Uniting Editions, Vancian Fatigue POints, 3 Pillars, Survey Nostalgia

EDIT: this post has now become 3 Separate threads

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/....









Uniting Editions, Vancian Fatigue POints, 3 Pillars, Survey Nostalgia


Otherwise known as what I typed as comments for the last playtest survey sans 7 words (limit is 500 "):





I believe in the dream of uniting all editions.  I believe in starting simple and adding on modularity for complexity.  I like vancian casting.  But as I've brought many "newbies" to the game,  vancian is NOT simple.  For the Core Four Classes, we need a simple: mage, fighter, cleric, and rogue.  Why? Turn the future of this hobby away, there won't be a future.  We all want a future for this hobby.  Balance each class Equally across all pillars!  Since in general consensus the fighter comes up the most often i'll use the Ftr as an example: yes we know fighters can fight - check we have combat down, but they can also lead; countless examples are in history and stories, myths and legends - bam - social pillar.  Fighters have also been known to lead  troops on campaigns exploring as well as sometimes conquering the 4 corners of the earth - exploration.



  Also, for the example of making fighters more complex in a module, in league with  vancian casters, and not AEDU (I like it, the general consensus seems not to) is to use an already existing system - psionics.  Monks called upon hidden resserves to do amazing stunts, why  not fighters?  Once again history/myth already shows us this.  As a slight tweek with the 4E Psionics rules, make them endurance or fatigue points instead of PSPs.  Novels are replete with  the idea that fighters/warriors/etc, can get tired.  Do away with per encounter/daily powers and just have a finite amount of points they can use per level.  If the Ftr spends enough points to  use it once and get tired out or use a bunch in short bursts, that's the Ftr's perogative while at the same time being more realistic.



Saves... nostalgia. Maybe have saves work like this.  The snake attacks against the PC's AC or DEX score (with "flater math" DEX would be the DC) does normal bite damage and then the PC makes a CON  save to see how virulent it is. The Mage rolls to hit the Goblins WIS, beats the Score/DC and the Goblin is Charmed.  Then, said goblin makes a WIS save to see how long, hours, days,  weeks, etc.  This serves two purposes: 1) Mage still has fun rolling to hit, 2) The Nostalgia of Saves is still kept AND it fits mechanically as well as story wise. 



Please simplify things for DMs too.  DM's shouldnt have to  flip back and forth between the MM, CC, whatever you decide to call it and the premade adventure, that's one of the reasons people would be paying you for the adventure.   



All in all i like the theory  behind DDN so far, just not the implementation.  I'd like not to have to, "sell the game" to my friends.  As it stands right now, that's what I'm doing.

Personally, what I am seeing right now is them compromising on everything until we all hate it, or until half of the book is banned at every table.

I'm already envisioning it:

(DM) Want to play some D&D Next?
(Player) I dunno... what version are you playing?
(DM) 5.4.NoVance.GritHeal.AllAEDU.AdvRuleMod.
(Player) Sorry man, I only play 5.35.OnlyVance.GritHeal.BanAEDU.AdvRuleMod.

I'm really hoping that this is not the path this "modularity" is taking.

Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
I agree with many of your points, and I am conflicted on the selling to one's friends part.

On one side of the coin, one has to sell the game to their friends every time a new version comes out.  The reason is simple:  Presumably they are playing something they already like, so they are going to need an incentive to make the switch.

Then there are cases like my group which is the other side.  My group is sold on Pathfinder.  I am not such a huge fan, I like it, but as DM, it drives me nuts.  The fact is, they are skeptical about 5e despite all the issues the PF/3e system has.  Myself and one other are optimistic about 5e, the others aren't so much yet.  5e will have to sell itself, for I can't sell it for WotC.
@atmaweapon, I hope that doesnt happen :[


@kishri, glad u agreed with most of my points  
Sorry for the confusion on the selling point, what i mean by this is that i had to sell my friends on even trying to playtest DDN. I had them look at the character sheets to pick a PC and they all called it quits.  I had to pretty much beg them to give it a try and "sell it" to 'em.  Even after we playtested they all said they will not go back to 5E unless it changed drastically.  They didnt even sight examples, and I dont blame them.  And this was my 4E group that uses a 4E chassis and adds 3.5 crit cards, 1E hirelings, 2E magic item tables, and BECMI overland movement rules to say the least.  I also play in a mostly 1E slightly 2E (for some classes) and throw in the Perception Stat game.  All they did was read forum posts and say no.  These are ppl that played OE, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E and started over again.  We rotae DM's and editions.  Noone ever had to "sell" another on an edition like this before.


I'm the optimistic one believing this could work.  My friends that play are all usually pretty open.  It's just from the "friends and family" playtest reports and character sheet photos and the hype leading up to the "public playtest", most of us felt, "let down"   I can't really blame them in this regard.


I honestly hope WotC changes not only our perception on this but the reality of the matter soon.  Granted, "the people we know playing D&D" aren't WotC's total demographic, but reading these boards it seems liek many folks have similar issues.


I'm hoping either people like my examples or at least use it as a springboard for their own.            
@Talaeden  I hear you.  I went through that with 4e.  My group is a staunch 2e/3e/PF crowd.  In fact, myself, and my 4e loving friend failed utterly to sell the game to them to the point I have yet to experience a 4e campaign.

I think 5e has a chance, but people have to be willing to give it a chance.  I applaud WotC for giving us the opportunity to play test and get a sneak peak at DDN.  There is a danger in this concession they have given us, however, in that many folks might develop negative opinions about a product that is not complete.  This issue can make selling the game much more difficult if those negative impressions prevail at release.  I have seen this happen multiple times in MMO betas and such.  Even if the final product is awesome, the negative press garnered during the play test phase could really put a damper on the game.

Like you, I have optimism for 5e, and I have adapted a "wait and see" attitude until I have an actual final copy of the game in my hands.
BASH Fantasy, while more of a rules lite game, does something like "fatigue points" you suggest for fighers. All characters have Energy which can be used to fuel spells, use fatiguing combat moves - whatever a particular character is built to do - as well as things like general endurance related stuff. So it's possible to use fatigue points as a universal resource management scheme, but you could certainly also do it as a module that the party's fighter could use, while the rogue uses AEDU and the mage is old school Vancian, etc. Really any combination would be possible, but fatigue points do work nicely as a limit on special combat maneuvers.
Children believe what we tell them, they have complete faith in us. I ask of you a little of this childlike simplicity, and to bring us luck, let me speak four truly magic words: "A long time ago...." (Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast) Winner of You Build the Character #12, YbtC #22, YbtC #24, YbtC #28 and YbtC #35 Winner of You Make the... Contest #8
@ Kishri: Nice to be heard1 Sorry u had to go through this too, i wouldnt wish it on anyone!  Here's hoping things get better!



@fairytalejedi: exactly!  Each of the Four Core would be balanced in power yet have different mechanics that DON'T break verisimulitude (sp?).  They'd also have unique Class Features. 


Mage = Vancian = Fire and Forget


Fighter = Manuevers = fight until you collapse from exhaustion


Cleric = Channel Divinity = pray and thou shalt recieve depending on deity


Rogue = Tricks based on Stat Specialization? I'm still a lil' foggy on this one but maybe DEX Rogue is like Disney's Aladdin evading the town guard in the opening seen, INT Rogue is like a master thief casing a vault to plan out the play (think Ocean's 11), while a CHA Rogue is like Bilbo Baggins sweet talking his way past Smaug the red dragon.
Personally, what I am seeing right now is them compromising on everything until we all hate it, or until half of the book is banned at every table.

I'm already envisioning it:

(DM) Want to play some D&D Next?
(Player) I dunno... what version are you playing?
(DM) 5.4.NoVance.GritHeal.AllAEDU.AdvRuleMod.
(Player) Sorry man, I only play 5.35.OnlyVance.GritHeal.BanAEDU.AdvRuleMod.

I'm really hoping that this is not the path this "modularity" is taking.




Vance/NoVance and AEDU/BanAEDU would both be player level options- thats been mentioned as a design goal.  So a Vancinan player can sit beside an AEDU player and play in the same game.

Grit Heal is the only really binary thing there- but that definately could be one way or another.  If a DM wants to ban a players favorite option- he better have a damn good reason or he doesn't deserve that player.  I think once we see modules we'll see how they're implemented.  I plan on hosting a VT game with the next playtest.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
@Talaeden_Denthiir

Totally agree that the game should be simple at its core.  The mage concept is a good one.  Although it remains to be seen how many options come in the first book- I'd like to see a single core book, with a players handbook add options (like vancian wizard and complex fighter)- instead of the PHB,DMG,MM trilogy required to play.

For the saves I've been doing this- treat all that would use saves as contests (in that the player has to beat the value to consider a hit, a tie is a "miss") using the relevant ability score vs the type of save +10.  It works great, and requires no actual change to the mechanic other than who rolls the die. (since saves are ties go to the victor you have to beat the value to make it match)

All three pillars must be represnted by each character.  I believe this is handled by Class & Theme (combat) Race & Background (interaction & exploration).  Perhaps it would be better if they could split them all up, but I'm happy with the divisions.  They also need to be balanced (fun and effectiveness) which in the playtest they werent imo, but we'll see when we actually have some good interaction/exploration options in the next adventure hopefully.

 On class features- I'd like to see every paired "high stat" showcase a different dynamic.  Since Rogues need DEX, you could see DEX STR (thug) DEX CON (the guy who keeps getting beat up, but turns back up again and again) DEX INT (lockpicker thief) DEX CHA (scoundrel)
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
I could get on board with this, I think their should be the four prime classes and anything else breaks down from it (using themes or whatever). People drool over warlocks, its just a type of arcane. Go gaga over assassin its really just a type of rogue. In all I think it would be easier to work with four classes and abilties/powers within them four then trying to make 50 classes and then make abilities/powers for all 50.


I like the power points thing, when they came out with this for psionics I kinda wish they did this with all classes. And I think this would be a great way to achieve balance towards the classes as well.
Fighters can get Energy
Mages can get Mana
Divines can get Faith
Rogues can get Luck

Granted can be named whatever but you get the idea. And even classes in same bracket can have different names. If your a warlock your mage type but your pool can be called Pact or whatever floats your boat.
@Talaeden_Denthiir

Totally agree that the game should be simple at its core.  The mage concept is a good one.  Although it remains to be seen how many options come in the first book- I'd like to see a single core book, with a players handbook add options (like vancian wizard and complex fighter)- instead of the PHB,DMG,MM trilogy required to play.

For the saves I've been doing this- treat all that would use saves as contests (in that the player has to beat the value to consider a hit, a tie is a "miss") using the relevant ability score vs the type of save +10.  It works great, and requires no actual change to the mechanic other than who rolls the die. (since saves are ties go to the victor you have to beat the value to make it match)

All three pillars must be represnted by each character.  I believe this is handled by Class & Theme (combat) Race & Background (interaction & exploration).  Perhaps it would be better if they could split them all up, but I'm happy with the divisions.  They also need to be balanced (fun and effectiveness) which in the playtest they werent imo, but we'll see when we actually have some good interaction/exploration options in the next adventure hopefully.

 On class features- I'd like to see every paired "high stat" showcase a different dynamic.  Since Rogues need DEX, you could see DEX STR (thug) DEX CON (the guy who keeps getting beat up, but turns back up again and again) DEX INT (lockpicker thief) DEX CHA (scoundrel)





Yup simple at it's CORE what u say makes total sense.  Maybe have the 1st book be all simple with one or two modules per chapter (class, race, magic, etc.) Like say have the simple mage then have the spellpoint and vancian caster as the 1st two examples in the"Modules Chapter".


As to saves, not changing the mechanic does make it easier. I'll have to try that.


As to class and theme, i just don't know if that's the same as it was before according to this Mike Mearls Interview:

www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8309


Think they are actually calling them "Specializations now"; which makes no sense to me.  I'm hoping the weren't drastically changed since Themes seemed to be what almost everyone liked about the playtest!


Your stat example seems to mesh with mine and expand upon it in interesting ways, Thank you ;)


      
         
I could have sworn he said they changed "Schemes" to specialization. As in the rogue scheme that was unique to that class in the packet.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

I could get on board with this, I think their should be the four prime classes and anything else breaks down from it (using themes or whatever). People drool over warlocks, its just a type of arcane. Go gaga over assassin its really just a type of rogue. In all I think it would be easier to work with four classes and abilties/powers within them four then trying to make 50 classes and then make abilities/powers for all 50.


I like the power points thing, when they came out with this for psionics I kinda wish they did this with all classes. And I think this would be a great way to achieve balance towards the classes as well.
Fighters can get Energy
Mages can get Mana
Divines can get Faith
Rogues can get Luck

Granted can be named whatever but you get the idea. And even classes in same bracket can have different names. If your a warlock your mage type but your pool can be called Pact or whatever floats your boat.





Nice!  Especially the Luck Points for Rogues Awesome idea!  As for the CORE FOUR and everything branching off of that, I have a feeling after WotC told peopel every class from every player's handbook in every edition would be in the D&D Next player's handbook, although what I propose aligns with what you said, I'm guessing the majority will say no or at least be very miffed that "another promise was broken"
Vance/NoVance and AEDU/BanAEDU would both be player level options- thats been mentioned as a design goal.  So a Vancinan player can sit beside an AEDU player and play in the same game.

Grit Heal is the only really binary thing there- but that definately could be one way or another.  If a DM wants to ban a players favorite option- he better have a damn good reason or he doesn't deserve that player.  I think once we see modules we'll see how they're implemented.  I plan on hosting a VT game with the next playtest.


The problem is that the whole point of AEDU is that everyone is using the same system. Making it a player-level choice is the whole problem AEDU was designed specifically to avoid.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
And that unified system is what created the sameness that others were turned off by.

I'm sure if your group prefers that level playing field in all tiers with a single mechanic for all classes then you can play that way.

Question: How do you feel about Essentials? Isn't that a break from the pure AEDU?

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Personally, what I am seeing right now is them compromising on everything until we all hate it, or until half of the book is banned at every table.

Probably true.

I'm already envisioning it:

(DM) Want to play some D&D Next?
(Player) I dunno... what version are you playing?
(DM) 5.4.NoVance.GritHeal.AllAEDU.AdvRuleMod.
(Player) Sorry man, I only play 5.35.OnlyVance.GritHeal.BanAEDU.AdvRuleMod.

I'm really hoping that this is not the path this "modularity" is taking.


I don't know, is it really that different than playing 3e with any supplements vs 3e with only WotC supplements vs 3e core only or 2e with its hundreds of variant rules or any edition with house rules? There will always be some people flexible enough to roll with whatever the group is using and some people that want something really specific and nothing else.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Vance/NoVance and AEDU/BanAEDU would both be player level options- thats been mentioned as a design goal.  So a Vancinan player can sit beside an AEDU player and play in the same game.

Grit Heal is the only really binary thing there- but that definately could be one way or another.  If a DM wants to ban a players favorite option- he better have a damn good reason or he doesn't deserve that player.  I think once we see modules we'll see how they're implemented.  I plan on hosting a VT game with the next playtest.


The problem is that the whole point of AEDU is that everyone is using the same system. Making it a player-level choice is the whole problem AEDU was designed specifically to avoid.





And thats fine but for ME, that is the very design i didnt like. Every class (to me) felt exactly the same there was no unique mechanic to make it feel different. From what im gathering the Wizard will be Vancian ONLY, The sorceror will have a different casting system, and the warlock another completely different system.

While im all for the fighter having cool options, I dont want it to look or feel ANYTHING like casting. I want the rogue to have its own unique thing and every other class for that matter.
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
Vance/NoVance and AEDU/BanAEDU would both be player level options- thats been mentioned as a design goal.  So a Vancinan player can sit beside an AEDU player and play in the same game.



This is simultaneously true and untrue.

It is true when the DM doesn't have issues with either system.

It is absolutely untrue when the DM says "any classes using AEDU mechanics are banned from my campaign."

Lots of people, including myself, dislike AEDU.  It will not be part of any tabletop game I run.  Period.  If it's not an option to remove it, or the classes that use it, from my campaign, then I'm pretty much already done with D&D Next.  I do not have a problem with at-wills, but I have major issues with the entire way the game plays under AEDU assumptions.  I have absolutely no objections to trying to ensure classes are "balanced" in the ways people desire so fiercly, but it will not be balanced on the back of AEDU.  Not in any game I run.

Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
Atmu,

Take a look at Balancing Fighters and Vancian Magic

Tell me if that thread would be nearing a compromise for your tables playstyle choices.

I urge you read the entirety before responding.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Valdark:  My personal opinion on that thread is I have never seen a points-based system not lead to people "going nova" or systematically breaking down as the game progresses into higher level play.

I mean, personally I really am not opposed to a large number of possible ways to provide a balance between things, and I'm not really even concerned with people having more interesting things to do as at-will abilities.  But the AEDU style of "Ok, we got through that encounter, everyone take a pause, sit down on the bench for a few minutes and chug a bottle of 'Adventurade' (tm), and we're magically back to nearly full capacity!" just has no place at my table.

The current systems's "everyone heals to full after each encounter" and the fact it even includes reference to a "short rest" are major turn-offs for me that I hope don't survive playtesting.

I'll even say I'm not even opposed to AEDU being an option.  As long as I can ban it.  It can be "everyone's D&D" as long as it can still be "my game."

Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
Atma,

Being able to ban it was the point.

You just don't offer the option to use the point spending abilities. The result would be that you were left with solid always available options.

I will most likely ban the more complex options at my table as well but that's what modularity is about.

It isn't so much a point system as it is an ability slot system that when applied to the Mage creates the exact same vancian options we are used to.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

And that unified system is what created the sameness that others were turned off by. I'm sure if your group prefers that level playing field in all tiers with a single mechanic for all classes then you can play that way. Question: How do you feel about Essentials? Isn't that a break from the pure AEDU?


I've let players try Essentials classes, they've usually ended up rebuilding as the normal version after one or two sessions. The problem is that fighters without dailies just can't hang with everyone else, since I have a tendency to run one encounter days.

And Scowyn, I agree that you should be able to run your game with different resource mechanics on different characters. But the system ALSO needs to support playing everyone with the same resource mechanic. Maybe a compromise would be to have each class with its own resource mechanic, but also an alternate AEDU version?
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
Authw8,

In the Balancing Fighters and Vancian Magic thread we are discussing how to achieve exactly that with a 3 tier system that is identical across all classes.

Please read the thread an contribute positive options.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Personally, what I am seeing right now is them compromising on everything until we all hate it, or until half of the book is banned at every table.

I'm already envisioning it:

(DM) Want to play some D&D Next?
(Player) I dunno... what version are you playing?
(DM) 5.4.NoVance.GritHeal.AllAEDU.AdvRuleMod.
(Player) Sorry man, I only play 5.35.OnlyVance.GritHeal.BanAEDU.AdvRuleMod.

I'm really hoping that this is not the path this "modularity" is taking.




  You started to see a lot of this in 3E too what with the 3E/3.5 edition split,  the introduction of several popular alternate rules in Unearthed Arcana, the Complete/Races of books, Tome of Battle, and Eberron growing as a popular alternative to Forgotten Realms.  

(DM) Want to play some D&D?
(Player)  I dunno... what version are you playing?
(DM) 3E, Homebrew Setting, Psionics, Unearthed Arcana Spellpoints, ToB martial classes
(Player) Sorry man, I only play 3.5 Forgotten Realms, core book+Complete X+Races of X
 
  Not to mention the fact that every DM had their own list of banned and altered spells/class abilities in an effort to curb what they saw as the excessive powers of CoDzilla, Wizards, Psionics, and ToB classes.
You are absolutely right Alex_

Except 2e also had that level of supplements and had alternate NWP, encumbrance, initiative, weapon speed, and weapon vs armor types all in core.

Modularity is not new to D&D it has been in there for years.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

And Scowyn, I agree that you should be able to run your game with different resource mechanics on different characters. But the system ALSO needs to support playing everyone with the same resource mechanic. Maybe a compromise would be to have each class with its own resource mechanic, but also an alternate AEDU version?



I don't think anyone will say "if theres an AEDU fighter in next I wont play it" given the option to ban any mechanic.

Although to be honest I htink the sameness of AEDU was its biggest setback. And the E part is the second biggest.

having fighters that have lots of at wills and a few dailies with their nearly unlimited utility (improv) is a pretty good comprimise imo.
Then you can have wizards with a number of at-wills and more dailies (that allow utility and improv)

If theres going to be an encounter thing it needs not to be a sure thing (13th age) or something.  It makes adventure design have to force huge battles for every fight or the players just blow their encounters on every 2 goblins that come along. 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
And Scowyn, I agree that you should be able to run your game with different resource mechanics on different characters. But the system ALSO needs to support playing everyone with the same resource mechanic. Maybe a compromise would be to have each class with its own resource mechanic, but also an alternate AEDU version?



I don't think anyone will say "if theres an AEDU fighter in next I wont play it" given the option to ban any mechanic.

Although to be honest I htink the sameness of AEDU was its biggest setback. And the E part is the second biggest.

having fighters that have lots of at wills and a few dailies with their nearly unlimited utility (improv) is a pretty good comprimise imo.
Then you can have wizards with a number of at-wills and more dailies (that allow utility and improv)

If theres going to be an encounter thing it needs not to be a sure thing (13th age) or something.  It makes adventure design have to force huge battles for every fight or the players just blow their encounters on every 2 goblins that come along. 


I think you defined one of my concerns with encounter powers.

The single or small enemy engagement use to be left to the at will classes or be costly to group resources to trivialize. 

With encounters you had a big opener that could just bypass all of that without resource expendature.

Not a deal breaker to have these allowed but definitely don't want the requirement.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Encounter powers make party capabilities more predictable for the DM ... less fluctuation making the DMs job easier. Allows players differing degrees of potency during the encounter.... Oh look I just spam my at-wills or beg the dm for something else how boring as dirt... I have to play a Wizard if I dont want that?
Well that sucks.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Encounter powers and dailies too should be designed so they key off of conditions that tend to occur later in the fight so they are arent an immediate do this first trick... but that is refinement.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I see no reason a couple goblins shouldnt just be a blow out nor that it should expend long term resources to make it so, if they get the alarm off then they escalate it in to a real encounter
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I see no reason a couple goblins shouldnt just be a blow out nor that it should expend long term resources to make it so, if they get the alarm off then they escalate it in to a real encounter


I guess that was more my point.  Having everybody be able to have a more powerful first round makes it very unlikely that they will be able to set off the alarm for the real encounter.  But if you design them to stand up enough that they can survive a one round barrage of encounter powers and they do get the alarm off you are dealing with creatures that have a very different survivability rate.

They work for you, they don't work for me.

We need to find a way to get them balanced into the game for you but no so that the are required for me.

How do we go about doing that?

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

I dont see them getting refined.. in anything we have seen so far I see there benefits tossed out the window

I see party power governed entirely by how many dailies they have left.

In other words hanging on the shirt tails of the spell casters all over again. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I dont see them getting refined.. in anything we have seen so far I see there benefits tossed out the window 


That's one playtest that arguably was catered to bring us old schoolers back into the fold.

Let's see what the next one holds.

Perhaps if as a community we can work towards finding an acceptable compromise we can all influence the game design enough that our compromise will be emplemented.


Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.