Things my group missed from 4e

Please note: This is not an attempt to start an edition war. This is me summarizing my group's feelings on our playtest experience. With only one exception, my playtest group has been playing DnD since 3.5, and we've all been playing 4e. One of my players has always said that he liked 3.5 more, but didn't mind continuing to play 4e with us. However, at the end of the playtest, we all pretty much agreed that some things were "missing" from the playtest that made it less fun than 4e.

1) Obligation of the cleric has returned. Previous to 4e and in this playtest, playing a healer carried with it a sort of obligation. The party required the healer to focus on healing, to the detriment of that player's fun. 4e fixed this by having the party healer's healing be a seperate resource from his combat spells, and let the action of healing be supplemental to a combat round in which the healer is doing something else. But as of now, the playtest returns to the days where the party angrily glares at the cleric for daring not to heal them if he decides to do something less boring.
Proposed Fixes: A) The cleric's healing spells should not be spells, but a different resource entirely. The cleric should not have to sacrifice another spell to heal, this is not fun. (note: I've seen the suggestion of making healing spells Channel Divinity abilities, but his just shifts the problem to the cleirc having to sacrifice the ability to use other Channel Divinity powers to heal, which is also not fun.) B) Healing abilities should not require an action to use. The cleric should not have to sacrifice his ability to attack/double move/aid/do-anything-else in order to heal, this is not fun.

2) Uninteresting martial combat. This one's pretty simple. So we're back to "basic attacks" for the fighter, and only Sneak Attacks for the Rogue. The Fighter's character sheet is roughly half as long as anyone else's and yes, this means he's half as interesting to play (lack of tactical decisions, options to chose, etc). The player playing the fighter was, notably, the player that had previously said he liked playing 3.5 more. But even he felt that fighters needed something more than just regular attacks. He said that it was possible that the lack of character creation may have been the issue (as that was one of the main reasons he prefers 3.5 over 4e, the range of character customizability).
Proposed Fixes: Mainly tied in with the below.

3) Lack of encounter-based resources. The playtest has at-will and daily spells for the casters which is fine, but everyone still agreed that they missed the function of encounter powers.
Proposed Fixes: Allow the fighter and rogue classes a selection of encounter-based abilities, be they attacks or movement abilities. The fighter player made a point that he didn't need "fifty encounter power options" like in 4e, but having even one encounter-based attack available to his character (like the Essentials "Power Strike" for Slayer Fighters, but "not just extra damage") would make combat more tactically interesting. The Rogue player (who has only been playing with our group since 4e) suggested that an encounter movement ability like the Essentials Thief would be best, since she had Sneak Attack.
The Wizard and Cleric suggested that spellcasters may not need encounter powers, but that it could be reasonably easy for there to be a class of prepared spell that is weaker than a normal spell of its level, but has the cevate of not using up its spell slot when cast, rather the spell refreshes with every short rest.

We all agreed that we were happy with the lack of opportunity attacks, and felt that combat was pretty fast-paced (if a bit less interesting/fun in the above cases). It did feel as though something was missing however. The fighter was the first to suggest that it wasn't as interesting as 3.5 because of the lack of character creation option, which will of course not be present in the final product.
Planes Wanderer
Our party agreed that fighters and rogues need some encounter special moves/ attacks.  4E at lower levels was great but at higher levels there were too many choices which bogged down play for the group.  I propose 1 or 2 special actions for each class that get traded/ upgraded as they go up a level instead of just adding more.  We didn't have too much trouble keeping the cleric players entertained as they were more than capable of stepping into melee combat.
Our party agreed that fighters and rogues need some encounter special moves/ attacks.  4E at lower levels was great but at higher levels there were too many choices which bogged down play for the group.  I propose 1 or 2 special actions for each class that get traded/ upgraded as they go up a level instead of just adding more.  We didn't have too much trouble keeping the cleric players entertained as they were more than capable of stepping into melee combat.



I too like the extra punch of Encounter powers. Maybe the solution is to have fewers encounter like powers, and have point. I played the Ardent (psion bases) and they can basically boost their base powers.

For example the fighter and rouge could have some "points" (as in action points) where they can use them to gain advantage,  do extra damage, trip, disarms, etc. This give options, but not powes and avoid overuse.

That would be a pretty cool solution too, Nebulorum. I can definately see a system like that working. Perhaps as one of these "complexity modules" they hope to overlay onto the system, you can have a "Maneuver Points" system that describes those types of combat maneuvers and their cost in points, then suggest how many points certain classes get.

Rrrsenal: We noticed the increase ability to get into melee for the cleric, but he still felt pretty stifled to go back to (in his words) "3rd edition healing resources". There were a lot of times he disliked having to choose to heal instead of attack (especially given that he was also using up "other spells" to heal, and that heals weren't coming back next encounter.)
But otherwise, yeah, we felt that there wasn't a big need for a plethora of encounter combat abilities. Just one or two would make a world of difference in the fun the fighter and rogue were having.
Planes Wanderer
Some suggestion I've read elsewhere to make combat more compelling is to use the Contest rules for these things. If the Figher wants to bull rush an Orc, require 10 ft. movement, a Strength vs. Strength contest and if the Fighter wins, he pushes the guy 5-ft. and occupy his space. Beat the check by 5 or more, push him 10 ft. back. Beat the check by 10 or more, push him back 10 ft. back and knock him over. If the Bull Rush fails, He had Advantage over you. At least, that's what I'm going to use when we Playtest next session.

This can go for other actions such as Disarm (Standard action, Str vs. Dex?), Intimidate to have targets attack you (Incidental action, Cha vs. Int), Knock a target prone (Standard action, Str vs. Str), etc. For now, it's sorta what we're stuck with RAW.  
Honestly I thought the more non-magical martial schools in Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords were a perfect happy medium between the basic attack fighter and the 4e fighter.
 
Not to mention the Warblade in 3.5 could still go MBA spamming if he wanted to.


The school were also applicable to multiple classes, solving the "same attack, different name" issue some people had with 4e.  
Honestly I thought the more non-magical martial schools in Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords were a perfect happy medium between the basic attack fighter and the 4e fighter.
 
Not to mention the Warblade in 3.5 could still go MBA spamming if he wanted to.


The school were also applicable to multiple classes, solving the "same attack, different name" issue some people had with 4e.  



aggreed, book of 9 swords should have been 3.5 CORE. same with how favoured soul should have been the paladin class. and i think this is what the "complex" fighter they hinted at is going to look like
Our party agreed that fighters and rogues need some encounter special moves/ attacks.  4E at lower levels was great but at higher levels there were too many choices which bogged down play for the group.  I propose 1 or 2 special actions for each class that get traded/ upgraded as they go up a level instead of just adding more.  We didn't have too much trouble keeping the cleric players entertained as they were more than capable of stepping into melee combat.



Here's the thing, the characters are at most level 3, so really giving them anything special seems like overkill at this point. Instead, you add a few powers slowly after a few levels and you actually use them and understand them as you go. You think fighters are boring at low levels? Then start your campaign at higher levels. We regularly started at 3rd or 5th level in 2e/3e once we were confident in our skills.

But Wizards get to do cool stuff from level 1!! If you want AC11 and 1d4 as a Hit Die, I'll give you spells if you want.
heres the thing, at this level do you NEED anything extra? The monsters are pretty tame thus far with the exception of a few.

I would like to see martial powers for Melee charectors, BUT I believe they would need to be few in numbers and would have to be a daily resource. If its not it then throws the casters off balance.

Why does the melee get encounter powers mine are dailys? And once im out i just cant swing my sword and get good damage still?

I see the rogue getting d6 every level and cant but think that option wise, he should give up Xd6 to get a daily awesome power that does damage and some sort of effect. Trade normal mechanic for extra mechanic.


Pretty sure (Dont exactly know) that the fighter surge will scale with level somehow. Same thing trade in a use of fighters surge for awesome power that does damage and some sort of effect.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please


Here's the thing, the characters are at most level 3, so really giving them anything special seems like overkill at this point. Instead, you add a few powers slowly after a few levels and you actually use them and understand them as you go. You think fighters are boring at low levels? Then start your campaign at higher levels. We regularly started at 3rd or 5th level in 2e/3e once we were confident in our skills.
 



The fact that you had to start the game at 3rd or 5th level to make it not boring is not an indication, to you, that the game's rules/mechanics need to be changed?

If someone says, 'There's a hole in my sink.', do you suggest that he start filling his water glass by holding his glass under the sink, or so you fix the sink? 

The sink needs to be fixed first. 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

heres the thing, at this level do you NEED anything extra? The monsters are pretty tame thus far with the exception of a few. 



So, boring combat is ok... because the monsters are also boring?

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp



Here's the thing, the characters are at most level 3, so really giving them anything special seems like overkill at this point. Instead, you add a few powers slowly after a few levels and you actually use them and understand them as you go. You think fighters are boring at low levels? Then start your campaign at higher levels. We regularly started at 3rd or 5th level in 2e/3e once we were confident in our skills.
 



The fact that you had to start the game at 3rd or 5th level to make it not boring is not an indication, to you, that the game's rules/mechanics need to be changed?

If someone says, 'There's a hole in my sink.', do you suggest that he start filling his water glass by holding his glass under the sink, or so you fix the sink? 

The sink needs to be fixed first. 




on many video games, do you play the tutorial after you have allready beaten it once?

and you can cry "VIDEO GAMES GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" all you want but it doesn't make the analogy any less valid.


Here's the thing, the characters are at most level 3, so really giving them anything special seems like overkill at this point. Instead, you add a few powers slowly after a few levels and you actually use them and understand them as you go. You think fighters are boring at low levels? Then start your campaign at higher levels. We regularly started at 3rd or 5th level in 2e/3e once we were confident in our skills.
 



The fact that you had to start the game at 3rd or 5th level to make it not boring is not an indication, to you, that the game's rules/mechanics need to be changed?

If someone says, 'There's a hole in my sink.', do you suggest that he start filling his water glass by holding his glass under the sink, or so you fix the sink? 

The sink needs to be fixed first. 




on many video games, do you play the tutorial after you have allready beaten it once?

and you can cry "VIDEO GAMES GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" all you want but it doesn't make the analogy any less valid.



No but in most video game tutorials it only takes 5 minutes and it shows me how to use my cool abilities.  So I'm not seeing the validity of your analogy.

 


on many video games, do you play the tutorial after you have allready beaten it once?

and you can cry "VIDEO GAMES GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" all you want but it doesn't make the analogy any less valid.



You're analogy doesn't work because first level is not a tutorial. DnD books already have tutorials in the rules, which give sample combat rounds and even tutorials on how other aspects of the game work. The game itself begins at level 1. 

How do you tell whether the first level is a tutorial or not? Well, ask yourself whether you can die permanently at that level or not, and that will tell you whether you're in the tutorial or not.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

heres the thing, at this level do you NEED anything extra? The monsters are pretty tame thus far with the exception of a few. 



So, boring combat is ok... because the monsters are also boring?




Low HP does not equeal boring. If combat is boring, its because Dm and the Players are making it boring.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
Ideally, the game should be fun at all levels. I can't think that making character options boring/nonexistent at low levels is the only way to simulate the fact that they are humble novice adventurers.

It might have helped if they had given the pregens a bit of a gold allowance to use to buy some of the interesting equipment in the how to play book. Once we got some gold my Rogue could at least set up some traps prior to combat to make things interesting (though rules for hiding these traps or letting monsters spot them were sadly lacking), though once combat started I was limited to the usual attack/hide routine.


Low HP does not equeal boring. If combat is boring, its because Dm and the Players are making it boring.



Then why wasn't it boring, with the same group, in 4e?

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp



Low HP does not equeal boring. If combat is boring, its because Dm and the Players are making it boring.



Then why wasn't it boring, with the same group, in 4e?




Because in 4e the powers are baked into the class with thier own descriptions. Imagination was nullified. Your not talking to someone who hasnt played 4th edition, ive played and ran it for over 3 years. The difference is startling in the codified abilities of 4th vs older editions. There are aspects of 4th that i liked (Please read the rest of my initital post)



4th is good at what it is, and what it is is a board game with complicated rules. Im not saying thats bad neccissarily, but thats what it is. Every other edition of D&D has been a tabletop pencil and paper RPG.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please



Because in 4e the powers are baked into the class with thier own descriptions. Imagination was nullified.



If the cost of nullifying my imagination is that the game is no longer boring, I'll happily pay it.

 
Your not talking to someone who hasnt played 4th edition, ive played and ran it for over 3 years. The difference is startling in the codified abilities of 4th vs older editions. There are aspects of 4th that i liked (Please read the rest of my initital post)

4th is good at what it is, and what it is is a board game with complicated rules. Im not saying thats bad neccissarily, but thats what it is. Every other edition of D&D has been a tabletop pencil and paper RPG.



Those are your own opinions, and you're welcome to them. But I am pointing out the fact that some players find this new game boring. You are responding apparently by essentially admitting that the new game is more boring than 4e, but saying that that's ok because it allows for more imagination. As I said above, I'll take a game that is not boring over one that is boring but open ended any day.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp




Because in 4e the powers are baked into the class with thier own descriptions. Imagination was nullified.



If the cost of nullifying my imagination is that the game is no longer boring, I'll happily pay it.

 
Your not talking to someone who hasnt played 4th edition, ive played and ran it for over 3 years. The difference is startling in the codified abilities of 4th vs older editions. There are aspects of 4th that i liked (Please read the rest of my initital post)

4th is good at what it is, and what it is is a board game with complicated rules. Im not saying thats bad neccissarily, but thats what it is. Every other edition of D&D has been a tabletop pencil and paper RPG.



Those are your own opinions, and you're welcome to them. But I am pointing out the fact that some players find this new game boring. You are responding apparently by essentially admitting that the new game is more boring than 4e, but saying that that's ok because it allows for more imagination. As I said above, I'll take a game that is not boring over one that is boring but open ended any day.




*Long story

I have playtested 5th so far with 11 different individuals that I have been playing with for over the course of 12 years .

The first 5 are old school, played star wars sagas didnt like it saw 4e was like it and swear off anything to do with it, and make fun of us for playing 4th. So naturally there are excited about what 5e is doing

The other 6 players have been playing 4e steady now for about 3 years. Everyone so far has been extremely happy with 5th and what it has to/will offer.

....with the exception of my wife.

Why? cause she (after playing older editions) prefers the option of powers. She thought 5e was also boring (As it stands now). Why? She doesnt want to think about her turn in combat, she just wants to look down see what her charactor can do and then do it. She hasnt grasped, or may not want to grasp, the old philosaphy that you can do whatever you want to do. She wants the power options......and thats ok.

To the rest of our group, this was the best thing since sliced bread. And thats ok too. In theory if WotC does what they promised, we should all be able to sit down and play together when this is finished and not be bored.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please



Because in 4e the powers are baked into the class with thier own descriptions. Imagination was nullified.



If the cost of nullifying my imagination is that the game is no longer boring, I'll happily pay it.

 
Your not talking to someone who hasnt played 4th edition, ive played and ran it for over 3 years. The difference is startling in the codified abilities of 4th vs older editions. There are aspects of 4th that i liked (Please read the rest of my initital post)

4th is good at what it is, and what it is is a board game with complicated rules. Im not saying thats bad neccissarily, but thats what it is. Every other edition of D&D has been a tabletop pencil and paper RPG.



Those are your own opinions, and you're welcome to them. But I am pointing out the fact that some players find this new game boring. You are responding apparently by essentially admitting that the new game is more boring than 4e, but saying that that's ok because it allows for more imagination. As I said above, I'll take a game that is not boring over one that is boring but open ended any day.




now you gone and brought opinions into this.

this is a bad thing, because usually saying "opinion!" is nothing more than saying "I don't have an appropriate counter to that argument!"

you also state that his argument is invalidated because it his opinion, this is the quintesential logicle sword of damoncles. if his argument is invalid because it is his opinion, then so too is your argument invalid because it is an opinion, and from there on it is a slipperly slope to an argument that goes nowhere (i guess one of those "bo ring" wizards cast grease).

what is important to note. and here is the reason you are wrong, is that this is a game, and it IS based on opinion (which is odd, because i just talked about that).

but where the "wrong" part comes into play is that this is a "modular" rule set, right now we are just testing a half made version of the core rules, not even the finalised core rules, and youa re arguing that it needs to be more like 4th.

give my one good reason that the foundation rules should be as complex as 4th powers, and not a simple base that we can build on.

-edit- and no, many games include the first "level" as a tutorial, 4.0 actually release an "intro" campaign that would bring players to 2nd level. seeing as your OWN favorite edition has bassically officially stated that the first level is an intro level, i don't see how your counter holds water.
I don't find anything boring about an empty canvas.

I am happy with the DDN fighter and rogue. 

The rules are guidelines.  A simple skeleton. 

The Cleric is only obligated to do what their deity tells them to do.  Everything else is up to the player. 

4E strongly encouraged obligatory roles for each and every class.  Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker AEDU  powers were baked into supporting those roles.  Not to be rude, but your obligatory cleric argument is very close minded.
 
No obligatory role is better than one obligatory role, but one obligatory role is better than four.  Unless socialism is the game.


"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Not to be rude, but your obligatory cleric argument is very close minded.

I have never seen a "not to be X" preface that did not end in the speaker being X. This has not proven to be an exception.

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
I don't find anything boring about an empty canvas.

I am happy with the DDN fighter and rogue. 

The rules are guidelines.  A simple skeleton. 

The Cleric is only obligated to do what their deity tells them to do.  Everything else is up to the player. 

4E strongly encouraged obligatory roles for each and every class.  Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker AEDU  powers were baked into supporting those roles.  Not to be rude, but your obligatory cleric argument is very close minded.
 
No obligatory role is better than one obligatory role, but one obligatory role is better than four.  Unless socialism is the game.





Never mind the fact that it didn't work that way at ALL.  No role was required in 4e.  Not at all.  Anybody who says 'you had to have one of each' is stone cold wrong.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I miss the powers from 4E. I don't expect Fighters to get a lot of them (really, I don't think they need more than half a dozen) and I'm ok with them being in either the Stance style or Encounter Power style. What I find funny is that a lot of anti-4E people were heavily against Fighters gaining Daily Powers. This somehow broke verisimilitude for them and made it "MMO like *rolls eyes*". But we get a 2/day ability with the Fighter at 2nd level and.......no complaints? No problems with this? No up-in-arms about breaking the 4th wall? I smell a bit of hypocracy in the air....

Anyways, I know they'll most likely bring out Powers and other options for the Fighter aside from what we saw. Be patient and we'll probably even get Playtest material for it.


4E strongly encouraged obligatory roles for each and every class.  Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker AEDU  powers were baked into supporting those roles.  Not to be rude, but your obligatory cleric argument is very close minded.
 



This actually is rather rude even if you didn't intend it to be so. What Avon and his party experienced is likely to be different from what you and I experience, the nature of the game is incredibly diverse and different groups play and experience things differently. There is no inherently right or wrong in this case, it’s not a matter of his players being close minded. It's simply his statement that the player felt that the cleric was shoe-horned into a position where he was forced to constantly heal or be detrimental to the party, that being in such a role was dissatisfying to play, that perhaps other players of clerics might feel the same way that he does, and then offer a possible solution to this perceived issue that he would like to discuss with us on a play-testing forum. If anything, by bringing up his experiences and attempting to discuss a perceived issue he is being more open minded than a person simply saying that what he is feeling is incorrect.

I don't think that you meant anything harmful or condescending, but you can't just say someone's experience is wrong in a place to discuss ones experience.

now you gone and brought opinions into this.

this is a bad thing, because usually saying "opinion!" is nothing more than saying "I don't have an appropriate counter to that argument!"



No, it is quite a bit more than that. You asserted that 4e nullified imagination. That is not a fact; that is your opinion. I am not saying your opinion is invalid; I am saying that what you presented as an argument is not an argument, but rather an opinion... and therefore logically not more valid than the counter opinion.


 what is important to note. and here is the reason you are wrong, is that this is a game, and it IS based on opinion (which is odd, because i just talked about that).



It is indeed odd, because you just contradicted yourself. If one person's opinion is no more valid than any other's, how can my opinion be wrong? You are making no sense. You are reading your own words before you post them, right?


but where the "wrong" part comes into play is that this is a "modular" rule set, right now we are just testing a half made version of the core rules, not even the finalised core rules, and youa re arguing that it needs to be more like 4th.



Ah yes, and now you are falling back into that old red herring: 'This is just a test of the game; everything is going to be great once we get the full modules.' Well, if the core mechanics are boring, I'm sorry, but the final game is not likely to be great. And the playtest is most definitely the time to point this out.  


give my one good reason that the foundation rules should be as complex as 4th powers, and not a simple base that we can build on.



Because, as the OP and this entire thread note, many people are finding it boring. Your first hint should have been the title of the thread... then the original post... then, you know, the entire discussion that followed.

You are actually reading the threads before you post, right? Please tell me you are.  


-edit- and no, many games include the first "level" as a tutorial, 4.0 actually release an "intro" campaign that would bring players to 2nd level. seeing as your OWN favorite edition has bassically officially stated that the first level is an intro level, i don't see how your counter holds water.



Again, you make this ridiculous argument. Tell me, when you start a 4.0 campaign, do you allow players that are killed to 'start again'? Do you tell them, 'Hey guys, this is just a tutorial, so deaths will not be permanent, and the real game only starts at level 2?' No, you don't; so please stop making this ridiculous argument.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp



Low HP does not equeal boring. If combat is boring, its because Dm and the Players are making it boring.



Then why wasn't it boring, with the same group, in 4e?




Because in 4e the powers are baked into the class with thier own descriptions. Imagination was nullified. Your not talking to someone who hasnt played 4th edition, ive played and ran it for over 3 years. The difference is startling in the codified abilities of 4th vs older editions. There are aspects of 4th that i liked (Please read the rest of my initital post)



4th is good at what it is, and what it is is a board game with complicated rules. Im not saying thats bad neccissarily, but thats what it is. Every other edition of D&D has been a tabletop pencil and paper RPG.



name one action that could be taken in a older edition that could not be taken in 4th.

to me 4th introduction felt like:
ok by now we all know how the roleplaying part works from older editions so we are going to spend a bit more atention on the compat part making sure that from now on that part is fun to.


4E strongly encouraged obligatory roles for each and every class.  Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker AEDU  powers were baked into supporting those roles.  Not to be rude, but your obligatory cleric argument is very close minded.
 



This actually is rather rude even if you didn't intend it to be so. What Avon and his party experienced is likely to be different from what you and I experience, the nature of the game is incredibly diverse and different groups play and experience things differently. There is no inherently right or wrong in this case, it’s not a matter of his players being close minded. It's simply his statement that the player felt that the cleric was shoe-horned into a position where he was forced to constantly heal or be detrimental to the party, that being in such a role was dissatisfying to play, that perhaps other players of clerics might feel the same way that he does, and then offer a possible solution to this perceived issue that he would like to discuss with us on a play-testing forum. If anything, by bringing up his experiences and attempting to discuss a perceived issue he is being more open minded than a person simply saying that what he is feeling is incorrect.

I don't think that you meant anything harmful or condescending, but you can't just say someone's experience is wrong in a place to discuss ones experience.




I am merely the healer adding the balm to the first sentence of this thread.  It does not bruise, it just stings a little. 

Regardless of how you feel right now, and what they might have play tested from such a little morsel of the game, assigning the cleric as an obligatory role right now is at least, narrow minded.  I mean, there is a reason there are two very different clerics in the playtest.  Not giving a run down on how each cleric played different, or the same, and just telling us all how players will give you a horrible glare if you don't heal them, is narrow minded and sorrowfully inaccurate.  My clerics, as played, never felt obligated to keep any player alive nor did the players in my group give me such looks as to render my gaming experience woeful and tormented.  In the light of 4E roles and how I feel forced to play a role with all the classes, only having one obligatory class in any other version of the game actually feels refreshing.  Having no obligatory roles is the best. 

.........The fighter was the first to suggest that it wasn't as interesting as 3.5 because of the lack of character creation option, which will of course not be present in the final product.



Things like this make me wonder if this thread is legit or just trying to stir people up.  How would the OP know what will or will not be in the final product?

With the probability that this is going nowhere I would like to invite the OP to re-run any low level adventure.  This time make some character sheet adjustments.

Themes:

Fighter replaces slayer with guardian AND healer
Moradin Cleric replaces guardian with slayer
Pelor Cleric replaces healer with magic-user (add cantrips light and, either shocking grasp or magic missile)

This should take you outside of the box






"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Regardless of how you feel right now, and what they might have play tested from such a little morsel of the game, assigning the cleric as an obligatory role right now is at least, narrow minded.  I mean, there is a reason there are two very different clerics in the playtest.  Not giving a run down on how each cleric played different, or the same, and just telling us all how players will give you a horrible glare if you don't heal them, is narrow minded and sorrowfully inaccurate.  My clerics, as played, never felt obligated to keep any player alive nor did the players in my group give me such looks as to render my gaming experience woeful and tormented.  In the light of 4E roles and how I feel forced to play a role with all the classes, only having one obligatory class in any other version of the game actually feels refreshing.  Having no obligatory roles is the best. 


The player is simply sharing their experiences during play. He is not attempting to state that X build is better than Y build; He is not doing a deep analysis of the classes and comparing their merits and deficits in order to determine which the best to play are. He simply states that the way that the cleric they played fell into this niche that was un-fun and made some suggestions towards improving the experience. It's not close mindedness to give feedback on a play testing forum, that's pretty much why this forum is here. You may have never had these problems with Next clerics, and that's fine, that's your experience. I personally have never had a problem with obligatory classes that seem to happen with your experience in 4e. Doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist, just means that I play the game differently from you, but the problem still exists for you, and it should be rectified. And yes, I agree, that having no obligatory roles is the most ideal situation.


.........The fighter was the first to suggest that it wasn't as interesting as 3.5 because of the lack of character creation option, which will of course not be present in the final product.



Things like this make me wonder if this thread is legit or just trying to stir people up.  How would the OP know what will or will not be in the final product?



I think this is reference to the background and theme choices, which in this case are the only ones currently available, as well as the options to choose different power granting feats, such as Sure Strike or Shield Bash instead of Cleave. If the player were able to construct their own fighter, they probably would have more fun as it play how they'd want it too.

I really miss Minor-Action healing. I liked the fact that I could heal a bit AND contribute to battle. But the DDN cleric feels very limited. I understand that it's the Beta and that not all options are presented but I think they need some healing outside their spell lists.
Again, you make this ridiculous argument. Tell me, when you start a 4.0 campaign, do you allow players that are killed to 'start again'? Do you tell them, 'Hey guys, this is just a tutorial, so deaths will not be permanent, and the real game only starts at level 2?' No, you don't; so please stop making this ridiculous argument.



wrong again, the 4.0-E wednesday encounters allow you to "start again" next session with 4 less healing surges if you die. if you don't have healing surges, you start again with full health and thats it. i should know, i'm DMing them.

once again, your argument has been countered in an official capacaty by WotC themselves.


Ah yes, and now you are falling back into that old red herring: 'This is just a test of the game; everything is going to be great once we get the full modules.' Well, if the core mechanics are boring, I'm sorry, but the final game is not likely to be great. And the playtest is most definitely the time to point this out.  



and yet some people DONT find it boring, and since the design goals of DDN is to include EVERYONE (that means not just yourself) then i guess you are wrong. you will get your rules, let other people have theirs, stop being so self centred.

...... If the player were able to construct their own fighter, they probably would have more fun as it play how they'd want it too.





+1

The same can be said for any class....like Cleric

I think we essentially have agreed to something Laughing

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

+1

The same can be said for any class....like Cleric

I think we essentially have agreed to something


I never said I didn't personally agree with your statement about the cleric or that I disagree. I actually have no experience with Next's cleric on a personal level as my group ended up playing a game without one (we tend to do that, or without any sort of healer in most of our campaigns for that matter, much to the amazement of our DM) and I try not to comment on things I haven't played as or played with when it comes to role-playing games. My only real issue with your post was the close minded statement because as I'm sure you've realized by now I'm rather big on the whole "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and experience and it isn't any less valuable or insightful to the process of making D&D Next the best game it can possibly be," thing. If you had just gone, "Well hey, sorry your guys didn't enjoy playing Cleric of Pelor/Moradin, maybe you should try the other guy," or maybe "You know, if you do this and this, you might have more fun," or even "Maybe Cleric isn't your thing, why don't you switch it up and go Rogue?" I probably wouldn't have commented in the first place. Other than that you seem like a pleasant enough fellow. Not to mention I did agreed with your comment of non-obligation being the best style of play.
Edit: double post.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

 

wrong again, the 4.0-E wednesday encounters allow you to "start again" next session with 4 less healing surges if you die. if you don't have healing surges, you start again with full health and thats it. i should know, i'm DMing them.

once again, your argument has been countered in an official capacaty by WotC themselves.




I asked you specifically about your game, not about one session of Encounters. In your game, when characters die in the first few levels, do you let them come back? I don't, and I suspect you don't either. The game begins at 1 for the vast majority of campaigns; it is not a tutorial level. When characters die, they stay dead.

    

and yet some people DONT find it boring, and since the design goals of DDN is to include EVERYONE (that means not just yourself) then i guess you are wrong. you will get your rules, let other people have theirs, stop being so self centred.



Oh dear, again you are saying that I am wrong because I disagree with your opinion, and yet you are right because you disagree with mine. I see you didn't respond to the logical fallacies I pointed out above in your argumentation, so I am assuming you didn't understand them or have any response. So I will explain it to you again: opinions like 'I find this game boring' can't be wrong (unless the person is lying). I and the OP are not wrong or lying when we say we find this game boring. There is nothing you can do to prove us wrong. Got it?

You are certainly welcome to your counter opinion, and by all means, go ahead and express it. But to say things like 4e nullifies imagination is not an argument; it is an opinion. So you do not have the right to deny us our opinion that the playtest rules make for boring fighters. We are asking that this be rectified in the rules, which is one of the points to the playtest. To come into someone's thread and tell them that their opinion is wrong makes no sense. They are telling the designers that the game is boring to them. You cannot contradict that. You may not find it boring, but we do, and we are looking and asking for solutions. This is where we do that.




 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

go ahead, keep up with the insults, we will see how well that helps your argument.

i'm telling you, you are wrong, you seem to be confused as to why though. 

i could care less about the eternal aegis that is your "opinion". i am telling you you are wrong to ask them to change it, because the game will allready accomodate you and your opinion AS IS.



Apparently, you still don't understand the difference between argument and opinion, but it doesn't look like it is any use explaining it to you for a third time, so I won't. Anyway, you are saying that we are wrong to ask them to make the fighter less boring because 'the game will allready [sic] accomodate you and your opinion AS IS.' This is obviously and demonstrably false. I and the OP have pointed out that, AS IS, the fighter is boring to us.

Perhaps you don't understand what "AS IS" means?



and yes, seeing as "my game" IS the encounter sessions that I DM, yes, the players DO come back after they die. I also find it interesting how you think permanent death HAS to be a constant for all DND games ever.



You are running a session of Encounters specifically designed to help new players learn the game; it is a two-hour session designed so anyone can come and play even if they haven't been part of the campaign before. Because this session starts at level 1, you are extrapolating that for all campaigns and all groups, the first few levels are just tutorial levels. I am telling you that this is not a viable inference. The vast majority of campaigns do not allow characters that die in the first few levels to return. In my campaign, the first few levels are not tutorial levels. In most campaigns, the first few levels are not tutorial levels. What about this don't you understand? 

I and many others don't want to have to start our campaigns at level 3 just to make them interesting. The fact that many people did this with 3.5 was a sign that the game mechanics were poorly designed. We are trying to avoid that problem here. 

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

yes, the system will accommodate your opinion, why? because it is simple enough to be modded onto in your playstyle.

all this boils down to is you want to play with your toys, and you don't care if the other kids get to play with theirs.

I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.


You can review the Code here: company.wizards.com/conduct


Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

The Cleric is only obligated to do what their deity tells them to do.  Not to be rude, but your obligatory cleric argument is very close minded.



I don't think my obligation of the cleric theory is close minded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 3rd edition and previous, there was always the possibility of "being stuck playing the cleric". This was a well-known complain of the game, and it was sort of an in-joke of the community that the healer got to do nothing but heal (or that if he did, the rest of the party was pissed.) This isn't something I've made up, this is me bringing up a common complaint of past editions and point out how the situation is going to return when the innovations of 4th edition healing are discarded.

This was the entire reason that 4e made changes to the way healers in a party worked. The independant healing resources and minor-action instead of standard-action cost were specifically designed to give the healer the least amount of hassle required to actually heal. Because it made games more fun for the healer if they didn't feel obligated to spend every possible action and resource healing party members.

Oh, and, not to be rude, but I think I was pretty clear that the "obligation of the cleric" was specifically referring to the player, that would feel obligated to spend actions and resources he could be using to do other cool things to heal instead.

Let me put it this way: I have never ever had a player complain about "being stuck with the Leader role" in 4e. But it was a common complaint in 3.5 and earlier (unless you got the odd player that actually derived most of his or her combat enjoyment from keeping allies alive. More power to those players!).

I'm going to quote Diffan upthread:

I really miss Minor-Action healing. I liked the fact that I could heal a bit AND contribute to battle.

(Emphasis mine)
This was the main point I was trying to get across. All Leader-role classes in 4e are capable of healing and "contributing to battle". And you can say that healing IS contributing to battle and that's fine if you honestly believe so. But you must also recognize that many many players playing healing classes do not feel this way. They feel a strict divide between "passive" actions like healing and "active" actions like attacking monsters and more directly "contributing".
4e fixed this, and regardless of how you feel about the power system and "lack of imagination", you must recognize that "no-action healing" and "seperate healing resource" are one of the better innovations of that edition. They fixed the problem of "obligated healers". (And don't get cute, we're here to give mechanical feedback, I am obviously talking about player dynamics and mechanics here, not roleplay obligations.)

I don't want to go back to the days of having a group come together and go "Wait, we need a healer" and then EVERYONE REFUSING TO BITE THE BULLET because they don't want to be stuck with using most of their actions "just to heal".

And while 4e healers were just as "required", there was much less groaning and gnashing of teeth when it came up that no one picked the leader role, which happened much less in the first place, because "leading" in 4th edition didn't suck up all of your resources and actions like "healing" does in 3e and earlier (and in this playtest.)

These are my personal observations of not just my own players, but also the the WotC forum community during 3e's run.

4E strongly encouraged obligatory roles for each and every class. 

Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker AEDU  powers were baked into supporting those roles. 

No obligatory role is better than one obligatory role, but one obligatory role is better than four.  Unless socialism is the game.



4e strongly DEFINED roles for each class. Whether these were present within the party wasn't an obligation. I'm sure many groups insisted that there be at least one Defender, one Striker, one Leader, and one Controller in every campaign they ever played.

My group found no such restriction, other than "we need healing". Some games we had two Defenders and no Strikers, some games we had two leaders and no Defender. Actually, come to think of it, most of the time we actually rolled with no Controller and a second Striker.

But there's one thing you need to realize about 4e's "obligated roles". The class mechanics that allowed you to fufil the function of these roles was almost ALWAYS hassle-free. What I mean is... Defenders could Mark as, at the very most, a Minor action (and usually Free). They did not have to decide whether they would "contribute" to combat that turn or spend an entire standard action Marking an opponent. Strikers capability of dealing extra damage was either baked directly into their attacks and tactics (Barbarians, Rogues), or required a minimal investitutre of minor or free actions (Warlock, Ranger, Assassin). No class required you to choose between attacking and setting up a big attack (like quarrying, cursing, or shrouding a target).

4e roles defined what your class could do, but actually performing to your definition didn't infringe upon your actions (for the most part; some required minor actions) during combat. This was true for all four roles, including Leader's healing.

I can understand if the restriction of clearly defined roles isn't for you. I felt they helped define what a class is about, but I can also see the appeal in customizability (I once made  3.5 Fighter that was specifically geared to be a better archer than any ranger could hope to be.) That's all well and good.

I'm fine with dropping roles for a more loose and customizable class architecture like back in 3e.

But we all still need healers. So we still need that clearly defined role. Why should we automatically drop the innovations of 4e that made fufilling your party role, even if there is now only one clearly defined role, not an obligation?

Let me ask you, do you feel like giving the DDN Cleric a seperate healing resource (Like a class ability that says "Every cleric begins the day able to Cure Light Wounds twice." that is completely seperate from spellcating and Channel Divinity) and making that ability an inconsequential action to use, do you feel like doing that would make the game LESS FUN for the cleric, or more?

Do you feel like it would be "unbalancing"? Vs. what? The Wizard, who's spells are more directly offensive and utilitarian anyway? The Fighter and Rogue, who's basic attacks and opportunity to Sneak Attack outstrip the Cleric in damage and offensive capability already?

If it's not unbalancing, then what's your reason for not wanting it? Because it's "too easy"? Because clerics should "work" to fufil their role? Because every cleric everywhere should just be happy he has the ability to heal at all and be thankful for it, even if he happens to be the player "stuck" with playing the healer because he was pressured into it or maybe even just volunteered, because no one else wanted to do it?
Planes Wanderer
I really miss Minor-Action healing. I liked the fact that I could heal a bit AND contribute to battle. But the DDN cleric feels very limited. I understand that it's the Beta and that not all options are presented but I think they need some healing outside their spell lists.

Healing word does that 1d6 + an attack.

The other cleric heals 1d8+Wis, but can't attack.

Healing in general is pretty limited compaired to 4e.  But things do less damage, so you don't need it as much.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.