This is really making me appreciate 4e

250 posts / 0 new
Last post
can anyone actually point me where in the book it states that you need a defender, leader, controller & striker in 4th ed beyond being recommended and is unplayable otherwise?

last i checked i played many a game of 4th ed without that loadout and it worked out fine, nor have the fun police/WotCNinjas confiscated my books. 

hell, i would say pre-4th was more akin to the MMORPGS if only because if you lacked a dedicated magical healer in some fashion (either a PC or a wand you passed around) you'd have to sit on your butts for several in-game days to heal if you got into a fight. 

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.



Main class, dabbling into a secondary class, reactions, support, and great emphasys on movement and positioning. 


Surely, not a perfect transition, but at the time, there was no other game I played that had so many similarities. 


BTW, I'm a big fan of FFT and 4e. Seeing it gave me multiple nerdgasms. 

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

  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. 



I'm a tad offended when you say "us old timers". My regular group has been playing D&D since 1980, our youngest member is 42 and we've had a blast with 4E (and every previous edition of the game too).

Each and every edition has had its flaws.
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.



Let's see...

Move with an Acrobatics skill check.
Do a Grab maneuver
Make a Strength check on the next round(or with action point) to drag the enemy along with you.

Done.
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.



Let's see...

Move with an Acrobatics skill check.
Do a Grab maneuver
Make a Strength check on the next round(or with action point) to drag the enemy along with you.

Done.



Exactly, that claim is simply wrong.  Skill checks and ability checks are hardly any different in 4e than previous editions.


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.




Speak for yourself.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
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.



Let's see...

Move with an Acrobatics skill check.
Do a Grab maneuver
Make a Strength check on the next round(or with action point) to drag the enemy along with you.

Done.




replace acrobatics with dex and you can do the same thing in 5e. heck given a high enough dex the banister slide can just happen no check.  Use the improv action for the grab attack and make something up I will most likely go with str vs str or str vs dex or something like that.
I, for one, will not miss 4th Ed a bit. I bought it when it came out, tried several times to play it and like it, and ultimately couldn't.

I like my RPG games with some RP in them. I know I'm saying that a lot, but it's true. 4th Edition just felt like it was built for people who wanted to roll dice and run from combat to combat.



That's an aspect of the group, the GM, and the game you're in.

I've played in 4e games with more roleplaying than some 3.5e/Pathfinder/2e/AD&D "Kick in the door and kill" games.

The game system is essentially netural on whether players and/or GMs want to encourage and facilitate roleplaying--and that's been true in every edition of D&D since it was created.

"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

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.



Let's see...

Move with an Acrobatics skill check.
Do a Grab maneuver
Make a Strength check on the next round(or with action point) to drag the enemy along with you.

Done.




replace acrobatics with dex and you can do the same thing in 5e. heck given a high enough dex the banister slide can just happen no check.  Use the improv action for the grab attack and make something up I will most likely go with str vs str or str vs dex or something like that.



Right - if you're untrained in Acrobatics, it just is a Dex check. It isn't hard to replicate in any edition. If 4e has a problem in this regard is that it is quite clear that the series of actions requires 2 standard actions and a move or at least a standard and two moves.

But then again, sliding down a bannister, grabbing an opponent, and then moving him 20' away to a wall sounds like a lot of different actions to me. If this were in my AD&D days, I would have told the player that he would need to wait until the next round to move the target. 
@ValmartheMad: I disagree.

D&D has concentrated solely on "Man vs. Other" - and it does it very well.

It does "Man vs. Nature" occasionally... Dark Sun tries it.

But is strictly against "Man vs. Self." 4th Edition specifically is an an exercise in self-congratulatory escapism. It is designed to tell you how amazing you are - penalities make people feel bad... saying "No" to a player makes people feel bad... so we must remove these things from our game. Even the skills - far more "RP" oriented than combat - were streamlined to a point where "History" covered every possible fascet of a gaming world's history... cause seriously player "You're just that good."

For those that believe "Man vs. Self" is where the more interesting RP lies... this game is not now, nor has it ever really been, for them.

There is no "Heroe's Journey" in D&D - you are destined to win with the illusion of struggle... and that's how most people prefer it. Who am I to argue?
@ValmartheMad: I disagree.

D&D has concentrated solely on "Man vs. Other" - and it does it very well.

It does "Man vs. Nature" occasionally... Dark Sun tries it.

But is strictly against "Man vs. Self." 4th Edition specifically is an an exercise in self-congratulatory escapism. It is designed to tell you how amazing you are - penalities make people feel bad... saying "No" to a player makes people feel bad... so we must remove these things from our game. Even the skills - far more "RP" oriented than combat - were streamlined to a point where "History" covered every possible fascet of a gaming world's history... cause seriously player "You're just that good."

For those that believe "Man vs. Self" is where the more interesting RP lies... this game is not now, nor has it ever really been, for them.

There is no "Heroe's Journey" in D&D - you are destined to win with the illusion of struggle... and that's how most people prefer it. Who am I to argue?




In any edition (and I've played them all) the system is the mechanical device, the rules (literally) of the game, but they are not the entirety of the game itself, nor, in any substantial way, affect the ability or inability to Roleplay and/or develop your character.

That relies entirely on the player, the DM, the group, the story, and all the intangible elements that go well beyond the system.

You may or may not gain a +1 bonus every 2 levels, you may or may not have Feats, or Skills, or Powers, but whether your character grows from the adolescent farmboy to the Hero of the Realm has nothing to do with what system it's in.



"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Can we please try to be systematic about this?


  1. What features specifically do we like about 4E?

  2. Which of those, if we want them to be in 5E, would need to be built into the core rules?

That's what we should focus on, since the core rules are what we're playtesting right now.

For example, I like 4E fixed hit points.  Hit points are something every player and class has to use, so it seems like they should be in the core rules.  Maybe you disagree that they're a good thing.  That's the sort of thing we're supposed to debate now.

I also like 4E fighter powers.  But only my fighter character needs to use those rules, so they can be a module or an alternate build or some other optional rule.  We may still disagree about them, but we don't need to do that debate.
I think the problem with a thread like this is that it is just an excuse to edition war again. It seems pretty clear that alot of the "old school" don't want any 4E in Next, and alot 4vengers don't want any 1/2/3E in their Next. Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. The answer is simple - the only way to win is not to play. Both sides have lost, because they've gone all Hatfield and McCoy on each other.

All the bluster about any particular edition being bad only serves to point out that you don't actually want D&D Next to be a game everyone can get behind. Instead, you really want Next to be an endorsement of your particular edition, style of play, etc., so you can finally win the argument and prove that all "XE" people play the wrong way.

For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
I think the problem with a thread like this is that it is just an excuse to edition war again. It seems pretty clear that alot of the "old school" don't want any 4E in Next, and alot 4vengers don't want any 1/2/3E in their Next. Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. The answer is simple - the only way to win is not to play. Both sides have lost, because they've gone all Hatfield and McCoy on each other. All the bluster about any particular edition being bad only serves to point out that you don't actually want D&D Next to be a game everyone can get behind. Instead, you really want Next to be an endorsement of your particular edition, style of play, etc., so you can finally win the argument and prove that all "XE" people play the wrong way. For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.



I don't think it's out of line for either the Grognards or the 4e fans to expect to see "their" games in 5e.

Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.

So, with that as the stated goal, both 'camps' have the right to expect to see "their" game in 5e--it's not about "edition wars" it's about "I like Edition X" and I want to play that in 5e.

5e wasn't sold as "just the next edition", it was (is) sold as "The Unifier of ALL D&D"...

The problem is, at this very moment, 5e is a fusion of previous D&D games, without the modularity to to play it as 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e let alone all of those combined.

People are right to express their concern that--at the moment--they're not seeing what they (thought) was promised.

Remember, no one knew what the playtest would be until we got it, so no matter what it came out as, there are going to be many who were probably expecting something very different based on all that we've been hearing about what 5e is supposed to/going to be.

If there's an Edition War, I'm not seeing it, I'm just seeing people's concerns over not being able to have the modularity they were expecting (from the start).
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.


They backed off the same table part of that.  A lot of us predicted they would.  Some DMs/groups will just ban certain things because they came from other editions.  The biggest example of this is martial healing and the non-traditional races from 4e.
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.

 

Save the breasts.

Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.



They backed off the same table part of that.  A lot of us predicted they would.  Some DMs/groups will just ban certain things because they came from other editions.  The biggest example of this is martial healing and the non-traditional races from 4e.



Then we're back to the old question of "Why not just play Edition X instead of 5e?"

Really, (dwindling) my hope for 5e was to reunite all my various fractured gaming friends who've clung to one edition or version and have drifted away from being able to play 'everything' together since each one only prefers "their" edition.

BUT, I expected that would be the 'bridge too far', as my friends and I couldn't see how the One Table idea could actually, in practice, work...so...*shrug* so it goes.


...but...I'm tired, so for my part I'll have to examine the "Why play 'Separate But Equal' versions of 5e?" question some other time...

"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.



They backed off the same table part of that.  A lot of us predicted they would.  Some DMs/groups will just ban certain things because they came from other editions.  The biggest example of this is martial healing and the non-traditional races from 4e.



Then we're back to the old question of "Why not just play Edition X instead of 5e?"


When weren't we at that question?  Being able to play a character with 4e-style options at the same table as a DM/group that prefers a 2e feel couldn't have possibly been a draw for anyone.  And I don't think that anyone rationally expected it to happen (some groups will be openminded enough to allow it, but I imagine they will be in the minority based on the edition warring).
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.

 

Save the breasts.

2. Healing surges + increased healing potential + Cleric healing + Spell healing + regen + damage reduction + (- damage inflicted on you with buffs) + (no real sense of death due to poor death save rules) = near impossible to kill players.

One player throws an ability that reduces incoming damage a player recieves, another throws one that reduces the damage a creature deals, another throws a regeneration spell on the character, another character uses a burst heal to heal that player, the charater self heals, and all of it is increased because of the aura of another class that increases all healing in its radius.

This is just ridiculous. There are 2 types of fights in a 4e game, the one you always win because its too easy even though its +4 CR higher than you are or less, and the one that DM's have to throw which is 5 CR+ or higher that kills you straight out without a chance.

The introduction of minions was a mistake, saving throws for death at 10+ auto stablize you was a mistake, and allowing all thse other abilities, spells, powers, and self healing to stack created players that were invincible.

There must be danager in a D&D game without throwing something that is just silly just to kill players.

I played 4e a lot so, I have a lot of examples but here's one

a 7th level party consiting of 2 clerics, an avenger, a warlord, and a warden decide they want to fight the CR 14 dragon who's ment to be the final boss after several adventures.

They buf buff buff buff, the dragon's attack are reduced by x amount of damage, he recieves x amount more from all damage, the players gain x amount more each time they are healed, the party all gains regen, and stuns the dragon each round with dailies, and the warden stands there and solos the dragon, twice his CR, while continually driving the dragon into the ground with fighter powers and feats that assume he will never leave or be able to reposition himself.

The party, within the rules, destroys the solo mob in 4 rounds. The dragon didn't even get to take an action.

All legitimately within the rules.

Now, you tell me how fun it is for both sides if they can auto slay a monster that they should never face in a million years for there level, and for the DM who can do nothing to counter it?



I don't know what game you were playing, but I've been running 4e for a couple of years now (since PHB II) and I've never encountered such a situation. Since any kind of buff has to be delivered in the course of a round, the dragon's going to get in some licks. A whole party getting regen makes me ask "What powers give the entire party regen at 7th level?" Now, I will give you that stun powers were to common, so that seems legit. The rest? Sounds like you're using only the first three books, which we all know are out of balance, and later books fixed.

Give me specifics, or I'll call BS. 
OP, you are not alone.
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.


Which he does, since bull rush is a universal manuever. There is very little reason to want to do that in any edition of D&D, however -- it's basically undefined behavior in 1st edition (so you can declare you do it, but its up to the DM whether it does anything at all), and its a lousy option in 3e or 4e, since bull rush is mostly useless. Actually, 4e comes closest to having rules that make it useful, since there's rules in the DMG for improvised attacks (which were rarely used because powers were better, but that's not appreciably different from other editions of D&D).
2. Healing surges + increased healing potential + Cleric healing + Spell healing + regen + damage reduction + (- damage inflicted on you with buffs) + (no real sense of death due to poor death save rules) = near impossible to kill players.

One player throws an ability that reduces incoming damage a player recieves, another throws one that reduces the damage a creature deals, another throws a regeneration spell on the character, another character uses a burst heal to heal that player, the charater self heals, and all of it is increased because of the aura of another class that increases all healing in its radius.

This is just ridiculous. There are 2 types of fights in a 4e game, the one you always win because its too easy even though its +4 CR higher than you are or less, and the one that DM's have to throw which is 5 CR+ or higher that kills you straight out without a chance.

The introduction of minions was a mistake, saving throws for death at 10+ auto stablize you was a mistake, and allowing all thse other abilities, spells, powers, and self healing to stack created players that were invincible.

There must be danager in a D&D game without throwing something that is just silly just to kill players.

I played 4e a lot so, I have a lot of examples but here's one

a 7th level party consiting of 2 clerics, an avenger, a warlord, and a warden decide they want to fight the CR 14 dragon who's ment to be the final boss after several adventures.

They buf buff buff buff, the dragon's attack are reduced by x amount of damage, he recieves x amount more from all damage, the players gain x amount more each time they are healed, the party all gains regen, and stuns the dragon each round with dailies, and the warden stands there and solos the dragon, twice his CR, while continually driving the dragon into the ground with fighter powers and feats that assume he will never leave or be able to reposition himself.

The party, within the rules, destroys the solo mob in 4 rounds. The dragon didn't even get to take an action.

All legitimately within the rules.

Now, you tell me how fun it is for both sides if they can auto slay a monster that they should never face in a million years for there level, and for the DM who can do nothing to counter it?



I don't know what game you were playing, but I've been running 4e for a couple of years now (since PHB II) and I've never encountered such a situation. Since any kind of buff has to be delivered in the course of a round, the dragon's going to get in some licks. A whole party getting regen makes me ask "What powers give the entire party regen at 7th level?" Now, I will give you that stun powers were to common, so that seems legit. The rest? Sounds like you're using only the first three books, which we all know are out of balance, and later books fixed.

Give me specifics, or I'll call BS. 



what is described above to me feals more like how i remember 3.X
everybody having 10+ buff with durations that lasted hours.

in 4th you can do realy powerfull things if you have all your daily powers available and are fully rested bur you can only pull somthing like that off in 1 enciunter.
 
I think the problem with a thread like this is that it is just an excuse to edition war again. It seems pretty clear that alot of the "old school" don't want any 4E in Next, and alot 4vengers don't want any 1/2/3E in their Next. Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. The answer is simple - the only way to win is not to play. Both sides have lost, because they've gone all Hatfield and McCoy on each other. All the bluster about any particular edition being bad only serves to point out that you don't actually want D&D Next to be a game everyone can get behind. Instead, you really want Next to be an endorsement of your particular edition, style of play, etc., so you can finally win the argument and prove that all "XE" people play the wrong way. For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.



I don't think it's out of line for either the Grognards or the 4e fans to expect to see "their" games in 5e.

Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.

So, with that as the stated goal, both 'camps' have the right to expect to see "their" game in 5e--it's not about "edition wars" it's about "I like Edition X" and I want to play that in 5e.

5e wasn't sold as "just the next edition", it was (is) sold as "The Unifier of ALL D&D"...

The problem is, at this very moment, 5e is a fusion of previous D&D games, without the modularity to to play it as 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e let alone all of those combined.

People are right to express their concern that--at the moment--they're not seeing what they (thought) was promised.

Remember, no one knew what the playtest would be until we got it, so no matter what it came out as, there are going to be many who were probably expecting something very different based on all that we've been hearing about what 5e is supposed to/going to be.

If there's an Edition War, I'm not seeing it, I'm just seeing people's concerns over not being able to have the modularity they were expecting (from the start).



Have you read this thread? All I see throughout is accusations of one edition being broken, another edition being an MMO and having no RP, etc. That's pretty typical edition warring right there.

Of course everyone should be able to see "their games" in 5E. That is the goal. The problem is, everyone expects 5E to be X.5(X being whatever edition they like). They expect the game to be built around their personal playstyle, rather than actually uniting playstyles. If people aren't seeing every edition's influence in the packet, they just aren't looking.

We've known for quite a while that what we were getting in the playtest was incomplete. I think the 15-20% figure was tossed around quite a bit. We weren't promised modularity in the playtest. We were always told there would be core rules, and modularity would be added in later. We don't even have all the core rules now.

Peeps need to chill. 

D&DN is making me appreciate the editions of old that I sadly never took part in.

That's only for core rules though. If classes stay around this, I will start sounding less like the grognard that never was and more like a 4e fan. Fighters, powers, HERE. *points vigorously at the table*

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.



Really? You didn't think of simply declaring a Charge and using a Bull Rush as the basic attack? Both options were right there in the core book.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well. Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead. - [i]Hávamál[/i] D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. )
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.



Really? You didn't think of simply declaring a Charge and using a Bull Rush as the basic attack? Both options were right there in the core book.


Given page 42 of the DMG, you didn't even need to do that.  People seem to be under the mistaken impression that 4e removed all instances of "DM, may I?", but that's just not the case.  4e just decided not to make that the entire principle behind making the game work.  You could still ask to do unusual stuff and have the DM adjudicate it, as you could in every edition before it.
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.

 

Save the breasts.

Given page 42 of the DMG, you didn't even need to do that.  People seem to be under the mistaken impression that 4e removed all instances of "DM, may I?", but that's just not the case.  4e just decided not to make that the entire principle behind making the game work.  You could still ask to do unusual stuff and have the DM adjudicate it, as you could in every edition before it.



The "problem" is that the style of 4e seemed to lend itself to Rules over Fiat, and while all DMs could have adjudicated things on their own, most seemed to have defaulted to Rules Only, and if they couldn't find one to support what you were trying to do,  then you couldn't do it.

But that just gets to the heart of the issue with DM Fiat--it requires Good/Knowledgeable/Flexible/Confident DMs in order for it to "work" properly.  When Rules Alone arbitrate most things, then you just need a Capable DM, and those are much easier to find...

"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us." --Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

i'd rather have a "capable" GM who's got rules to adjudicate most actions and can focus on the story being told then a "good" GM who's spending most of the session adjudicating actions due to poor rules and being forced to focus on how the story is being told.


The "problem" is that the style of 4e seemed to lend itself to Rules over Fiat, and while all DMs could have adjudicated things on their own, most seemed to have defaulted to Rules Only, and if they couldn't find one to support what you were trying to do,  then you couldn't do it.

But that just gets to the heart of the issue with DM Fiat--it requires Good/Knowledgeable/Flexible/Confident DMs in order for it to "work" properly.  When Rules Alone arbitrate most things, then you just need a Capable DM, and those are much easier to find...




Excuse me I call BS on that. If I understand you correctly your saying 4th editions problem was it let people who weren't the greatest DMs handle the job by making the task more manageable, thus increasing the potential pool of DMs. That is a truly ridiculous, elitism argument: older editions are better cause you need a better DM. I've played every edition of D&D and DMed almost as many. The fact that 4th neatly packages up a lot of stuff one would have to A: house rule, B: remember the house rule for the next time the PCs want to try it to me was a great thing. It took a lot of the prep burden off of me so I could focus on coming up with a fun and dynamic story. Were their big problems with the RAW? Yes. Encounter DCs in the 4th RAW quite frankly blow and need extensive tweaking/reworking. But having the majority of the piddling crud delt with in the book is a good thing!
Remember, we have been (repeatedly) told by Mearls and other Devs that the goal is to Unify all the players and ALL the editions into ONE game that can be played simultaneously at the same table.


They backed off the same table part of that.  A lot of us predicted they would.  Some DMs/groups will just ban certain things because they came from other editions.  The biggest example of this is martial healing and the non-traditional races from 4e.



The races are not a rules issue though.  Unless I am running encounters which is a sanctioned event, I pretty much ban anything from PHB III anyway.  That was an issue of every edition.  I run Forgotten Realms and about as far out as I let PC's get is Tiefling, Genasi, or Aasimon.

There is no way that the table could be united.  If the DM didn't like something they would have cut it out like they have always done.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I don't know what game you were playing, but I've been running 4e for a couple of years now (since PHB II) and I've never encountered such a situation. Since any kind of buff has to be delivered in the course of a round, the dragon's going to get in some licks. A whole party getting regen makes me ask "What powers give the entire party regen at 7th level?" Now, I will give you that stun powers were to common, so that seems legit. The rest? Sounds like you're using only the first three books, which we all know are out of balance, and later books fixed.

Give me specifics, or I'll call BS. 


If they were using the first three books, shouldn't it have been a complete game on release?  I mean really, people are complaining about THIS being incomplete, yet if someone complains 4e didn't work right because they legitimately tried the game and it failed, it is THEIR fault because they did not check out the next books of a game they felt was broken? 

That is the fault of the development pure and simple.  By the time the PHB2 was being released, Pathfinder was already on its way. 

What you say is true, 4e of 2011 was better than 2008.  That did not do 4e any favors however. 
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!


Excuse me I call BS on that. If I understand you correctly your saying 4th editions problem was it let people who weren't the greatest DMs handle the job by making the task more manageable, thus increasing the potential pool of DMs. That is a truly ridiculous, elitism argument: older editions are better cause you need a better DM. I've played every edition of D&D and DMed almost as many. The fact that 4th neatly packages up a lot of stuff one would have to A: house rule, B: remember the house rule for the next time the PCs want to try it to me was a great thing. It took a lot of the prep burden off of me so I could focus on coming up with a fun and dynamic story. Were their big problems with the RAW? Yes. Encounter DCs in the 4th RAW quite frankly blow and need extensive tweaking/reworking. But having the majority of the piddling crud delt with in the book is a good thing!


Quite honestly it has been stated as factual by many 4vengers.  Many of the proponents of 4e claim that it allowed anyone to DM, and that was a great thing.  I don't see how that leads to an elitist argument.

I personally find AD&D easier to DM by a matter of exponents.




CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!

The "problem" is that the style of 4e seemed to lend itself to Rules over Fiat, and while all DMs could have adjudicated things on their own, most seemed to have defaulted to Rules Only, and if they couldn't find one to support what you were trying to do,  then you couldn't do it.

But that just gets to the heart of the issue with DM Fiat--it requires Good/Knowledgeable/Flexible/Confident DMs in order for it to "work" properly.  When Rules Alone arbitrate most things, then you just need a Capable DM, and those are much easier to find...




Yep.

There already is one. It's called 13th Age designed by Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet. Only it isn't an analogue to Pathfinder. They didn't simply throw a fresh coat of paint on 4e. They started from the same design goals and foundation and built up from there in some new directions. It definitely resembles 4e in many ways, but it is far more improved/modified than PF was over 3.5.




That's interesting. I read an interview with Jonathan Tweet where he called it a "love letter" to D&D and said it definitely was more like older editions of D&D than newer stuff. I haven't seen it, but that seems inconsistent with your take on it, unless they changed paths. Now I want to look at it
I really want monsters to be designed like 4e. I want them to have their own unique "powers" that are easily spelled out on the stat block,

I want variant monsters and scalable monsters.


That and Primal Power are the two things about 4e that they NEED to keep in 5e. From a DM and Druid-loving perspective.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I really want monsters to be designed like 4e. I want them to have their own unique "powers" that are easily spelled out on the stat block,

I want variant monsters and scalable monsters.


That and Primal Power are the two things about 4e that they NEED to keep in 5e. From a DM and Druid-loving perspective.



That's exactly what I don't want.  Having a few special monsters that play completely differently is fine.  It makes them super special.

But reading a stat block and then playing a monster, only to realize after the (much too easy) battle that there was a subtle multiplier effect if the monster used certain powers in combination, along with some other effect from its minions.  Arggh.  I don't want to have to study each monster before playing it.  I want it to use the same tactics that are available to characters.  Trip, Grab, or spitting out a sticky goo (works like entangle).  Add in all the conditions (I hope they put a stake through the heart of 'bloodied') I ended up feeling more like an accountant and less like a storyteller.

A lot of 4E battles seemed to turn into a quest to find the perfect strategy to defeat the monster.  I don't want my players thinking that way.  Think about perfection after, just in case you meet the same monster again.  Just play with the standard tactical toolset.  Don't assume perfect realization of the tactical situation, perfect communication, perfect prescience of who will act when, all occuring instantly in a manner that lets the team react to a novel situation better that a SEAL team could.  

But AEDU rewards over-planning.  You want that daily to get used for maximum effect.  You want your teammates to push the bad guys into the area of effect.  You have people delay their actions and coordinate their marks so the bad guys can't react in time.  It's a perfect symphony of power use.  I hate it.  It's metagaming.  The characters shouldn't make plans based on initiative orders.  They shouldn't know when one character is going to act or move in relation to another.  To them it should appear to be seamless and continuous.


Excuse me I call BS on that. If I understand you correctly your saying 4th editions problem was it let people who weren't the greatest DMs handle the job by making the task more manageable, thus increasing the potential pool of DMs. That is a truly ridiculous, elitism argument: older editions are better cause you need a better DM. I've played every edition of D&D and DMed almost as many. The fact that 4th neatly packages up a lot of stuff one would have to A: house rule, B: remember the house rule for the next time the PCs want to try it to me was a great thing. It took a lot of the prep burden off of me so I could focus on coming up with a fun and dynamic story. Were their big problems with the RAW? Yes. Encounter DCs in the 4th RAW quite frankly blow and need extensive tweaking/reworking. But having the majority of the piddling crud delt with in the book is a good thing!


Quite honestly it has been stated as factual by many 4vengers.  Many of the proponents of 4e claim that it allowed anyone to DM, and that was a great thing.  I don't see how that leads to an elitist argument.

I personally find AD&D easier to DM by a matter of exponents.







I totally agree DMing a 4e game is a lot of work.    Even more so when the rules are considered sacred by some of your players.   

 


While your certainly not alone, im not with you. I loathe many things in 4e, i loathe the power system, the skills system, i loathe hour long fights. In AD&D, it would be nice to tweak a few of the to hit tables, maybe mess around a bit with some of my thief skills, but i still love it. Just as my view isnt nessesarily absolute, niether is yours. 4e is far from the perfect march to some sort of "progress forward" dogma.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Decks Esper Beatdown WUB Jund Devour BRG
What you say is true, 4e of 2011 was better than 2008.  That did not do 4e any favors however. 



Yes, I do not want to wait years after the initial PHB for some Monk love.
I've played D&D forever. When comparing editions, it's generally a flow: 2e added skills to 1e (which had emerged at the tail of 1e in an expansion rulebook), 3e added feats and attempted to clean up some obvious class balance issues (with some minor success).

The principal issues I had with 3e were with how no matter what your class was, you wanted a 12+ intelligence  for skills and skill bonuses, 13+ if you were a fighter because of Feat requirements, and you wanted a high dex for Ref saves, initiative, AC, skill bonues, and (again) feats. A dumb fighter was a bad fighter. A non-nimble wizard was likely a dead wizard.

When 4e emerged, I saw at-will powers and thought they were a neat idea. I saw that you only needed a high Dex OR a high Int and not both, and thought that was 50% better than 3e right there. Then I played it and discovered what a giant mess it was. Those powers I thought were a neat idea were actually akin to playing an MMO and pressing hotbutton #2 over and over again, there was no decision making as to 'what to do?', there was just 'press #2'. With access to the PHB and 3 different class rulebooks I still could not make the character I wanted, I was instead forced into what the game had pre-designed. I discovered Minions had 1 hit point, whether they be Kobold or Frost Giant. And I hated every bit of it.

And that's when I saw something funny: No one, and I mean NO ONE was using the OGL to print 4e stuff the way seemingly every Mickey Mouse company on the planet had done with 3e. Instead, they either stopped making stuff or continued doing 3e or 3e tweaks, led by the folks at Pathfinder. The rest of the game industry had effectively given WOTC's 4e the finger. And when a big chunk of the market  share went went those companies, WOTC took notice. Which is why I suspect DDN/5e is going to look more like Pathfinder and less like 4e.

Now if only thay could fix that need for a high Dex and Int when they do it........

Current EDH Decks: Radha Timmy, Oona exile/mill, Edric aggro, Marath tokens, Uril Voltron, Ertai counters, Sek'Kuar sac engines, Ezuri elf tribal, Oloro life gain, Zedruu tokens, White Mikaeus indestructible, Riku allies, Ghave synergy, Momir Vig Simic to a fault, Zur pillow fort/extort, Cromat artifacts, Rafiq aggro, Nekuzar zombies, Prossh creature beats, Roon ETB/bounce, Garza Zol vampires.

 

 

 

I've played D&D forever. When comparing editions, it's generally a flow: 2e added skills to 1e (which had emerged at the tail of 1e in an expansion rulebook), 3e added feats and attempted to clean up some obvious class balance issues (with some minor success).

The principal issues I had with 3e were with how no matter what your class was, you wanted a 12+ intelligence  for skills and skill bonuses, 13+ if you were a fighter because of Feat requirements, and you wanted a high dex for Ref saves, initiative, AC, skill bonues, and (again) feats. A dumb fighter was a bad fighter. A non-nimble wizard was likely a dead wizard.

When 4e emerged, I saw at-will powers and thought they were a neat idea. I saw that you only needed a high Dex OR a high Int and not both, and thought that was 50% better than 3e right there. Then I played it and discovered what a giant mess it was. Those powers I thought were a neat idea were actually akin to playing an MMO and pressing hotbutton #2 over and over again, there was no decision making as to 'what to do?', there was just 'press #2'. With access to the PHB and 3 different class rulebooks I still could not make the character I wanted, I was instead forced into what the game had pre-designed. I discovered Minions had 1 hit point, whether they be Kobold or Frost Giant. And I hated every bit of it.

And that's when I saw something funny: No one, and I mean NO ONE was using the OGL to print 4e stuff the way seemingly every Mickey Mouse company on the planet had done with 3e. Instead, they either stopped making stuff or continued doing 3e or 3e tweaks, led by the folks at Pathfinder. The rest of the game industry had effectively given WOTC's 4e the finger. And when a big chunk of the market  share went went those companies, WOTC took notice. Which is why I suspect DDN/5e is going to look more like Pathfinder and less like 4e.

Now if only thay could fix that need for a high Dex and Int when they do it........



There's a big reason no one used the OGL to print 4e stuff, because 4e isn't a part of it. There is the much more restrictive GSL.