What I'm afraid of losing in Next, and a way to prevent it.

Let's get this out of the way: I love 4e. To me it was a straight upgrade to the chaos of 3.5, and flat-out superior to every other rpg on the market.

There's a very simple reason why, and it's exactly what I'm afraid of losing in DNDN.
I think it can be shown most clearly with a small example:
--------
"Bowed but unbroken, the Four-Examplars faced down the orcish horde. Smandalf the Unoriginal strikes his staff, causing a blade of energy distorts the air and crashes into the front ranks, whilst Brunhild von Chestilass blurs into motion, spearing 5 in the blink of an eye, before returning to her previous position.
Seeing a weakness in the swarm, Mighty Samular, resplendent in his Platemail, smashes his hammer into the ground, causing the ground to crack and yet more orcs to stagger right into the waiting sights of Khopi-Wraiht the Dragonborn, who with a shout of "Dhon-Tzu-Mie!" wipes out the remaining stragglers."
--------
Or in other words, four wizards cast thunderwave.

Yes, 4e is extrmemly codified, but that's what made it so wonderful for roleplaying - refluffing a spell, or character, or entire race could be done in an instand with no mechanical changes necessary, because the fluff was clearly seperated from mechanics. A spell could become an axeblow with nary a thought.

To put it another way, I'm terrified that in DNDN I'll be forced into playing what the developers think my character should be like instead of what I think they should be like.

When I see things like "wizards can't wear armour", or having spell effects mixed in with the spell's description, or having spells require jazzhands and jibberjabber, my fears are exacerbated.
Now, I understand this is basically an early alpha, and we're probably not even seeing all the rules, but I feel this really should be stated out loud,


An easy way to counter many of my problems has already been touched upon in a DNDN Blog Article about in Feats.
Or rather "Traits".
These would be minor abilities, like "get a new skill", armour proficiency, or situational bonuses like "+1 damage vs orcs" or reduced falling damage: basically anything that would be a trap choice in 4e.
You'd get one each level, 2 at first, simply to represent the little quirks which make a character special. Getting lots is important, as they would help prevent dead-levels and better represent the individual abilities the character gains through his/Her specific adventures. If power is an issue, it's better to have more weak ones than a few large.

Another good option would have these abilities be purchasable, essentially taking the place magic items had in 4e and 3.5, allowing character-definition without effecting the magic-level of the setting. It'd also deal with the problem of needing something to spend treasure on.
You will fear my Laser Face!
That's a good point. I also really liked how 4e was easy to reflavour. I had a necromancer who was a reflavoured shaman.
Pathfinder players, and D&D Next, don't want you to play "your" game, they want you to play "their" game.

One play style to rule them all. It's a shame, but the Playtest material showed a single play style being the core focus, and oddly enough it was more combat heavy than 4E. This surprised me, but it was the case.

I think you can give up on the idea of telling a story in D&D Next that doesn't fit their paradigm, similar to 3.x. Any ability you want to give to an npc for the story has to be available to the pcs, because the rules say so. This means the enemies need to be balanced around being long term characters, which removes flair and embellishment. Also the DM prep work is going way up.

I hope Mearls and co can turn this around. 
My thoughts on what works and what doesn't in D&D and how D&D Next may benefit are detailed on my blog, Vorpal Thoughts.
I'm disappointed. I came here expecting something I could disagree with, and I find something that extrapolates my thoughts perfectly.

-spells require jazzhands and jibberjabber-


Official rule at my table now. If I don't see jazzhands then your spell fails. Jibberjabber is optional, but I'll give a bonus to attack rolls.
The flip side of this is to argue that dissociated mechanics like in 4e give players the impression that the details they give to their characters and actions don't matter, because they're just going to disappear in the translation to the game rules.  Some people want four very different combat maneuvers like you described to function in ways that reflect their differences.  Attacking with a spear?  Shouldn't armor come into play against that one?  Smashing the ground?  What if the target is flying?  And so on.

Don't get me wrong, refluffing is awesome.  I refluff the hell out of stuff in every edition I play.  But if refluffing sometimes runs into minor mechanical consequences, I don't think, "Oh, wow, I wish the rules were more dissociated from the reality they're supposed to describe."  I bring it up with my DM, and we work it out.  DMs in 5e should be encouraged to be very open to these sorts of proposals, taught that the rule of thumb is "say yes".  That's how to promote and support refluffing.  Not by dissociating the rules.
Yes, 4e is extrmemly codified, but that's what made it so wonderful for roleplaying - refluffing a spell, or character, or entire race could be done in an instand with no mechanical changes necessary, because the fluff was clearly seperated from mechanics. A spell could become an axeblow with nary a thought.



It's not hard to understand why you like refluffing, but 4E didn't invent it. 

If all you want is to wear armor without it changing your character's mechanics, have at it. That's never been a problem. You can describe your magic missile anyway you want, but the mechanics are the same. If you want to describe your longbow show as an arcing arcane blast I, as a DM, would never get in the way of that. In fact, thanks to the magic of refluffing and some good bluff checks, I have been known to play a stage magician character in a 2E/3.5 game that no one ever knew was anything other than a legitimate spellcaster.My issues with 4E are that it took the focus on refluffing and balance so far that it precluded other play styles/feels that I prefer. 

Shane 
Help make Combat Mastery happen: If you like the idea of Combat Mastery, as outlined below, for fighters copy it onto your signature and add interesting combat maneuvers to the list. Two new examples could be throat punch or spit in eye. Combat Mastery: When a Fighter performs combat maneuvers such as bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, pick up kobold by the neck, etc, the minimum die result is 10. Fighter Combat Maneuvers: On a given round the fighter can bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, etc, in place of his/her move action. This is a nonattack action that might cause the fighter's opponent to be rendered prone, unarmed, blind for a round, etc, or otherwise grant the fighter advantage or his/her opponent disadvantage as the Fighter sees fit.
Pathfinder players, and D&D Next, don't want you to play "your" game, they want you to play "their" game.



I am sorry sir, but it's hard to imagine you being more mistaken. I am a Pathfinder/3.5 player and am well aquainted with many others. There are no gamers that I associate with that want to force you to play our game. More than anything else we are hoping the game ends up being one that we can all enjoy.

Shane

Help make Combat Mastery happen: If you like the idea of Combat Mastery, as outlined below, for fighters copy it onto your signature and add interesting combat maneuvers to the list. Two new examples could be throat punch or spit in eye. Combat Mastery: When a Fighter performs combat maneuvers such as bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, pick up kobold by the neck, etc, the minimum die result is 10. Fighter Combat Maneuvers: On a given round the fighter can bull rush, disarm, sunder, trip, hip toss, eye poke, ball kick, hair drag, blind with sand, slide down banister, swing on chandalier, walk on barrel, use enemy as shield, interpose self in front of arrow trying to kill wizard, intimidate, etc, in place of his/her move action. This is a nonattack action that might cause the fighter's opponent to be rendered prone, unarmed, blind for a round, etc, or otherwise grant the fighter advantage or his/her opponent disadvantage as the Fighter sees fit.
Refluffing is the base of almost all my charecters. I LOVE IT. Other Eds had specific mechanics tied to each spell that made it much harder. Please, include refluffing as a core mod.




 
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
Refluffing is the base of almost all my charecters. I LOVE IT. Other Eds had specific mechanics tied to each spell that made it much harder. Please, include refluffing as a core mod.




 



I disagree.  Re-fluffing of spells with mechanics was fairly easy.  You just had to come up with fluff that matched the mechanics.
But if refluffing sometimes runs into minor mechanical consequences, I don't think, "Oh, wow, I wish the rules were more dissociated from the reality they're supposed to describe."  I bring it up with my DM, and we work it out.

On the flip side of this, I don't have to talk with my DM at all when I want to refluff something in 4th edition, because it has no mechanical bearing on the game. This saves valuable time that would otherwise be spent in negotiation with the DM. Even a quick "I'd like to reflavor X as Y." with the DM just saying "Cool" can turn the tension of the moment on its head.

DMs in 5e should be encouraged to be very open to these sorts of proposals, taught that the rule of thumb is "say yes".  That's how to promote and support refluffing.  Not by dissociating the rules.


That's a way to promote and support refluffing, but I like disassociated rules. I see no issue at all with powers, outside the fact that a number of people dislike them. So I contend that it is an equally valid method, even if it shouldn't be the sole method.
On the flip side of this, I don't have to talk with my DM at all when I want to refluff something in 4th edition, because it has no mechanical bearing on the game. This saves valuable time that would otherwise be spent in negotiation with the DM. Even a quick "I'd like to reflavor X as Y." with the DM just saying "Cool" can turn the tension of the moment on its head.


I can tell you right now that my last 4e DM would not have been pleased if I'd tried to refluff something without running it by him, even if it had no mechanical consequences.  What you're describing is clearly not just a problem of editions with less dissociated mechanics, and the solution in both cases is better DM education.

That's a way to promote and support refluffing, but I like disassociated rules.


Is there an affirmative reason you like dissociated rules, or do you like dissociated rules because they make this other thing easier?  And if the latter, then would you accept another method of making this other thing easier, like for example better DM education?
I can tell you right now that my last 4e DM would not have been pleased if I'd tried to refluff something without running it by him, even if it had no mechanical consequences.  What you're describing is clearly not just a problem of editions with less dissociated mechanics, and the solution in both cases is better DM education.

Fair enough. I don't see what benefit associated mechanics have over dissociated mechanics though. Except for verisimilitude, but having to deal with other people's verisimilitude is exceedingly frustrating for me.

Is there an affirmative reason you like dissociated rules, or do you like dissociated rules because they make this other thing easier?  And if the latter, then would you accept another method of making this other thing easier, like for example better DM education?


I have no concrete reasoning at the moment. I like 4th mechanics because they work great, but I cannot articulate why I would prefer them over associated rules except that earlier implementations were horrible (to my taste).
Fair enough. I don't see what benefit associated mechanics have over dissociated mechanics though. Except for verisimilitude, but having to deal with other people's verisimilitude is exceedingly frustrating for me.

I have no concrete reasoning at the moment. I like 4th mechanics because they work great, but I cannot articulate why I would prefer them over associated rules except that earlier implementations were horrible (to my taste).


Here is a starting point for thinking about them from the man who coined the term.
Let's get this out of the way: I love 4e. To me it was a straight upgrade to the chaos of 3.5, and flat-out superior to every other rpg on the market.

There's a very simple reason why, and it's exactly what I'm afraid of losing in DNDN.
I think it can be shown most clearly with a small example:
--------
"Bowed but unbroken, the Four-Examplars faced down the orcish horde. Smandalf the Unoriginal strikes his staff, causing a blade of energy distorts the air and crashes into the front ranks, whilst Brunhild von Chestilass blurs into motion, spearing 5 in the blink of an eye, before returning to her previous position.
Seeing a weakness in the swarm, Mighty Samular, resplendent in his Platemail, smashes his hammer into the ground, causing the ground to crack and yet more orcs to stagger right into the waiting sights of Khopi-Wraiht the Dragonborn, who with a shout of "Dhon-Tzu-Mie!" wipes out the remaining stragglers."
--------
Or in other words, four wizards cast thunderwave.

Yes, 4e is extrmemly codified, but that's what made it so wonderful for roleplaying - refluffing a spell, or character, or entire race could be done in an instand with no mechanical changes necessary, because the fluff was clearly seperated from mechanics. A spell could become an axeblow with nary a thought.

To put it another way, I'm terrified that in DNDN I'll be forced into playing what the developers think my character should be like instead of what I think they should be like.

When I see things like "wizards can't wear armour", or having spell effects mixed in with the spell's description, or having spells require jazzhands and jibberjabber, my fears are exacerbated.
Now, I understand this is basically an early alpha, and we're probably not even seeing all the rules, but I feel this really should be stated out loud,


An easy way to counter many of my problems has already been touched upon in a DNDN Blog Article about in Feats.
Or rather "Traits".
These would be minor abilities, like "get a new skill", armour proficiency, or situational bonuses like "+1 damage vs orcs" or reduced falling damage: basically anything that would be a trap choice in 4e.
You'd get one each level, 2 at first, simply to represent the little quirks which make a character special. Getting lots is important, as they would help prevent dead-levels and better represent the individual abilities the character gains through his/Her specific adventures. If power is an issue, it's better to have more weak ones than a few large.

Another good option would have these abilities be purchasable, essentially taking the place magic items had in 4e and 3.5, allowing character-definition without effecting the magic-level of the setting. It'd also deal with the problem of needing something to spend treasure on.

You didn't take the very last step, they ARE treasure. You just described 'boons' as I was explaining them a few weeks ago. lol. Like 4e items they each have a specific level based cost. You could get either gold or these boons, or some of them you can purchase later, basically they are entirely given out by the story. DMs can always modify the default amount of treasure to tweak how many people can afford, and you can always give one out and call it an item, it doesn't matter.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
The flip side of this is to argue that dissociated mechanics like in 4e give players the impression that the details they give to their characters and actions don't matter, because they're just going to disappear in the translation to the game rules.  Some people want four very different combat maneuvers like you described to function in ways that reflect their differences.  Attacking with a spear?  Shouldn't armor come into play against that one?  Smashing the ground?  What if the target is flying?  And so on.

Don't get me wrong, refluffing is awesome.  I refluff the hell out of stuff in every edition I play.  But if refluffing sometimes runs into minor mechanical consequences, I don't think, "Oh, wow, I wish the rules were more dissociated from the reality they're supposed to describe."  I bring it up with my DM, and we work it out.  DMs in 5e should be encouraged to be very open to these sorts of proposals, taught that the rule of thumb is "say yes".  That's how to promote and support refluffing.  Not by dissociating the rules.

But how much less I have to work with. It is much harder to refluff some combat maneuver into a magical effect from your god than if you can just actually say swap a power out with another class or something. I like being able to do that. Instead of a class being a little isolated thing playing its own game, instead they can all share each other's stuff. The DM just gets to decide how.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
But how much less I have to work with. It is much harder to refluff some combat maneuver into a magical effect from your god than if you can just actually say swap a power out with another class or something. I like being able to do that. Instead of a class being a little isolated thing playing its own game, instead they can all share each other's stuff. The DM just gets to decide how.


If you have your DM's permission, why on earth couldn't you swap out one class' ability for another?  You don't need to be in 4e to do that.

(And I find it ironic that you tout how 4e classes can share each other's stuff when 4e is the first edition with completely separate power lists.)
On the flip side of this, I don't have to talk with my DM at all when I want to refluff something in 4th edition, because it has no mechanical bearing on the game. This saves valuable time that would otherwise be spent in negotiation with the DM. Even a quick "I'd like to reflavor X as Y." with the DM just saying "Cool" can turn the tension of the moment on its head.


I can tell you right now that my last 4e DM would not have been pleased if I'd tried to refluff something without running it by him, even if it had no mechanical consequences.  What you're describing is clearly not just a problem of editions with less dissociated mechanics, and the solution in both cases is better DM education.

That's a way to promote and support refluffing, but I like disassociated rules.


Is there an affirmative reason you like dissociated rules, or do you like dissociated rules because they make this other thing easier?  And if the latter, then would you accept another method of making this other thing easier, like for example better DM education?

It has nothing to do with DM education. It has to do with sheer flexbility and ease of use. Because every class describes its abilities in a common way they can all be interchanged with each other or described in easily in many ways. I can just plain do what I want to do much easier if I don't have to try to armtwist one thing into another. I mean, really how many spells will translate easily? Some few direct damage ones, maybe a few others, many, maybe most won't easily, and how would I say attach a spell to another different character of another class? It is just messier. 4e is made of reusable parts.

The whole "I want it to have mechanical impact" has two answers BTW. 1st it is just a matter of perspective, why is your way of describing something not the 'right' way that the mecahnics perfectly describe? If you want to lob hand grenades and call them 'fireball' then that's what it is, a handgrenade. And if you want to say "hand grenades work under water but fireballs don't" well, that's fine, no big deal. I for one have never understood where people got the notion that 4e didn't allow you to do that. It is just a game, you use the rules how you want.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Let's get this out of the way: I love 4e. To me it was a straight upgrade to the chaos of 3.5, and flat-out superior to every other rpg on the market.

There's a very simple reason why, and it's exactly what I'm afraid of losing in DNDN.
I think it can be shown most clearly with a small example:
--------
"Bowed but unbroken, the Four-Examplars faced down the orcish horde. Smandalf the Unoriginal strikes his staff, causing a blade of energy distorts the air and crashes into the front ranks, whilst Brunhild von Chestilass blurs into motion, spearing 5 in the blink of an eye, before returning to her previous position.
Seeing a weakness in the swarm, Mighty Samular, resplendent in his Platemail, smashes his hammer into the ground, causing the ground to crack and yet more orcs to stagger right into the waiting sights of Khopi-Wraiht the Dragonborn, who with a shout of "Dhon-Tzu-Mie!" wipes out the remaining stragglers."
--------
Or in other words, four wizards cast thunderwave.

Yes, 4e is extrmemly codified, but that's what made it so wonderful for roleplaying - refluffing a spell, or character, or entire race could be done in an instand with no mechanical changes necessary, because the fluff was clearly seperated from mechanics. A spell could become an axeblow with nary a thought.

To put it another way, I'm terrified that in DNDN I'll be forced into playing what the developers think my character should be like instead of what I think they should be like.

When I see things like "wizards can't wear armour", or having spell effects mixed in with the spell's description, or having spells require jazzhands and jibberjabber, my fears are exacerbated.
Now, I understand this is basically an early alpha, and we're probably not even seeing all the rules, but I feel this really should be stated out loud,


An easy way to counter many of my problems has already been touched upon in a DNDN Blog Article about in Feats.
Or rather "Traits".
These would be minor abilities, like "get a new skill", armour proficiency, or situational bonuses like "+1 damage vs orcs" or reduced falling damage: basically anything that would be a trap choice in 4e.
You'd get one each level, 2 at first, simply to represent the little quirks which make a character special. Getting lots is important, as they would help prevent dead-levels and better represent the individual abilities the character gains through his/Her specific adventures. If power is an issue, it's better to have more weak ones than a few large.

Another good option would have these abilities be purchasable, essentially taking the place magic items had in 4e and 3.5, allowing character-definition without effecting the magic-level of the setting. It'd also deal with the problem of needing something to spend treasure on.



Yep, I agree with most of this. I don't think 4E was all straight upgrade, but you're dead on about the refluffing thing. I think you'd probably really like my post in the feedback thread as I address this, focusing on the "feel" of 5E -

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

About 3/4 of the way down I talk about my Bard for a bit and how she wouldn't work in D&D5E.

I loved 4E a lot more recently when I saw how much of a black box it could be. it really is a wonderful system with regards that, and minor houseruling can be done to taste without major impact as well. 
But how much less I have to work with. It is much harder to refluff some combat maneuver into a magical effect from your god than if you can just actually say swap a power out with another class or something. I like being able to do that. Instead of a class being a little isolated thing playing its own game, instead they can all share each other's stuff. The DM just gets to decide how.


If you have your DM's permission, why on earth couldn't you swap out one class' ability for another?  You don't need to be in 4e to do that.

(And I find it ironic that you tout how 4e classes can share each other's stuff when 4e is the first edition with completely separate power lists.)

They are already shared by many classes. Sometimes they're called builds, but the witch would be a class in any other system. I don't think 4e is even the best way to do it, but it does work. I want to see it taken to the next level.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Let's get this out of the way: I love 4e. To me it was a straight upgrade to the chaos of 3.5, and flat-out superior to every other rpg on the market.

There's a very simple reason why, and it's exactly what I'm afraid of losing in DNDN.
I think it can be shown most clearly with a small example:
--------
"Bowed but unbroken, the Four-Examplars faced down the orcish horde. Smandalf the Unoriginal strikes his staff, causing a blade of energy distorts the air and crashes into the front ranks, whilst Brunhild von Chestilass blurs into motion, spearing 5 in the blink of an eye, before returning to her previous position.
Seeing a weakness in the swarm, Mighty Samular, resplendent in his Platemail, smashes his hammer into the ground, causing the ground to crack and yet more orcs to stagger right into the waiting sights of Khopi-Wraiht the Dragonborn, who with a shout of "Dhon-Tzu-Mie!" wipes out the remaining stragglers."
--------
Or in other words, four wizards cast thunderwave.

Yes, 4e is extrmemly codified, but that's what made it so wonderful for roleplaying - refluffing a spell, or character, or entire race could be done in an instand with no mechanical changes necessary, because the fluff was clearly seperated from mechanics. A spell could become an axeblow with nary a thought.

To put it another way, I'm terrified that in DNDN I'll be forced into playing what the developers think my character should be like instead of what I think they should be like.

When I see things like "wizards can't wear armour", or having spell effects mixed in with the spell's description, or having spells require jazzhands and jibberjabber, my fears are exacerbated.
Now, I understand this is basically an early alpha, and we're probably not even seeing all the rules, but I feel this really should be stated out loud,


An easy way to counter many of my problems has already been touched upon in a DNDN Blog Article about in Feats.
Or rather "Traits".
These would be minor abilities, like "get a new skill", armour proficiency, or situational bonuses like "+1 damage vs orcs" or reduced falling damage: basically anything that would be a trap choice in 4e.
You'd get one each level, 2 at first, simply to represent the little quirks which make a character special. Getting lots is important, as they would help prevent dead-levels and better represent the individual abilities the character gains through his/Her specific adventures. If power is an issue, it's better to have more weak ones than a few large.

Another good option would have these abilities be purchasable, essentially taking the place magic items had in 4e and 3.5, allowing character-definition without effecting the magic-level of the setting. It'd also deal with the problem of needing something to spend treasure on.



Yep, I agree with most of this. I don't think 4E was all straight upgrade, but you're dead on about the refluffing thing. I think you'd probably really like my post in the feedback thread as I address this, focusing on the "feel" of 5E -

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

About 3/4 of the way down I talk about my Bard for a bit and how she wouldn't work in D&D5E.

I loved 4E a lot more recently when I saw how much of a black box it could be. it really is a wonderful system with regards that, and minor houseruling can be done to taste without major impact as well. 

Right, now take that system, speed up combat, make things a bit simpler all around, give pools of powers to each source and use scalable powers instead of replacement powers, 20 levels instead of 30, you get rid of a LOT of power glut and you have your nice highly refluffable system.

@TheCosmicKid
It is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to swap out a level 5 daily power of one class for one of another class than it is to try to figure out how to swap a class ability that increments at higher levels or something for a vancian spell or something. That doesn't often work. Look at the things that were done in 4e that could never be done in 5e as it stands now, like Skill Powers.

Lets not kid ourselves about how much would be left on the table by the currently proposed 5e design. A lot of it is VERY good, and a lot of it is a real loss. As it is now any '4e-like' kind of module will almost have to be a different game. Especially since it seems to me that most people who want say Vancian casting also want AD&D style healing or something close to it. How much is really going to be common between those systems? Some things, but enough?
That is not dead which may eternal lie
It has nothing to do with DM education. It has to do with sheer flexbility and ease of use. Because every class describes its abilities in a common way they can all be interchanged with each other or described in easily in many ways. I can just plain do what I want to do much easier if I don't have to try to armtwist one thing into another. I mean, really how many spells will translate easily? Some few direct damage ones, maybe a few others, many, maybe most won't easily, and how would I say attach a spell to another different character of another class? It is just messier. 4e is made of reusable parts.


Cheap, mass-produced parts.

Sorry, couldn't pass up the easy shot.  Honestly, though, I don't understand where you see the difficulty in swapping class abilities.  3e PrCs do it officially all the time - how many PrC features have you seen that say something like "This works like a fireball spell, except..."

And if you want to say "hand grenades work under water but fireballs don't" well, that's fine, no big deal.


I think that's fine.  But then you're calling for the DM to go beyond the rules to make an arbitrary call.  Some players understandably don't like it when all the rules say is "5d6 fire damage" and the DM decides "You can't cast it underwater" in spite of that.  But if the rules had said "You can't cast fireball underwater, because it's a magical ball of fire", and in refluffing it into a hand grenade you said, "This line doesn't make sense for my refluffed ability, can I change it?", then the DM is making exactly the same call, just with less DM fiat in the base rules.

Yes, I'm arguing that 4e uses too much DM fiat.
It has nothing to do with DM education. It has to do with sheer flexbility and ease of use. Because every class describes its abilities in a common way they can all be interchanged with each other or described in easily in many ways. I can just plain do what I want to do much easier if I don't have to try to armtwist one thing into another. I mean, really how many spells will translate easily? Some few direct damage ones, maybe a few others, many, maybe most won't easily, and how would I say attach a spell to another different character of another class? It is just messier. 4e is made of reusable parts.


Cheap, mass-produced parts.

Sorry, couldn't pass up the easy shot.  Honestly, though, I don't understand where you see the difficulty in swapping class abilities.  3e PrCs do it officially all the time - how many PrC features have you seen that say something like "This works like a fireball spell, except..."

And if you want to say "hand grenades work under water but fireballs don't" well, that's fine, no big deal.


I think that's fine.  But then you're calling for the DM to go beyond the rules to make an arbitrary call.  Some players understandably don't like it when all the rules say is "5d6 fire damage" and the DM decides "You can't cast it underwater" in spite of that.  But if the rules had said "You can't cast fireball underwater, because it's a magical ball of fire", and in refluffing it into a hand grenade you said, "This line doesn't make sense for my refluffed ability, can I change it?", then the DM is making exactly the same call, just with less DM fiat in the base rules.

Yes, I'm arguing that 4e uses too much DM fiat.

lol, OK... whatever. I've never ever ever seen this supposed player dislike of nerfing their underwater fireballls. The fact of the matter is if the players REALLY want to play a game like that, why should the rules be stopping them? Oh, you can always ignore things, but you can also just as easily do what makes a cool story. If you cannot sell that to your players then no amount of other rules is going to make those players care about any kind of 'verisimilitude' or whatever you want to call it. In any case go back to the original D&D rules, nothing like this was spelled out. It was fine. Everyone could figure out for themselves what was cool. I don't need a game designer mommy telling me. ;)

(yes, that's getting a little hyperbolic, but it is also pretty much the truth as I see it).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I'm sympathetic to the reflavorers.  But here is why it's going to be ok...

1.  We are getting the full mechanical "system" that WOTC uses to design their powers/spells/feats etc.. So if it appears difficult to reflavor a specific power due to flavor text, you can just build one nearly as quickly as you could reflavor it.

2.  Flavor text makes a game a lot more palatable to a lot of people.  I think systems vastly inferior to D&D have done well purely on their flavor.  I'm sure people using those systems would claim the system is good I guess but I think they are crazy.  So it would be a good idea to make things flavorful.  But given that I'm not against making it easy to reflavor if a way can be found.  I'm hoping #1 will go a long way for that.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

[ In fact, thanks to the magic of refluffing and some good bluff checks, I have been known to play a stage magician character in a 2E/3.5 game that no one ever knew was anything other than a legitimate spellcaster.




??  So you... tricked people into thinking you were exactly what you were?
[ In fact, thanks to the magic of refluffing and some good bluff checks, I have been known to play a stage magician character in a 2E/3.5 game that no one ever knew was anything other than a legitimate spellcaster.



??  So you... tricked people into thinking you were exactly what you were?


New prestige class idea:  Zen Charlatan.
[ Look at the things that were done in 4e that could never be done in 5e as it stands now, like Skill Powers.



Funny, the 1st thing that pops into my mind is: Create characters....


...Brunhild von Chestilass...


While I disagree vehemently with almost everything you said, and I hate 4th edition with a fiery, soul-consuming passion...

...that is the most amusing comical character name I've read in a while, and you totally win on that alone...

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

Refluffing is the base of almost all my charecters. I LOVE IT. Other Eds had specific mechanics tied to each spell that made it much harder. Please, include refluffing as a core mod.




 


Fluff is not mechanics, it is the discriptors attached to the mechanics. The die rolls do not change just the appearence of the mechanics after the roll. 
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
Yes, I'm arguing that 4e uses too much DM fiat.

I don't think a game could ever require too little DM fiat.  

The DM can always change the game.  Always.  Even if the game says right on the cover "WARNING: Do not change these rules when your run this game!  We will sue you!"  

DM fiat is the backstop that every game has.  If a game is a high wire, DM fiat is the net.  5e is looking like a high-wire act that just uses the net.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I am skipping over everything. I already know what I am afraid of losing in DNDN. I am afraid of losing the fairness of 4th edition. I'm afraid of losing the options of 3/3.5. I'm kind of afraid of getting back THAC0 (although they are calling it something else). 

I'm hoping that they will do it right. I've played second. Third. 3.5. Fourth. All are good in their own way. I still play 3, 3.5 and 4. (there are reasons that when we upgraded from second we never went back) I fear that "unification" will result in a game that is virtually unplayable.  
When your opponent says "whatever" you have won
Sign In to post comments