For a game that wants to move to simplicity and speed...

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Why are the rules so convoluted?

I know the game wants to move away from everything that even resembles 4e, but 4e made significant changes to the core system that simplified and sped up the game.

NADS (aka F/R/W defenses): using the same attack roll mechanic for defenses and attacks was a simple elegant solution to D&Ds "saving throw" problems. It would especially make sense given the disadvantage/advantage mechanic of 5e so all attacks are affected equally. 5e's saving throws are both cumbersome and illogical most of the time. Having magic users and non magic users use the same d20 attack roll makes the system work more smoothly and allows for magic items to be equally important for all classes. It also eliminates bloat in that save DCs and magic attacks no longer need to be separated. An added benefit for NADs is skills can target them as well which helps make for a streamlined easy to learn system.

Healing Surges: the name aside, surges are far more intuitive and sensical than hit dice. Yes surges could use a number of design tweaks but they definitely make more sense than HD.

Spell an power layout: between spell ranges, descriptions, and area of effects and all those other tidbits the 4e layout is far easier to read and understand. (Just look at the many page thread asking how many targets a 15 ft cone can hit?). Bursts and blasts were a wonderful invention in 4e and translate better to gridded combat much better than cones and balls. Bursts and blasts work equally well in non gridded combat (TotM) as balls and cones so they are strictly superior to their 5e counterparts.

The reason 4e combat slowed down tended to be more related to the amount of micromanagement (too many immediate and minor action powers, too much forced movement, too many ongoing effects, and too many small bonuses to keep track of). If 5e simplifies the core system and remembers to stay away from micromanagement bloat 5e could have a fast, furious, fun core system. Right now however the game seems to be throwing speed of play, simplicity of rules, and efficient design out the window...
Not only what you listed but 4e did an amazing job at codefying the rules. There is a standard for everything, rules are concise and logical. I cannot even speak to how many times in older editions I'd spend an hour arguing with a player over the translation of a rule, and I don't think I can remember a single time this happening in 4e because it was so well codefied.

4e has a lot of bloat in later levels, mid-high paragon and especially epic tier because there were just so many things players can do. Some of my players love that, others do not so I recommend Essential classes to them and I like that WotC released Essentials to address that very issue.

So I completely agree with you. I think things have improved since the first playtest packet, but it has a long way yet to go if they want to achive the cohesiveness and consistancy of 4e's rule set. And as to NADs, I just made a thread about that a few days ago heh. I 'really' hope one of the playtests in the near future tries to include the system, at least as an alternative with hopefully a simple way to convert everything.

Edit: Just wanted to add that this is perhaps the first playtest that I and my group have enjoyed outselves for the most part. But there is a lot of work yet to be done before we'd even consider switching from 4e to DDN when it comes out officially.
I can see saving throws simply because if oyu're oging to have save or die attacks, you generally want the player to at least roll one die, otherwise he can eliminated from combat without touching a single die and that sucks. So I figure saves versus defenses are more of a psychological choice.

Hit dice I really don't understand at all, they seem just more cumbersome than healing surges with no advantages. Rolling for out of combat healing has always bothered me in general, and I really have nothing good to say about hit dice, besides that it slows the game down. It'd be a lot easier to just use the 4E surge system. If anything, take healing surges and make it so the surge amounts are always in multiples of five for easier math.

That's why Save or die must be removed...or changed to how 4e made it... Where you need to be hit, then fail save at the end of the afflicted's turn (usually more than just 1 fail save)
That's why Save or die must be removed...or changed to how 4e made it... Where you need to be hit, then fail save at the end of the afflicted's turn (usually more than just 1 fail save)



Well to make the game more 4E-like, they need to change quite a bit. Everyone would need more hp for one. Right now fighters can easily drop an enemy in one hit, so it's not a huge deal that a wizard can do the same thing.
Saving Throw
In Next will will still have to follow conditions on monster and player, but in addition DC value and type will vary.
DC 13  Fortitude, DC 15 Wisdom, DC 16 Dexterity, Faster than Immobilize save ends?

Expertise
Expertise dice will be long to manage. Players will have to decide how many dices they use to help their save, or their skill, or keep them for more damage.

Exception
There is a lot of small exception all around. Rules are written with long text and it is hard to find information.
We will go back to endless debates on rule application.

No Grid base
A cone place on a grid is a mess. 
But the reverse is easier to manage: An area burst 1 is easy to shape as a circle for a more realistic description.
It's always easier to remove precision than to add it.

Fast combat don't mean fun combat
Everybody in the forum want faster combat. Faster for what reason. To make more role play? To make more combat?
To level faster? I want challenging combat. Don't say to me that an combat finish in two round and 15 minutes is a fun combat.
We need a way to conclude combat faster when the issue is know.

...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
That's why Save or die must be removed...or changed to how 4e made it... Where you need to be hit, then fail save at the end of the afflicted's turn (usually more than just 1 fail save)


I don't understand why people think it must be removed. I can agree with removing it from player hands, but there's no reason to take it away as a DM option. More options are always better than less.
My two copper.
I absolutely agree with every point made by lawolf and frbelanger. 

DNDN is turning into a big, frazzled mess, and it seems to get worse with each packet they release.

If you MUST have save-or-die in your campaign, the solution is simple.  Require an attack roll by the monster; if it hits, allow a standard (10+) saving throw by the player.  Yes, it lessens the odds that the attack will result in death, but I really don't think that's a bad thing.  Attack roll mods and saving throw mods apply to these rolls, so there can be some variability in play on each side.
If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
I just posted this in another thread.

Fortitude Defense: 10 + Str mod + Con mod

Reflex Defense: 10 + Dex mod + Int mod

Will Defense: 10 + Wis mod + Cha mod

This way all attacks target a defense ( AC, Fort, Ref, or Will) and the attacker is always rolling to attack. Disadvantage and advantage will apply to all attacks equally making for a more simplified and streamlined game. There will be less for players to keep track of because they will not need save DCs and magic attack values. Additionally it will increase the value of undervalued attributes (Str, Int, and Cha).

Ability checks will come in only for rare circumstances, usually (but not always) linked to duration. Ability checks will of course remain useful for skill rolls as well.

Ex: A fighter gets dominated by an evil wizard. The wizard makes an attack against the fighter's will defense and succeeds. At the end of each round the fighter can make a DC 10 Charisma check to break free.

Ex 2: A rogue sets off a sticky glue trap which targets his Reflex defense. The attack hits him gluing his feet to the floor. The rogue must make a Hard dexterity or strength check as a move action to break free.
I absolutely agree with every point made by lawolf and frbelanger. 

DNDN is turning into a big, frazzled mess, and it seems to get worse with each packet they release.

If you MUST have save-or-die in your campaign, the solution is simple.  Require an attack roll by the monster; if it hits, allow a standard (10+) saving throw by the player.  Yes, it lessens the odds that the attack will result in death, but I really don't think that's a bad thing.  Attack roll mods and saving throw mods apply to these rolls, so there can be some variability in play on each side.


I have no problem with making it more difficult and whatnot. I just have an issue with anyone saying something must not be in the game. Especially something as DM controlable as Save or Die mechanics.
My two copper.
I absolutely agree with every point made by lawolf and frbelanger. 

DNDN is turning into a big, frazzled mess, and it seems to get worse with each packet they release.

If you MUST have save-or-die in your campaign, the solution is simple.  Require an attack roll by the monster; if it hits, allow a standard (10+) saving throw by the player.  Yes, it lessens the odds that the attack will result in death, but I really don't think that's a bad thing.  Attack roll mods and saving throw mods apply to these rolls, so there can be some variability in play on each side.



+1

Saving Throw
In Next will will still have to follow conditions on monster and player, but in addition DC value and type will vary.
DC 13  Fortitude, DC 15 Wisdom, DC 16 Dexterity, Faster than Immobilize save ends?

Expertise
Expertise dice will be long to manage. Players will have to decide how many dices they use to help their save, or their skill, or keep them for more damage.

Exception
There is a lot of small exception all around. Rules are written with long text and it is hard to find information.
We will go back to endless debates on rule application.

No Grid base
A cone place on a grid is a mess. 
But the reverse is easier to manage: An area burst 1 is easy to shape as a circle for a more realistic description.
It's always easier to remove precision than to add it.

Fast combat don't mean fun combat
Everybody in the forum want faster combat. Faster for what reason. To make more role play? To make more combat?
To level faster? I want challenging combat. Don't say to me that an combat finish in two round and 15 minutes is a fun combat.
We need a way to conclude combat faster when the issue is know...



They could easily show a picture of gridded cones and how many targets it hits. Its not a hard thing to do.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
That's why Save or die must be removed...or changed to how 4e made it... Where you need to be hit, then fail save at the end of the afflicted's turn (usually more than just 1 fail save)


I don't understand why people think it must be removed. I can agree with removing it from player hands, but there's no reason to take it away as a DM option. More options are always better than less.



You can have it back in a module...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.