but inflate the math.
And i intensly dislike the minis. They are cool, but the fact that wizards was pushing them like pokemon cards makes me decline to use them in any coampaign i run.
And one last rant: I absolutely, positively LOATH how the CB has next to no homebrew support at all: if i want to play as the improved orc found on these very forums, i have write it all out long hand. This is annoying because it doesnt let me customize it the way i want it; If i want to use pre errata magic missile... i have to write in long hand. In short, it renders the CB next to useless in many situations, and this is made ever more annoying that there are no alternatives.
So wotc... if your listening, use your wizardy powers and have CB do better homebrew support, dammit!
It is not MMO mentality, when it is a throwback to OLD days before them.
Drop the one size fits all class power structure. The more focus power structure, provides a clearer conception of class arch-type in the game and more diversity in game play between classes. Take the time to crunch the numbers and give us clearity in class conception and diversity game play with the game balance we now rely on.
Drop the 3e legacy of skill use in exploration and social encounters, i.e. "I role perception. Fifteen. What do I see?", "I role diplomacy. Thirty-two!!! Ha ha!!! He gives me the potions for free!" I want to see a skill resolution system that promotes players and Dms to interact in developing a shared narrative in character exploration and socializing.
Maintain the unified level advancement and game balance.
I want to see a new edition as different to 4e as 4e is different than 3e.
Is 4th edition combat 19 out of 20 encounters? Yes. Part of the problem will always be the mentality of the current edition and the rules and campaigns that are published with them. Designing classes to only really work in combat does not help matters.
I feel that you should be able to a session without being forced to go through combat encounters constantly. I have had many sessions of older editions of DnD (and other rpgs) without combat and they have worked wonderfully. It has never happened during 4th edition.
MMO's just brought back that mentality and popularized it. So much so that 4th edition had to have it. The same is true for roles. Yes, older editions had some sort of role per class but it was not so rigidly done as in the current edition. In 3.0 I never felt I had to tank for the party as a fight and, instead, I could craft the kind of fighter I wanted to play. Classes should be broad in what they can do during the Player's Handbook 1 (or equivalent) BEFORE other books add content.
Yeah, I remember being able to do that stuff too. My Warlord who was nearly as much striker as leader, my Fighter hybrid that was definitely a striker, this Vampire I built as a leader... oh wait, those are all 4th edition.
Is 4th edition combat 19 out of 20 encounters?
Depends on the game and the DM. One game I was in, it was closer to 4 out of 20.
1) get rid of levels
3) take the game to level 4
Huh? I'm confuzzled. How can they get rid of levels and simultaneously take it to level 40?
Anyways, I'd personally like to see more of how things have been going (including both original 4e and essentials) as I like that whole direction. In addition any new and inventive ideas for mechanics. I actually like the experimenting with design paradigms, etc. It's fun to see what the designers can come up with.
..,current edition and the rules and campaigns that are published with them. Designing classes to only really work in combat does not help matters.
Thats not true at all. There have been a lot of utility powers and skills that work and are designed to work out of combat. The Assassin: Executioner has access to, in effect, daily attack powers designed to work specifically both in and out of combat.
Boo!!!
I feel that you should be able to a session without being forced to go through combat encounters constantly. I have had many sessions of older editions of DnD (and other rpgs) without combat and they have worked wonderfully. It has never happened during 4th edition.
Too bad for you! I have played many a 4e session without any combat, with success, fullfillment and a lot of fun.
The worst thing to happen in the future is a return to 3e game mechanics. The game has evolved for the better.
..,current edition and the rules and campaigns that are published with them. Designing classes to only really work in combat does not help matters.
Thats not true at all. There have been a lot of utility powers and skills that work and are designed to work out of combat. The Assassin: Executioner has access to, in effect, daily attack powers designed to work specifically both in and out of combat.
Boo!!!
I feel that you should be able to a session without being forced to go through combat encounters constantly. I have had many sessions of older editions of DnD (and other rpgs) without combat and they have worked wonderfully. It has never happened during 4th edition.
Too bad for you! I have played many a 4e session without any combat, with success, fullfillment and a lot of fun.
The worst thing to happen in the future is a return to 3e game mechanics. The game has evolved for the better.
Going back to TSR days would be even worse...
MMO's just brought back that mentality and popularized it. So much so that 4th edition had to have it. The same is true for roles. Yes, older editions had some sort of role per class but it was not so rigidly done as in the current edition. In 3.0 I never felt I had to tank for the party as a fight and, instead, I could craft the kind of fighter I wanted to play. Classes should be broad in what they can do during the Player's Handbook 1 (or equivalent) BEFORE other books add content.
Is 4th edition combat 19 out of 20 encounters? Yes. Part of the problem will always be the mentality of the current edition and the rules and campaigns that are published with them. Designing classes to only really work in combat does not help matters.
I feel that you should be able to a session without being forced to go through combat encounters constantly. I have had many sessions of older editions of DnD (and other rpgs) without combat and they have worked wonderfully. It has never happened during 4th edition.
a very common question in pre 4th was "who's playing the cleric (ie:healbot)?" or "who's playing the fighter (ie: sword-magnet)?"
4th ed simply put those questions in the forefront rather then have the party find out that, yes, you need a cleric or druid because they're the easiest access to healing in the early game, yes you need a wizard for their buffs/debuffs/win-button spells.
the game generally ran much more smoothly when you had a well-rounded group with a varied list of abilities rather then the "all-theif" party.
4th ed said "what abilities are usually looked for in a D&D game?" which usually boiled down to:
1-guy who can deal a lot of damage to a single target. he picks an enemy and helps take him down ASAP. think a 3rd ed rogue with 2 weapons who Sneak Attacks a single target for 4-6 attacks a turn or the 2nd ed "dart fighter"... they pick on one guy and focus a lot of hurt on him until he's dead then move to the next target. their job is to destroy key enemy resources, in this case the enemy body themselves.
2-guy who enables the rest of the party or heals them. in pre 4th, this was the buffer wizard/cleric or clerical band-aid. this guy manages the party's vital logistics and gets more oomph out of them, either by bolstering their defenses, letting them apply more hurt or simply making the party more durable by keeping them fully healed.
3-guy who disables enemies/messes with their resources. either by making the enemies less efficient ("slow" effects that make it so they do less on their turn), seperating vital enemy teammates (putting walls between healers & their fighters) or simply removing someone from the fight (the old sleep/hold person). sometimes they even stole resources via the charm/domination effects.
4-guy who draws enemy attention. this was usually guy number 1 up top. they work akin to number 3, in that they mess with enemy resources, but in a more punitive way. the 3.5 chain-tripper comes to mind as the first instance of a D&D character who was able to "draw aggro", or at least manage individual enemies on a personal basis. whereas no.3 is dropping mass effects, this guy singles out key enemies and simply makes their life hell as the party gets rid of the rest of the enemiex, usually by being able to force an attrition war and come out on top, or at least prolong it until backup can arrive
summed up even quicker:
1- dispatches enemies
2- boosts allies' efficiency
3- hampers enemy side's efficiency
4- disables an enemy
1- striker
2- leader
3- controller
4- defender
surprisingly, these roles often happen in non-D&D games also when given the choice and many characters fall into those areas when combat does arrive. the worst combat characters are those who don't know what they're supposed to do when the **** hits the fan... which actually mimics real life: if you don't know your strenghts and have no allies you can play off of, you're probably going to get your ass kicked.
part of this is because D&D has strong wargame roots, where you have the defenders denying enemy advancement by providing covering fire, controllers throwing grenades/tear gas/placing land mines/sniper fire/etc to harass or simply dissuade certain movement, you have strikers taking advantage of the pinned enemy to sneak up and strike them by a flank or when the defenders let up for a second and the leaders who manage them by allocating ammo, medics, managing recon intel, etc...
but there is a reason you just simply don't put all your guys in tanks and have them simply drive forward, but rather use a wide array of tactics: you're simply able to handle far more situations (well that and the logistics of "my army has tanks ONLY" is kinda crazy).
while the genres are different the basic ideas are still the same and this is a VERY standard fallback for many systems, where while it's not outright stated, you generally have one guy who's job is to:
1-take out enemies ASAP
2-manage the party resources effectively
3-disable enemy resources
4-draw attention/disable key enemies
it doesn't matter if you're playing a combat heavy or investigation heavy game either. in a game that focuses far more on investigation then combat you would normally have something along the lines of:
1- the CSI, who can quickly gather and process the evidence needed
2- the councellor, who can get the party past any red tape faster
3- the lawyer, who can restrict the actions of the opponent
4- the interrogator, who can wear down and draw confessions
where we can again see the the striker, leader, controller & defender roles. the genres and themes have changed but the basic ideas are still VERY much present where some characters are good at finishing a task quickly as a second helps smooth the process over, a third makes it harder on the opposing side overall and a fourth manages key opponents by taking them away from interacting with his side.
4th ed is just very clear that these exist and provides the main context for them when it comes to how the classes perform in combat.
as for the number of combat encounters per level? talk to your GM if you feel there are too much. while the game provides an estimate on the number of encounters it should take to level, it pretty clearly states that an "encounter" is any situation that has conflict that requires resolution before you can proceed, be it a fight, a scene where you're officiating a treaty, investigating the murder of a lord or whatever... if it's a challenge to be overcome, it should award some XP.
the game also gives guidelines on XP for finishing quests, both large and small, personal or group focused.
if you're having an issue where there are 19-20 combat encounters per level, talk to your GM and see if he can ease up on that.
In general.
levelas 1-20
More feats ( class feats levels 1,2,4,6, etc and general feat 3,6,9,12, etc)
Smaller classes (3-4 pages max, not 15+ for 4th ed classes)
Something similar to the talent tree system.
THis means 4th ed powers will be gone and the role structure gone as well. Ideally however you could build something resembling a 4th ed character. The fighter could have 20 odd talents available.
Fighter 1 is a 4th ed fan. He takes talents (class features) or feats that grant him encounter powers
Fighter 2 hates powers so he take talents that grant additionals attacks or static bonuses a'la 3.5. He can add an encounter power or 2 if he wants them.
Spellcasters get magic type abilities that can grant new powers or upgrade existing ones. Prestige classes/paragon paths can return. D&D Saga monsters would resemble 4th ed monsters more as I prefer them over 3.5 ones and Star Wars Saga was kinda weak in the monster department. I would kinda prefer something like the 4th ed races but I wouldn't care if a -2 xyz score was used or they keep the +2/+2 system or a varient of it such as +2 and a kickass racial power or +2 and a multitude of smaller benefits.
Races would be the 3.5 ones in the core book + Dragonborn.
Classes in the core would be the 3.5 ones + Warlord maybe warlock.
Since I most likely won't get what I want I'll settle for anything that isn't as broken as 3.5 and doesn't have the rigid and boring class/role/power structure of 4th ed as its the one thing I miss from 3.5 alot. 4th ed multiclassing is essentially take a feat, poach a paragon path. I don't care if elements of 4th ed are used (at will, encounters) as long as I can opt out if I want or splash a few powers here and there.
...I would like the feat system split up a bit to avoid having to choose between combat boosters or character development feats that have little to do with combat. We should be able to choose both somehow.
I've been rallying for a distinct split between combat options and non-combat options since 2nd edition's NWPs (Non-Weapon Proficiencies). This would apply to skills, feats, and anything else that makes a player choose between boosting combat performance and non-combat performance. We shouldn't have to sacrifice one to get the other.
1 - do away with the necessity of class roles
Players should be able to play whatevery they feel like without regard to how it will affect the party. Every class should be capable of filling every role, depending on player choice or specialization.
2 - do away with class armor/weapon restrictions
See #1
3 - Let players dabble or multiclass effectively
Just because you are a fighter doesn't mean your daddy wasn't a wizard. Maybe you learned a bit. Make it effective, not extraneous.
I could go on, but I'll limit myself to that.
Star Wars Saga IMHO is the best d20 product WoTC or Paizo has managed to produce.
Trust us, we've noticed. ;)
What I would want:
Powers: I love the powers. For the first time ever in the history of gaming I wanted to be something other than a spellcaster. Powers made this happen, and I <3 them to death however I would want see dailies become more like recharge powers that monsters of 4th edition have; after using the power a dice roll would recharge the power. I also think an action point use could count as automatic recharge.
Classes: From my experience with D&D before 4th ed, D&D is about classes. And I love classes. I would prefer them to preserve a few design elements from the beginning of 4th ed, and modify/fuss with the ability to hybrid together two classes:
- Keep Roles: It helps define what a person does in the party, so they know what their reason for being there is. Just find something better to name the Leader role. Also, as the Slayer showed us, a class can have more than one role, and this is fine as long as the intent of the class doesn't get muddled.
- Keep Power Sources: I love the quasi-mechanical definition of where my power comes from, and thus what feats/advancements/enhancements I can take.
- Base Classes/Combined classes: Give us base classes with single power sources, and then "corner case" classes that combine such sources to create something new. Ranger being Martial, Seeker being Primal, together they form "Olde Time Primal magic using Ranger"! However, for those with no desire to see Rangers be Primal in nature (pun totally intended), well, we get what we want, and people looking for what they want get it to. Most specifically, provide hybrid rules as with 4th ed, but then give examples of combining classes, and what they do/make when combined. Kind of like those diagrams on Jelly Belly candies. ;)
- Add Class Features: I call them features, but they could really be anything. Basically, instead of taking up feats slots with class feats, work in class feats as features gained through leveling, and alternate between skill-based features at one level and combat based ones at another. Skill features could be anything from training in another class skill to giving bonuses that are specific to the class (Fighters getting a bonus to history checks with regards to battles, Rangers gaining a bonus to tracking even past their normal nature skills, etc), while combat features would be much like the better class specific feats now, enhancing other class abilities, powers, etc. Also, the features for each level should be balanced against each other, so there is never one "must take" feature, but instead simply features that are "this or that".
- Non-Combat Combatants: What I mean by this is, well, odd. So we have roles that work well, power sources that make things interesting, and out of that comes weird but cool classes like the Warlord, or the Invoker. Now push further. Make builds of classes like the Cowardly bard, you know, the one who never attacks, but all their shrinking away from battle makes for perfect set-ups for their allies to hit. Basically taking the idea of the non-combatant character and the need for everyone to contribute in battle, and creating some class builds that, by not fighting or not fighting well, actually increase the abilities or frequency of attacks from their allies.
- Even Out the Skill Disparity: All classes should start with 4 trained skills. Just because the Barbarian, Fighter and such swing big things does not make them less skilled, or "dumb", which is what the "trained in three" feels like it is saying.
Magic Items: I like my +X items, others don't want them at all, so give us inherent bonuses and +X items at the start. Simple enough. Also, feel free to make elemental items and things that people assume "needs" to be part of their build. I think the idea is ludicrous, of course, that an item just simply needs to be a part of their character. Which brings me to my next point: keep rarity. I am not using it, but it is useful in giving the player the desire to ask the DM for uncommon or rare items without the DMs (for some inexplicable reason) taking "I'd like to have" as "I must have for the most bestest character evar". And feel free to give one-off types of magic items similar to that one article about the magic items of the Drizzt novels. Those are spiffy.
Races: The one thing about races, I'd prefer they have racial features (similar to how I mentioned class features at levels above) in lieu of Feats, which brings me to feats. . .
Feats: Is a fine system, but should be relegated to customization of a character past their race and class, i.e. what else they do.
Backgrounds, Themes, Professions, etc: I love the idea that these are optional, add-on pieces that further create the story, and one thing I might like to see added are possible "professions" the adventurers had before becoming adventurers, and what mechanical and story impact that might have. Might just shuffle out as backgrounds, or whatever though, not sure.
For DMs: Simple encounter design, monster design, and all the rest carried over. More examples of how to encourage characters to improvise, how to world build, just more how-to areas in books.
For Players: More examples of how to use skills, powers, and roleplay in -out-of-the-box thinking.
I mean yeah it gives AP, and it (used to) give a daily item use, but so does extended rest, which also recharges all daily powers and recharges all surges and hitpoints. Fringe benefits on rings or new milestone based armor from Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium are just that: fringe benefits. I'd like to see a more compelling choice in terms of the mathematics of pressing on vs. taking a rest, where the players ramp up in terms of raw power over the course of an adventuring day with combats, but lose their utility resources that would recharge with resting, or else some sort of almost like closer to a "combo meter" from a fighting game from milestones - after a while you unlock your super move and then you can use that on the boss, rather than blowing your super move immediately and taking a snooze to recharge it. I actually wrote a blog post on that topic but nobody probably wants to read it
2. Follow this up with restructuring items based more on randomization, not based on level.
3. Have short lists of powers and abilities that grow with a character instead of trading them out. This will eliminate bloat.
4. Remove the level cap and simply have people level up according to formulae.
5. As several have mentioned, remove the bloat of numerous classes by having a (SHORT) list of kits for each class.
6. Once all these are in place, DISCONNECT THE FORUMS.
Powers: I love the powers. For the first time ever in the history of gaming I wanted to be something other than a spellcaster. Powers made this happen, and I <3 them="" to="" death="" however="" i="" would="" want="" see="" dailies="" become="" more="" like="" recharge="" powers="" that="" monsters="" of="" 4th="" edition="" have="" after="" using="" the="" power="" a="" dice="" roll="" also="" think="" an="" action="" point="" use="" could="" count="" as="" automatic="" --3--="">
Yes, I would like Daily anything to take a hike.
Daily powers coud be Encounter, and Encounter powers Recharge X (in fact, my group is implementing this in our next sesion).
- Non-Combat Combatants: What I mean by this is, well, odd. So we have roles that work well, power sources that make things interesting, and out of that comes weird but cool classes like the Warlord, or the Invoker. Now push further. Make builds of classes like the Cowardly bard, you know, the one who never attacks, but all their shrinking away from battle makes for perfect set-ups for their allies to hit. Basically taking the idea of the non-combatant character and the need for everyone to contribute in battle, and creating some class builds that, by not fighting or not fighting well, actually increase the abilities or frequency of attacks from their allies.
In other words make my non-combatant princess build... aka LazyLord more official? They are kind of an esoteric taste though the non-com certainly has a role in an action adventure.
Most people want to see what they are playing now, and frankly, the problem with grid-less combat is that a DM can be the best describer in the world, but nothing is going to get them to be able to describe something as well and as quickly and as accurately as a grid with objects drawn or placed onto it.
This is a significant problem with the concept of grid-less combat as well. If you want faster combat, the less things to remember, the better. I'm not sure how bringing grid-less combat even close to center stage would be of any help in this manner.
Speaking of combat speed, I'm pretty sure that combat would be much faster if
1. Players unloaded encounter and daily powers more often. Encounter powers do tend to cut down encounters fairly quickly, and in a party of 4, 1 daily per encounter = 6 dailies; given how even a single daily can significantly shorten encounters, it seems that it's more of "the worry that there's something worse coming at the next encounter" that forces a group to conserve their dailies, resulting in very long encounters (especially those that are supposed to be climactic ones, where the DM designed the encounter in the hopes that the players DO spend their daily powers).
2. Less complicated combinations on both player and DM side exist. On team players' side, while the concept of system mastery helps in terms of fun, I find it's best if the whole thing is straightforward and simple, meaning less tracking and other micromanagement stuff, and the more "visible" effects like prone, combat advantage, and damage (in this manner, this is why I like even the "soft control" effects and other non-stacking stuff, compared to save ends effects). On team monster's side, higher defenses and more HP combined causes more frustration than anything (save for conditions that prevent players from doing anything); while it's up to the DM to utilize these options, I'm again all for effects that are easier to arbiter and utilize, that at worst limit but not prevent team player from doing anything... thus the use of brutes, minions, daze, slow, prone, and similar conditions that only partially debilitate, and none of that stun and dominate that completely neuter turns.
Then again, TPKing the party is also an easy way to end encounters (albeit not so nicely), which is all the more reason for the use of brutes, maybe artillery at most
Other than those, I'm thinking that the tactical and "meaty" 4E would be debilitated if we end up bringing back combat to just "I hit with my weapon unless I'm a caster with a myriad of options that mostly won't be used or I'm a very creative player that makes use of whatever the DM gives me" (although it's not like 4E doesn't have that option as well, in the form of Terrain Powers
).For example a player playing a bard could chose from all arcane powers this would give you more options in one character.
Though also the option to make bad choices, like taking a warlock power that does extra damage to your curse target and realising that you are a bard and don't have a warlock curse ( so for begining players you might want to restrict them to powers recomended for their class only to stop them from making bad decisions)
2) the +X on wapons and armor is somthing i don't like
so the game should be adjusted so that this isen't realy a must, there would be some to hit bonuses ( proficiency bonus of the weapon )
Magical and superior materials would become more important.
with rules like : weapons in the mace and hammer groeps made of adimantium will be considerd brutal 2
( not sure yet if i would move al properties that are now on magic items to the material properties)
Magic would grand atwill/encounter/day powers)
3) i like themes
I would like to see these have a greater effect out of combat, actualy i would like to see themes become the most important thing out of combat in your character build.
they would merge with the now optional backgrounds.
Character Theme would be what gives you the list of skills you can train when generating your character.
4)
small change to skills
the trained bonus for the skills you chose at character generation would be reduced to +3
Each level you get 1 skill point that you can put into a skill upto a maximum bonus of +6 ( so if your already trained +3 you can add a maximum of 3 additional points in that skill)
you can also put the points in skills you don't already have training bonus in a DM can restrict you for doing so if in RP you did not show any attempt of training for the skill
there would be no restriction on what skills you may invest these points in, so a warrior could learn knowlage arcana if he studies hard enough.
( and a personal lil anoyance with skills, knowlage religion would become wisdom based, am tired of wizards lecturing priests about religion)
1) get rid of levels
2) Add more classes and paragon paths
3) take the game to level 40
