This is really making me appreciate 4e

Maybe I'm not alone?  I've been reminiscing about 3.5 since I heard about these upcoming playtests and since getting the platest rules and remembering all the things I don't like about 4e I'm really starting to appreciate 4e again.

I do plan to fire up a playtest and contribute my feedback but I think I truly appreciate what they did with 4e a lot more now and understand how hard it must have been as well as how hard it must be hearing people make claims such as not being able to roleplay in 4e (which is just plain silly since the roleplay is always player and DM driven not combat rulesets)...  maybe I'm not alone? 
Quote from Alpha_dork:
As an aside, I am often mystified by people disliking fighters having powers that can be used on a limited basis because it's unrealistic. This is a gameworld that features dragons and magic spells plus a system that contains an accepted convention like hit points, which is one of the most abstract representations of a characters durability out there. Plus is also features concepts like a barbarians rage (which is generally limited in it's uses - guess they can only get so mad). Sorry if this seems like "edition wars", it's not meant to be, just proposing that the 4E "melee powers" can be abstracted as physically taxing attacks that can't constantly be used.

This is one of the main contention points it seems between the "old guard" and "4vengers".  With a game that is by its very definition fantasy and divorced from reality, why do we have to conform to blood and guts reality?  How else is a heroic knight supposed to kill the 50 foot long dragon?  Isn't that one of the iconic things we are trying to reproduce?

Fighters hack and slash with tactics, not with powers. This is D&D not world of warcraft.



This is a high fantasy game, Elves, Dwarves, magic, dragons and stuff.  I would invite you to point out why they have to be mutually exclusive.

I think a slightly more helpful analogy to use would be that 4th is not a sandbox RPG and your chosen edition is.  I will quote Alpha_dork (again) as I believe it applies here. 

 "To everyone that suggests all is fine because melee classes have access to the "Improvise" action then I counter with why not remove the those pesky spell lists that force wizards into choosing pre-determined ways to affect game play and replace them all with a simple ability called "Magic Spell". "

An ENTIRELY open system where everyone just narrates their turn needs no more rules than the page where you define your starting stats and pick a class (not that anything is really attached to the class besides what the archetype means is in your head).  "Wizards" can concoct spells from aether with their arcane skill check (intelligence modified with DM arbitraty bonuses against an arbitrary DC) and "fighters" can decapitate anything with a good die roll and a compelling narritive.  This type of system is 90% homebrew by what people imagine and I don't know why you would need a published 10 page booklet to make it work.

*Edited to make the last sentence a LOT less snarky* 

special maneuvers and powers are the same thing.



Yeah, though I think everyone would prefer the name maneuvers simply because it sounds less magical. Psychologically, powers sound like something a wizard or superhero has, not a martial fighter.
The explanation I like best for why fighters have limited use powers is that that's how it works in actual fiction. It's cinematic. The Karate Kid doesn't crane kick the guy over and over again. He crane kicks him at the climax of the action. Characters do that all the time - they use their super technique when it's all on the line, even though there's probably nothing stopping them from using it over and over again. Maybe the characters are tactical idiots, or maybe they're just following rules of drama. Giving characters the ability to focus their daily power, whether through the use of action points or limited-use powers or whatever helps give the characters the ability to surge with the action, drama-style. I'm not saying that combat has NO DRAMA if characters don't have the ability to surge in any fashion, or that daily powers are the only way to do that. (Action points also work, and sometimes consumable magic items.) I just think they're an awesome way to do it. I also think that on the reverse side, just like it heightens surging action scenes, having powers like that also deepens "desperation guts time" scenes - the character is low on health, against the wall... and in addition, he's also out of daily and encounter powers! There's an extra layer of desperation.

I realize that this explanation is not everyone's cup of tea. It's great for people willing to accept breaks from reality for the sake of drama (both "story drama" and "table tension drama"), but it does nothing to address that if you can trip someone with a spiked chain once, you should be able to trip them with a spiked chain over and over again, even if that's a kind of silly visual.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

special maneuvers and powers are the same thing.



Yeah, though I think everyone would prefer the name maneuvers simply because it sounds less magical. Psychologically, powers sound like something a wizard or superhero has, not a martial fighter.


Well yeah.  4e refered to fighter class powers as exploits.  Whatever name appeals to people at their table is fine.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

The way I envision martial "expendable" maneuvers is that once you use that move once the other guy is wise to it and it won't work.  Think of them as magic tricks, once you figure it out you can spot it most every time.  Once the fighter twists his sword this one way after he connects and disarms the other guy, he knows to hold on tighter when the fighter does it next time and he can hold on.  Just a thought.
Though I like most of the stuff Next is doing, in all honesty it seems like 4e with houserules. Except the spell system thats exactly what it feels like. All the 3.5 fanboys come crawling back thinking its 3.5 with a new coat of paint. But if you've played 4e extensively  you will notice the 4e in it, and there is quite a bit.

Also 4vengers... Thats just too cool. There should be a 4e fan site called that. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

After an hour or so checking out the playtest materials, I realized that 4th may just end up being the last edition for me, and this is coming from someone with the original boxed sets (red to black!) still in his attick.

It seems like every single page has something to annoy me, and it's something I thought dead and buried when 4th came out!




This is just the opening of the playtest, so we may see more changes to come--though I'd guess they'll be tweaks and nothing close to a "major" design element change is likely.

So, while I will reserve full judgment until this path comes to its end, like you I've all the previous editions within reach (or downstairs in boxes) and--at the moment--my initial impression is that IF this were the final product (and it's not) then I would not be sufficiently interested to pursue playing 5e or purchasing anything related to it.

I quite enjoy 4e, I've got Pathfinder and all the prior D&D editions, and--again, for now--I'm not experiencing that "gotta have it" feeling towards 5e.

And, fwiw, I have always loathed Vancian magic, Spells per Day and 8hr rests...

I agree I love the power system in 4e. I loved that they dropped the Jack Vance magic system and too see it come back I don't know if I even to finish reading anything else in the pretest.

Not even close. Special manuvers, like trip, disarm, etc, are useful in situations that apply. Powers are (you use them they are spent, can't use them again)

Completely different ideas.
After an hour or so checking out the playtest materials, I realized that 4th may just end up being the last edition for me, and this is coming from someone with the original boxed sets (red to black!) still in his attick.

It seems like every single page has something to annoy me, and it's something I thought dead and buried when 4th came out!




This is just the opening of the playtest, so we may see more changes to come--though I'd guess they'll be tweaks and nothing close to a "major" design element change is likely.

So, while I will reserve full judgment until this path comes to its end, like you I've all the previous editions within reach (or downstairs in boxes) and--at the moment--my initial impression is that IF this were the final product (and it's not) then I would not be sufficiently interested to pursue playing 5e or purchasing anything related to it.

I quite enjoy 4e, I've got Pathfinder and all the prior D&D editions, and--again, for now--I'm not experiencing that "gotta have it" feeling towards 5e.

And, fwiw, I have always loathed Vancian magic, Spells per Day and 8hr rests...

I agree I love the power system in 4e. I loved that they dropped the Jack Vance magic system and too see it come back I don't know if I even to finish reading anything else in the pretest.

Not even close. Special manuvers, like trip, disarm, etc, are useful in situations that apply. Powers are (you use them they are spent, can't use them again)

Completely different ideas.


So special maneuvers are conditional at-will powers.  It's still the same thing.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

After an hour or so checking out the playtest materials, I realized that 4th may just end up being the last edition for me, and this is coming from someone with the original boxed sets (red to black!) still in his attick.

It seems like every single page has something to annoy me, and it's something I thought dead and buried when 4th came out!




This is just the opening of the playtest, so we may see more changes to come--though I'd guess they'll be tweaks and nothing close to a "major" design element change is likely.

So, while I will reserve full judgment until this path comes to its end, like you I've all the previous editions within reach (or downstairs in boxes) and--at the moment--my initial impression is that IF this were the final product (and it's not) then I would not be sufficiently interested to pursue playing 5e or purchasing anything related to it.

I quite enjoy 4e, I've got Pathfinder and all the prior D&D editions, and--again, for now--I'm not experiencing that "gotta have it" feeling towards 5e.

And, fwiw, I have always loathed Vancian magic, Spells per Day and 8hr rests...

I agree I love the power system in 4e. I loved that they dropped the Jack Vance magic system and too see it come back I don't know if I even to finish reading anything else in the pretest.

Not even close. Special manuvers, like trip, disarm, etc, are useful in situations that apply. Powers are (you use them they are spent, can't use them again)

Completely different ideas.


So special maneuvers are conditional at-will powers.  It's still the same thing.



Word choice means a lot to 90% of people because words have meanings to people beyond webster's.  I agree that since we are talking about rules we should not be worried about labels yet but the "crunch of it".  Hit Dice in 5th are a HUGE example of this confusion...

The explanation I like best for why fighters have limited use powers is that that's how it works in actual fiction. It's cinematic. The Karate Kid doesn't crane kick the guy over and over again. He crane kicks him at the climax of the action. Characters do that all the time - they use their super technique when it's all on the line, even though there's probably nothing stopping them from using it over and over again. Maybe the characters are tactical idiots, or maybe they're just following rules of drama. Giving characters the ability to focus their daily power, whether through the use of action points or limited-use powers or whatever helps give the characters the ability to surge with the action, drama-style. I'm not saying that combat has NO DRAMA if characters don't have the ability to surge in any fashion, or that daily powers are the only way to do that. (Action points also work, and sometimes consumable magic items.) I just think they're an awesome way to do it. I also think that on the reverse side, just like it heightens surging action scenes, having powers like that also deepens "desperation guts time" scenes - the character is low on health, against the wall... and in addition, he's also out of daily and encounter powers! There's an extra layer of desperation.

I realize that this explanation is not everyone's cup of tea. It's great for people willing to accept breaks from reality for the sake of drama (both "story drama" and "table tension drama"), but it does nothing to address that if you can trip someone with a spiked chain once, you should be able to trip them with a spiked chain over and over again, even if that's a kind of silly visual.


This litterally made me LOL hard infront of my screen! I would have loved to see Daniel-san spam his crane kick over 9000 times in that scene :P

That said, isnt fighter "tactical manuvers" something similar to powers? just different word?

Ive always found it kinda funny in 4th that all powers had names. For example like " tide of iron", "Eye-bite" etc. 

Makes me think of anime, where the fighting characters would YELL out their tecnique names during combat! :P 



Fighters hack and slash with tactics, not with powers. This is D&D not world of warcraft.


Yup this is D&D, where we have combat matrices and a bard must have at spent at least 5 levels as fighter and 5 as a thief, no wait I meant it has THACO and no references to anything demonic due to media pressure. No that's not right either, it has feats and multiclassing that doesn't cut XP's in half between both classes, nope I'm still wrong, it has healing surges and At-Wills, Encounters and Dailies for most classes.

I've been with D&D from they earliest editions and the game has constantly evolved. I'm really not trying to start and "Editons War", I've honestly played and enjoyed each and every iteration that TSR or WotC has given us. I somewhat understand the reasoning of those that didn't like fighters "having powers" but my tabletop experience with the game was that all my players that usually choose to play the melee classes loved having the ability to customize their character by making different choices. The playtest material is (for me) way too much of a throwback to the older editions for the fighter (I actually groaned when I saw "Cleave" as the fighter's 3rd level feat - 90% of the fighters I saw made in 3E headed for Cleave/Great Cleave asap).

I've said in other posts that each class should have options to customize their character so it can possibly be different than another character of the same class. Wizards do this throw spell selection and possibly spell school specialization and clerics through their choice of deities and domains, fighters and rogues need something too.

Yes, I know it's early days. I intend to play test the materials with my group and hope that WotC manages to produce a game that can appeal to most everyone.  
The explanation I like best for why fighters have limited use powers is that that's how it works in actual fiction. It's cinematic. The Karate Kid doesn't crane kick the guy over and over again. He crane kicks him at the climax of the action. Characters do that all the time - they use their super technique when it's all on the line, even though there's probably nothing stopping them from using it over and over again. Maybe the characters are tactical idiots, or maybe they're just following rules of drama. Giving characters the ability to focus their daily power, whether through the use of action points or limited-use powers or whatever helps give the characters the ability to surge with the action, drama-style. I'm not saying that combat has NO DRAMA if characters don't have the ability to surge in any fashion, or that daily powers are the only way to do that. (Action points also work, and sometimes consumable magic items.) I just think they're an awesome way to do it. I also think that on the reverse side, just like it heightens surging action scenes, having powers like that also deepens "desperation guts time" scenes - the character is low on health, against the wall... and in addition, he's also out of daily and encounter powers! There's an extra layer of desperation.

I realize that this explanation is not everyone's cup of tea. It's great for people willing to accept breaks from reality for the sake of drama (both "story drama" and "table tension drama"), but it does nothing to address that if you can trip someone with a spiked chain once, you should be able to trip them with a spiked chain over and over again, even if that's a kind of silly visual.


This litterally made me LOL hard infront of my screen! I would have loved to see Daniel-san spam his crane kick over 9000 times in that scene :P

That said, isnt fighter "tactical manuvers" something similar to powers? just different word?

Ive always found it kinda funny in 4th that all powers had names. For example like " tide of iron", "Eye-bite" etc. 

Makes me think of anime, where the fighting characters would YELL out their tecnique names during combat! :P


I had that thought too.  However, the names have a purpose.  For starters, the names were just in the book as a reference tool for players.  Imagine how hard it would have been if you had to look up Fighter Power A3 (a for at-will, and a number).  Of course, that just reminds me of Robot Chicken's version of the nutcracker yelling "Testicle Attack Number 49!!!!"  Personally, I doubt the fighter actually called tide of iron "tide of iron."  And that's assuming she called any of her powers anything at all.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Well, here's one. I'm upset at the lack of class balance. If only someone had learned lessons from video games, where you could have a constructive, versatile and useful play experience no matter what class you chose!



As I said, previously that's just a revenge post.     

We will not see the outrage that 4e generated across every forum and youtube video regarding a perceived(rightly or wrongly) similarty or lack of similarty to WoW and other MMORPG's.  

Do a google search on "D&D 4th edition".   Let me know how many posts and videos you find with people slaming 4e because it's too much like an MMORPG.     

My point is that you won't see that with 5e.     It will have different criticisms, but it won't be flamed for being like an MMORPG.  



No, but I have seen it compared to the old video-game Gauntlet already.
Hopefully tactical modules will fix the boring combat issue, and with feedback the developers can fix the unbalanced class design.
Ive always found it kinda funny in 4th that all powers had names. For example like " tide of iron", "Eye-bite" etc. 

Makes me think of anime, where the fighting characters would YELL out their tecnique names during combat! :P


My Swordmage did yell out the name of his powers when he used them. I latched on to the Dimensional Thunder power at first level and refluffed lots of his powers as variations and improvements on the technique.

It became a very important aspect of the roleplay because his teleportation was always followed by a crack of thunder. The character became a famous mage noted for his skill with teleporation and lightning/thunder magic. It was an endless gold mine of cheesy one liners and quips ("Just call me Lightning, because I never need to strike twice." Laughing), and it made me feel all warm inside that his enemies feared the sound of thunder, because it might be a signal of his arrival.

I had similar experiences with other classes, but he was my favorite so it sticks out. That's something I want to keep though, that feeling of having a signature attack/technique/spell. I can't do that with non-casters in earlier editions, because doing anything outside 'attack' relies on the highly variable whim of the DM. I really like having Fighters that are not only known as great swordsmen, but are widely known for their sword techniques. Unique combat styles are my favorite part of 4th edition, and Trip isn't going to cover it in 5th.

 then start including material for ALL the previous editions of D&D as part of your online subscription content so that EVERYONE who plays D&D, regardless of the edition they play, can come to WotC for new content for their favored edition and to replace worn-out/damaged books.




This would, of course, do absolutely nothing as it's not what anyone wants or has asked for. That you suggest it shows that you haven't heard a word anyone has said, except those that already agree with you.


Then please given me another alternative that will actually meet the stated goal of getting enough WotC produced D&D inventory sold to appease the corporate overlords of Hasbro. Because D&DNext sure isn't it. Indeed, based on the clearly forming camps that want clearly opposing things there is zero chance they're going to be able to unite the disparate playstyles under one banner.

Right now, as a 4E player, what I see is an abandonment of everything I remotely liked about 4E in favor of restoring everything I despised about previous editions. If they don't want me as a customer, I don't have to give them any of my money and go right on playing with the 4E books I already have (there's enough 4E material out there that I could play for the rest of my life with what I already have). I doubt I'm alone in that assessement.

Now, sacrificing a non-trivial part of their 4E playerbase might make some degree of sense if they could be assured of nabbing enough of Pathfinder crowd to replace them. Sadly for them, I really don't think that's likely. I say that because, from the complaints I've heard, its not just 4E that many of the Pathfinder players hate... its WotC itself for dumping 3E in the first place (while Paizo is seen as people who love the game and have done right by them with Pathfinder). Hasbro's corporate demands for more profits is actively working against them being able to pull away significant portions of Pathfinder's playerbase when the time comes.

Hell, the one's I've talked to recently are already betting we'll see 5.5E by 2015 and 6E by 2018.

As things stand, unless they're willing to look at some sort of radically different approach to bringing all the players under one banner (something that lets them all play their favored editions instead of the attempt to unite them under a single system that will never make everyone happy) then they'd be better off saving all the development money, cancel Next and just shelve the entire D&D licence (4E and all) right now because there's no way Next stands a chance of reaching Hasbro's sales targets.

For one I do plan to use the playtest and follow it and I have very high hopes for it...  Though I think someone made a good point that the things the different groups want might not be able to be merged.  Sometimes when you try to please everyone you please no one.  

This was the case with 4th edition, it brought a lot of new players in, and a good deal of existing players enjoyed it while a large group of existing players didn't.  I think in the end maybe the best route is to simply support more than one D&D edition, and try and release content for both in as unified a way as possible.  The other possibility is if this whole modular thing works (which there is absolutely no modularity present in the playtest yet so I'm still filing that under "talking the talk but not walking the walk" until I actually see it) they can use this as a base to release different playstyles.  If they pull that off no one will be happier than me.  Even better maybe there will be martial classes that how power structures like 4e and Tome of Battle while a simplistic option for those that just a basic attack that they can tweak in minor ways.  Again I would be very happy if they pull that off, but I will not assume they will pull it off and until they do I will try it and complain about the issues I have and continue to use 4th edition (or 3.5 with tome of battle fighter classes).

I see a lot contradicting claims, where people say they couldn't RP in 4e.  This is quite honestly garbage.  I often spend much more time in RP encoutners in my 4e campaigns than in combat.  Never have the D&D combat rules restricted the RP guidelines and no the guides don't need to constantly remind you to ask your DM at every corner.  When did people lose so much imagination in D&D that their DMs and players had to be constantly reminded to RP.  I think people look to the past through rose colored glasses and think the old editions were magical with no faults, while 4e has a massive amount of faults.  4e did have a distinct amount of faults, but I know from my personal experience that 3.5 had a huge amount of faults itself (way too many complicated rules for grappling, touch attacks vs non, bull rushes etc, as well as broken epic and high levels, overpowered magic items, etc....).  D&D has never been about a perfect system that requires the books to tell you when to use your imagination and I think it's silly that some old school players claim that since 4e books didn't remind you to RP they couldn't have, again when did D&D players lose their ability to conjure their own imaginations.  

Let's all be quite honest, each edition of D&D was quite successful (yes even 4e, they didn't get the whole player base to move with it but quite a large amount did and 4e did bring in a lot of new players) and we should all recognize that each edition is in fact D&D even if not your preferred flavor it. 
@ Mechapilot: "I had that thought too.  However, the names have a purpose.  For starters, the names were just in the book as a reference tool for players.  Imagine how hard it would have been if you had to look up Fighter Power A3 (a for at-will, and a number).  Of course, that just reminds me of Robot Chicken's version of the nutcracker yelling "Testicle Attack Number 49!!!!"  Personally, I doubt the fighter actually called tide of iron "tide of iron."  And that's assuming she called any of her powers anything at all." 

Yeah I kinda guessed :P i was just being silly for the fun of it. I would think twice fighting a guy yelling: " Testicle attack number 49!" That means his got 48 tecniques also to make my life more painfull It should be counted as an advantage during combat to imtimidate ones opponent with brutal tecnique names. 

@Areleth: My Swordmage did yell out the name of his powers when he used them. I latched on to the Dimensional Thunder power at first level and refluffed lots of his powers as variations and improvements on the technique.

It became a very important aspect of the roleplay because his teleportation was always followed by a crack of thunder. The character became a famous mage noted for his skill with teleporation and lightning/thunder magic. It was an endless gold mine of cheesy one liners and quips ("Just call me Lightning, because I never need to strike twice." Laughing), and it made me feel all warm inside that his enemies feared the sound of thunder, because it might be a signal of his arrival.

I had similar experiences with other classes, but he was my favorite so it sticks out. That's something I want to keep though, that feeling of having a signature attack/technique/spell. I can't do that with non-casters in earlier editions, because doing anything outside 'attack' relies on the highly variable whim of the DM. I really like having Fighters that are not only known as great swordsmen, but are widely known for their sword techniques. Unique combat styles are my favorite part of 4th edition, and Trip isn't going to cover it in 5th.

Sounds very awesome! :D wished i could have taken part of that. I love fluff like that.

hehehe I can see how yelling: "SECRET TECNIQUE: TRIP!" , " BULLRUSH I CHOOSE YOU!"  and " KNOCK PRONE ATTACK NUMBER 7!" havent got the same effect as "DIMENSIONAL THUNDER!"

We must make a homebrew fluff forum topic for naming boring attacks, into something cool.




 
There were alot of things that I liked about 4th edition, but there were also alot of things I didn't. I really like implements for spellcasters, for example, which make far more sense to me than wands and staffs being spell-storage devices. I just hope the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater.
After reading the currently 15 pages of this thread, I don't want to be a D&D Next game designer. It seems nearly impossible to integrate the two total different play styles which are fighting gainst each other in every single thread in the D&D Next forum.

Simplified (!) there are the "old-school-gamers" and the "4e-fans". And the fight between the two groups has enough power to become an epic battle.

I assume everyone will agree that the first impression of the playtest packet is: a lot "old school" and less 4e.
Even though in details many ideas from 4e have been included. I fully understand that the "4e fans" are totally afraid that their most beloved edition will not be continued in favor of an "old-school-clone". And the "old-school gamers" hope so much that the 4e branch will be "repaired" by a big pinch of "real good old school D&D".

One level deeper it is a conflict between a well balanced and comprehensive rule set (like in 4e) on one side and a roughly balanced solid but not so big rule set with more improvisation (like in the "old-school days") on the other side.

I think we should stop telling each other that the opposite style is "stupid", "bad" and "unplayable". We should better discuss about the main question for all of us (and for WotC and Hasbro):

   How is the way to create a set of rules which will satisfy most of both groups?
 

(Of course it will be absolute impossible to create rules which will satisfy all of us...)


Simplified (!) there are the "old-school-gamers" and the "4e-fans". And the fight between the two groups has enough power to become an epic battle.

I assume everyone will agree that the first impression of the playtest packet is: a lot "old school" and less 4e.


It's actually worse than that. Every edition has its adherents, and if anything this seems like a ode to BECMI, it's missing most of the innovations of 3e or even late 2e.
After reading the currently 15 pages of this thread, I don't want to be a D&D Next game designer. It seems nearly impossible to integrate the two total different play styles which are fighting gainst each other in every single thread in the D&D Next forum.

Simplified (!) there are the "old-school-gamers" and the "4e-fans". And the fight between the two groups has enough power to become an epic battle.

I assume everyone will agree that the first impression of the playtest packet is: a lot "old school" and less 4e.
Even though in details many ideas from 4e have been included. I fully understand that the "4e fans" are totally afraid that their most beloved edition will not be continued in favor of an "old-school-clone". And the "old-school gamers" hope so much that the 4e branch will be "repaired" by a big pinch of "real good old school D&D".

One level deeper it is a conflict between a well balanced and comprehensive rule set (like in 4e) on one side and a roughly balanced solid but not so big rule set with more improvisation (like in the "old-school days") on the other side.

I think we should stop telling each other that the opposite style is "stupid", "bad" and "unplayable". We should better discuss about the main question for all of us (and for WotC and Hasbro):

   How is the way to create a set of rules which will satisfy most of both groups?
 

(Of course it will be absolute impossible to create rules which will satisfy all of us...)





Very well said and I completely agree.  The only part I don't quite agree with is comprehensive vs not, for me 4e was just different.  In a lot of way is was less comprehensive than 3.5 to me.  There simply.  Which is why all groups should be very active in what they like or not, though I do agree dismissing any edition outright and making generalizations (such as 4e not allowing you to RP) is not the way for us to be constructive. 
4e-style things are coming.


Say it isn't so. The less of 4e we see here, the better in my opinion. I'm loving what I see so far.
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
4e-style things are coming.



Yes, please.  The more of 4e we see here, the better in my opinion.  I'm hating what I see so far.

This is my biggest concern with DDN.  How in the world are the last two posters ever s'posed to sit and game at the same table?

No single game can be everything to everyone. 
/\ Art

I hope that they add more of the balanced playstyle of 4th edition in 5e. Also i hope to see the return of encounter powers. 

What i DO NOT hope to see is clunky slow paced combat as in my experience 4th edition easily became.  

3th edition had wonderfull fluff and a great vaerity in options for ones character... but 3th edition high level games were just broke as hell!! Do i even need to mention Pun-pun?

If it ever becomes like that again, i am afraid i have to go with 4th.

EDIT: What i am trying to say with this babble is, take the best things from the systems. Always go with what works and do not take a step back. D&D need to be updated, not re-winded.

That said, i am really thrilled about the new ability score/skills system. It is the best thing to happen to D&D since At-will powers ;)
a compromise is nothing but an agreement between all parties that nobody side gets what they really want. 

5th ed looks very much like a compromise between styles.
This is my biggest concern with DDN.  How in the world are the last two posters ever s'posed to sit and game at the same table?

No single game can be everything to everyone. 



This is why I'm thinking we are going to see two editions published at once, DDN and 4E.  I know that they said no to this but the split is pretty clear.  Either let the old timers go to Pathfinder or keep the WoWers and hope they don't change their flavor in games as they age...

This is my biggest concern with DDN.  How in the world are the last two posters ever s'posed to sit and game at the same table?

No single game can be everything to everyone. 



Simple. We sit and play by the rules of whatever system we are using. If that's 4e then we play 4e. We may prefer the rules to be different, but we still play by the established rules. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. In the end, if 5e is more to my tastes then the otehr poster will probably just continue to play 4e.
My LFR Modules:
Show
EAST1-3 Unbidden (H3) EAST2-3 Nightmares (P1) NETH3-1 Secrets and Shadows (Paragon Tier) (Author) ELTU3-6 True Blue (Heroic Tier) (Author) EPIC3-3 The Tangled Skein of Destiny (Co-Author) ABER4-3 A Little Rebellion (Paragon Tier) (Author) WATE4-1 Paying the Piper (Heroic Tier) (Co-Author)
This is my biggest concern with DDN.  How in the world are the last two posters ever s'posed to sit and game at the same table?

No single game can be everything to everyone. 



This is why I'm thinking we are going to see two editions published at once, DDN and 4E.  I know that they said no to this but the split is pretty clear.  Either let the old timers go to Pathfinder or keep the WoWers and hope they don't change their flavor in games as they age...




That's somewhat insulting. I've played through every edition of D&D and don't touch WoW, yet 4e is my favorite.
a compromise is nothing but an agreement between all parties that nobody side gets what they really want. 

5th ed looks very much like a compromise between styles.



I can't agree with that at all, I'm clearly anti 4th and liking DDN a lot so far...

but if they're going to fulfill their promise of (at the very least) attempting to cater to the 4th ed crowd, you're going to see some of that 4th in your 5th.
This is my biggest concern with DDN.  How in the world are the last two posters ever s'posed to sit and game at the same table?

No single game can be everything to everyone. 


Not if you're assuming that they're using rulesets that are entirely the same.  That's where the modularity comes into play.

FWIW, I agree with you that they can't play at the same table.  A lot of DMs/groups are simply going to disallow things that feel like editions they don't like.  A martial healing warlord will never find a home at a table aiming for a 3e or 2e feel.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

but if they're going to fulfill their promise of (at the very least) attempting to cater to the 4th ed crowd, you're going to see some of that 4th in your 5th.



Right but there is alreay 4th stuff in what I see already and I'm fine with it, it works, its good.  It's not like we old timers hate everything 4th (at least most of us don't I think) what we don't like is what we ended up with as a game in the end, a soul-less corpse of what was once D&D.  As long as the flavor of the game remains, as long as the key elements remain fine.  Like I said, so far I don't see anything in these rules I hate.

but if they're going to fulfill their promise of (at the very least) attempting to cater to the 4th ed crowd, you're going to see some of that 4th in your 5th.



's a pretty big "if" considering what we've seen so far.
I'm sorry, but I tend to disagree with OP; this packet doesn't make me miss 4e at all. In fact, from what I've seen so far, I absolutely love the direction 5e is going. For me, the combat system of 4e was far too rigid for my tastes; if I wanted to describe some kind of awesome attack, or novel stratagem to overcome an enemy, I could do so but only if said description ended with my character using one of a limited set of abilities that he possessed.  If I wanted to, for example, slide down a bannister, leap off of it to land beside an enemy, grab him, and smash him into a wall, I could, but only if my fighter possessed an ability to shift an enemy a set number of squares.  That's lame.  In this system, provided I pass the required checks, I can do pretty much whatever I can imagine my character doing.  

For me, D&D has always been about imagination and storytelling. I've played every single iteration of D&D since its inception, and for me, I found 4e to be the most constraining on my abiliity to truly immerse myself into a character - and nowhere was this more apparent to me than during combat.  Limiting my character to a limited number of specific and constraining abilities sounded good on paper, but the actual execution was underwhelming. Why should I have to expend a minor action every turn to maintain a spell? Why couldn't it just last for five minutes then die? What was the point? Why was it so difficult to build a fighter that was dedicated to straight-up, offense-oriented two-weapon fighting? Why couldn't he wear plate by default? Why the attempt to formalize 'roles' for each class - if I wanted to do that, I'd play World of Warcraft. 

More often than not, combat rather quickly devolved to using the exact same two or three at-wills over and over again until the enemy was dead. Oh sure, we could spice up the combat with a bit of fun description, but since the abilities themselves contained their own flavour text, what was the point?  Towards the end, the game stopped feeling like dungeons and dragons, and more like a game of Uno or something - "I play POWER CARD X!" "Well I counter with POWER CARD Y! Take that!"

I guess I'm just old-school, and if that makes me a 'Grognar' or whatever people here are calling it, then fine.  I'm happy with that. I know what I like, and I know what I - and my entire play group - will pay for. None of us were happy with 4e and all of us regretted buying it.

/rant 


People alwasy say 4e is more like a video game but the evidence just isn't there. Name one video game based off the 4e framework? just one.



Final Fantasy Tactics. 


At least, was EXACTLY what I noticed when I read the PHB the first time. 

[<()>]Proud Brazilian. Typos are free bonuses. 



People alwasy say 4e is more like a video game but the evidence just isn't there. Name one video game based off the 4e framework? just one.



Final Fantasy Tactics. 


At least, was EXACTLY what I noticed when I read the PHB the first time. 




4e doesn't resemble FFT except in the most superficial ways.  And those ways are built on earlier Final Fantasies which in turn was built on early DnD.

I guess they both involve tactics.


People alwasy say 4e is more like a video game but the evidence just isn't there. Name one video game based off the 4e framework? just one.



Final Fantasy Tactics. 


At least, was EXACTLY what I noticed when I read the PHB the first time. 



World of warcraft? 
Star wars: old republic?
Almost everyother MMO :P

League of legends?? XD

Well you know, every game that needs a defender, healer/support, striker etc.  


People alwasy say 4e is more like a video game but the evidence just isn't there. Name one video game based off the 4e framework? just one.



Final Fantasy Tactics. 


At least, was EXACTLY what I noticed when I read the PHB the first time. 



World of warcraft? 
Star wars: old republic?
Almost everyother MMO :P

League of legends?? XD

Well you know, every game that needs a defender, healer/support, striker etc.  



So 4e resembles DnD and everything spawned from it.
This is my biggest concern with DDN.  How in the world are the last two posters ever s'posed to sit and game at the same table?

No single game can be everything to everyone. 



This is why I'm thinking we are going to see two editions published at once, DDN and 4E.  I know that they said no to this but the split is pretty clear.  Either let the old timers go to Pathfinder or keep the WoWers and hope they don't change their flavor in games as they age...




That's somewhat insulting. I've played through every edition of D&D and don't touch WoW, yet 4e is my favorite.



That's actually very insulting. I've ALSo played through every edition of D&D and dislike WoW; and 4e is also my favorite iteration of the game.

There is no young/old divide in who prefers what.
Sign In to post comments