Where I think D&DN Has Missed the Boat


 


The biggest problem D&DN has is really very simple. I think it has really missed the boat on several things including being modular which was apparently a design goal for the edition. Over the last 6 months or so I have been playing several d20 and D&D editions which was similar to 2010 or so when I was playing a mixture of 4th ed, Pathfinder, and Star Wars Saga. I have also been reading through my D&D collection paying attention to my 2nd ed , 3rd ed and 4th ed books along with adventures, from Gary Gygax's work through to the Kingmaker Adventure Path from Paizo.


And here is the main problem with D&DN. It is boring and bland. The nicest thing I can say about it is that I do not dislike it drastically. 2nd ed is very pleasant to read about and it has a modular via optional rules. 3rd ed has the basic d20 mechanics which was one of the best things to happen to D&D while 4th ed has balance, powers etc and at least does what it is designed to do very well.


D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. Sometimes things may make sense mechanically but you have to sell this to someone and it has to be commercially viable. Even if you dial down the numbers porn of 3rd and 4th edition D&DN is struggling to compare well with 2nd ed. If 2nd ed had BAB instead of THACO, Fort/Ref/Will for saves and the 4th ed DMG and combat chapter I would probably buy that over D&DN.


This is where the numbers came in. 2nd ed had to many extremes at higher levels between the fighter THACO (BAB more or less) and every other class. 3rd ed did kind of fix this but still ahd some issues while 4th ed made every class have he same scaling modifier which did not sit well with fans of older editions. Star Wars Saga more or less used +20 over 20 levels and +15 for the combat weaker classes. +5 is probably about right IMHO although you could narrow that down further.


D&DN is supposed to be modular as well but so far it fails at that. Star Wars Saga used a very simple class progression for all of the classes that was talent, feat, talent, feat. I would not recycle this for D&DN but I would look at it for a few classes and drop the feat part.


D&DN Fighter
BAB
+1 Talent
+2 Maneuver
+3 Talent
+4 Maneuver
+5 Talent
etc


Note you can extrapolate this all the way to level 1000+ if you want to although BAB would need to be capped. No dead levels, and a very simple progression. A talent can be more or less anything you want so if you add in bonus feats you have the 3.5 fighter. Add in powers you have something similar to the 4th ed fighter. Add in some one combat options and you have something a little like the 2nd ed fighter. Have a unified talent/maneuver section and it is very simple the downside is one can have 20 options by level I suppose but its not that bad compared to all the feats, spells, powers etc of 3rd and 4th ed and even the 2nd ed Fighter would have a similar number of weapon and non weapon proficiency's. It may not appeal to the BECM players, but the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ed players probably outnumber them as a safe bet. The design is inherently modular.


Classes like Rogues, Wizards etc have +15 to hit over 20 levels. This is where bounded accuracy comes in. 1st and 2nd ed kind of had this, the concept is not new. AC's topped out at -12 (32 in d20) for a great Wurm Gold Dragon. A Fighter naked would hit this on a roll of 12 or better, while the other classes would need a 17 or so. This is perfectly fine and the Dragon would not need a bucket load of hit point to survive for a few rounds. A +5 weapon which BA RAW in D&DN cannot seem to handle would make this fight easier so the Dragon would need some minions or a way to get the AC up to 35 or so to compensate (a buff spell with concentration). This lets a low magic setting have the Dragon as a major menace especially if he is resistant to non magical weapons.

One may have to tweak the encounter a bit if the PCs are loaded out with +3 or better weapons but that is also fine. Right now BA is so low that level 1 PCs can luck sack their way into hitting DC 25 skill checks, Rogues murder anything non combat related via skill mastery. Bounded accuracy as a concept is fine but it needs to be stretched probably into the 30-40 range. This keeps the numbers under control and allows class design to gain things like bonuses to hit at every level while avoiding the infinite numbers of 3rd ed and the hit point bloat of 4th ed. A narrower range of BAB/THACO between the classes whatever fixes the problem it had in 2nd ed.


Skills can also be stretched out as well even if it is only d20+ your ability score instead of your ability modifier. The skill system in D&DN is terrible right now due to multiple reasons. The skill dice and rogues being the main problem, with BA being another as the ranges are to narrow and it a leads to boring classes with little sense of progression or of getting better like the skill/proficiency systems in 2nd, 3rd and 4th ed all had. We have to buy this beige Toyota at the end of the day and I prefer a red Porsche. D&DN is not bad, but it is worse. It is boring. Maybe it is designed for new players, I have my doubts as D&D is a niche hobby. All other editions of D&D including BECMI and 1st ed had a greater sense of progression and that is the main problem of D&DN so far. And most of this I think is due to BA the one mechanic we have no real say as to if we want it or not. Right now that by itself is probably enough to kill D&DN for me although I have committed to buying D&DN core rules to reward WoTC for at least trying and putting up PDFs again. D&D is many things to many people. Bland should not be one of them.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

It can't miss the boat since it hasn't been released.

They're still building the boat.

Boring? Of course, you're not seeing the WHOLE of it, just one or two parts that may or may NOT be in the final product.

Let's not be so quick to write it all off, eh?

Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity.... In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
Lots of great points and good ideas.

But this...
If 2nd ed had BAB instead of THACO, Fort/Ref/Will for saves and the 4th ed DMG and combat chapter I would probably buy that over D&DN.



...is awesome. And I could not agree more. I'd love it if I thought that was where they were headed with the base game, but I just don't see it.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

I would have had the fighter's BA scale to +10 on 20 levels
the rogue and clerics scale to +5
and the wizard not scale at all
you would get the same difference from one class to the other as in 3e, but without the treadmill. And numbers could stay pretty low, the difference would simply insure that the fighter would be good, the rogue/cleric be average and the wizard be poor, without being handicapped 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
It can't miss the boat since it hasn't been released.

They're still building the boat.

Boring? Of course, you're not seeing the WHOLE of it, just one or two parts that may or may NOT be in the final product.

Let's not be so quick to write it all off, eh?




The thing is, they're supposed to be building a modular boat. I should be able to take the hull of the boat and fit multiple cabins on top without worrying about the boat capsizing. At most, the modularity we might see is   a series of optional and disparate subsystems that change modify or replace elements of the core rules, seemingly without any concern for how each "module" affects the game holistically. There are too many default assumptions in the core.

I mean, it's over a year into playtesting now. "It's just a playtest" cut it a year ago. It doesn't anymore. They're too far in. 
Addressing dead levels is straight forward if the changes apply to all classes. If you have a staggered approach like the fighter getting the most feats and a wizard only recieves a couple over 10 levels, then things are harder to manage. I would prefer dead level progression to be standardized for all classes, and then focus the differences on the class itself. This isolates the majority of design decisions to each classs, and once the decisions are made it is set in stone.

For BA it is more complicated, so the discussion can not be isolated to BAB. You must also consider progression of defense bonuses, saves, attack against multiple defenses, and skill DCs. Attributes much factor into the equation as well. I am not sure there is a solution than can cater to all styles of play, because to play 1e, versus 3e, or 4e you end up with totally different systems. So just like hit points there has to be a universal compromise. And the best solution may end up with a system that is new in comparison to previous editions. The only thing I definitely do not like with BA at the moment is it does not allow enough distinction in the scale for attacks and defenses, to include the use of magic to some degree (up to +3 bonus), or different types of armor to make AC mean something when discussing a fighter, versus a rogue or a wizard.
I really don't understand this obsession with bound accuracy.

Compare the following:

Option 1:
Fighters get a +1 to hit per level. Monsters get a total of +15 to AC over 20 levels.
Net fighter bonus to hit at level 20: +5.

Option 2:
Fighters get a +5 to hit over 20 levels. Monsters don't get AC increases.
Net fighter bonus to hit at level 20: +5.


Is it just adding +1 to your attack bonus on your character sheet at every level that makes you so happy? If the creatures you're facing have the same increase in AC, you didn't gain anything, there's nothing to get excited about.

Now in option 1, your gold dragon has an AC of 17 instead of 32. Rogues, clerics and wizards (+0 to hit) still need to roll 17 or more on 1d20 to hit your gold dragon. The only difference between option 1 and option 2 is that a horde of peasants can still attack your gold dragon.
I really don't understand this obsession with bound accuracy.

Compare the following:

Option 1:
Fighters get a +1 to hit per level. Monsters get a total of +15 to AC over 20 levels.
Net fighter bonus to hit at level 20: +5.

Option 2:
Fighters get a +5 to hit over 20 levels. Monsters don't get AC increases.
Net fighter bonus to hit at level 20: +5.


Is it just adding +1 to your attack bonus on your character sheet at every level that makes you so happy? If the creatures you're facing have the same increase in AC, you didn't gain anything, there's nothing to get excited about.

Now in option 1, your gold dragon has an AC of 17 instead of 32. Rogues, clerics and wizards (+0 to hit) still need to roll 17 or more on 1d20 to hit your gold dragon. The only difference between option 1 and option 2 is that a horde of peasants can still attack your gold dragon.


The difference lies in relative power level and the feeling of growth

in option 1, you can go back to the places you've been to before and absolutely mow through monsters that used to give you trouble. That creates a sense of accomplishment, and you know the monsters you face now are on par with you because you've grown in power.
in option 2, they are just as hard to hit as they were before, that can lead to the game seeling stale
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
It can't miss the boat since it hasn't been released.

They're still building the boat.

Boring? Of course, you're not seeing the WHOLE of it, just one or two parts that may or may NOT be in the final product.

Let's not be so quick to write it all off, eh?




Some quotes from Mearls (I'm doing this from memory so it might not be exact):

"Core is pretty much done."

"The core is the basic game."

"There won't be a module to modify bounded accuracy."

So basically according to Mearls himself we won't be able to modify bounded accuracy and characters really won't have a sense of progression...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I would prefer a mass combat rule to address the peasants attacking the dragon since that is the exception, versus building it into a system where characters fighting the dragon is the norm. Or in other words that is why the peasants look for a hero to take out the dragon.
in option 1, you can go back to the places you've been to before and absolutely mow through monsters that used to give you trouble. That creates a sense of accomplishment, and you know the monsters you face now are on par with you because you've grown in power.



You get the same thing with option 2. Instead of killing your orcs and goblins in 2-3 blows, you kill them in one blow, then cleave the next one, and whirlwind to destroy 4-5 of them per round. And then whatever is left of them attack you, hit you (that's the difference), but only deal 1% of your total hit points instead of 30%.

With option 1, you can actually stand in the middle of those orcs and not get a scratch or break a sweat (take hit point damage) because accuracy has changed to the point where they can't hit you anymore.
  
You also have a progression. It's just different.

The only thing that bothers me with option 2 is that you don't have monsters with inpenetrable armors.
in option 1, you can go back to the places you've been to before and absolutely mow through monsters that used to give you trouble. That creates a sense of accomplishment, and you know the monsters you face now are on par with you because you've grown in power.



You get the same thing with option 2. Instead of killing your orcs and goblins in 2-3 blows, you kill them in one blow, then cleave the next one, and whirlwind to destroy 4-5 of them per round. And then whatever is left of them attack you, hit you (that's the difference), but only deal 1% of your total hit points instead of 30%.

With option 1, you can actually stand in the middle of those orcs and not get a scratch or break a sweat (take hit point damage) because accuracy has changed to the point where they can't hit you anymore.
  
You also have a progression. It's just different.

The only thing that bothers me with option 2 is that you don't have monsters with inpenetrable armors.


Good point
I don't remember an edition where I needed 2-3 blows to kill a goblin though 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com

I don't remember an edition where I needed 2-3 blows to kill a goblin though 



Did you every try 4th edition?

I don't remember an edition where I needed 2-3 blows to kill a goblin though 



Did you every try 4th edition?



I could kill goblins in one shot in 4e, too.

I don't remember an edition where I needed 2-3 blows to kill a goblin though 



Did you every try 4th edition?



I could kill goblins in one shot in 4e, too.




didnt happen in 1st or 2nd unless you were over level 2
I've been saying Next is boring as dirt since playtest 1. 

I also agree that the modularity looks like a farce. As Samrin says, the base game is making too many assumptions and lacks flexibility as a result. 
...whatever
Each edition, abilities take more importance over experience, and I'm not fan of this as it strictly focuses the attention on them during character creation and turn rolled stats into pure nightmare. DDN is the worst from this point of view.

Devs seem to keep being unable to define the classes, even the "four core" ones, a problem since the start of D&D that won't be solved from what I can see.

The logical way to handle abilities per actions would be to use one type per "game time unit". Maximum of one daily per day, one encounter per encounter, one action per round and one reaction per turn, and then build abilities around a clear and simple action system.
But no, we have to keep the messy multiple dailies and encounters. And within a round, you have abilities and actions to track (action, move and reaction on your turn, one reaction until your next turn, martial dice on each turn).

We are still far from the conclusion, but DDN at its current state feels like a frankenstein edition, built from dead parts from all editions, the only new things being the threads keeping the dead parts together.

D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.
I really don't understand this obsession with bound accuracy.

Compare the following:

Option 1:
Fighters get a +1 to hit per level. Monsters get a total of +15 to AC over 20 levels.
Net fighter bonus to hit at level 20: +5.

Option 2:
Fighters get a +5 to hit over 20 levels. Monsters don't get AC increases.
Net fighter bonus to hit at level 20: +5.


Is it just adding +1 to your attack bonus on your character sheet at every level that makes you so happy? If the creatures you're facing have the same increase in AC, you didn't gain anything, there's nothing to get excited about.

Now in option 1, your gold dragon has an AC of 17 instead of 32. Rogues, clerics and wizards (+0 to hit) still need to roll 17 or more on 1d20 to hit your gold dragon. The only difference between option 1 and option 2 is that a horde of peasants can still attack your gold dragon.


The difference lies in relative power level and the feeling of growth

in option 1, you can go back to the places you've been to before and absolutely mow through monsters that used to give you trouble. That creates a sense of accomplishment, and you know the monsters you face now are on par with you because you've grown in power.
in option 2, they are just as hard to hit as they were before, that can lead to the game seeling stale

The progression is represented in damage output. Those Ogres that gave you trouble at 5th level are much easier to defeat at 15th level.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.


D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.



5 and 7 are a big problem there for many of us. It's the inability to custom tailor our character each and every level with a meaningful choice.

D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.



5 and 7 are a big problem there for many of us. It's the inability to custom tailor our character each and every level with a meaningful choice.



actualy looking at my 3.5 players handbook level 5 and 7 where also what wou would consider deat in 3.5.
both level 5 and 7 only gave you a increased bab by 1 point nothing you could customise. 

D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.



5 and 7 are a big problem there for many of us. It's the inability to custom tailor our character each and every level with a meaningful choice.



actualy looking at my 3.5 players handbook level 5 and 7 where also what wou would consider deat in 3.5.
both level 5 and 7 only gave you a increased bab by 1 point nothing you could customise. 



3.5 was LOADED with dead levels for most classes. It is something that both 4e and Pathfinder fixed.

Where it really has missed, though, is in trying to reinvent the wheel. It has a lot of solid foundations from which to build on that are already modular in nature. SWSE or 4e's barebone foundation would work perfect. 4e's foundation being brought into something like what they did with Gamma World, where it is extremely simple and flexible to basically do whatever you want with it. 

SWSE's chassis would have introduced elements that both 4e fans and 3.5 fans can instantly recognize and appreciate, and then they could add in some old school elements from there. It is a solid enough system that it shouldn't have been much of a problem to do.

That ship has sailed, though. We have what we have now, and it is a mess. 
What's with the obsession some folks seem to have with a "sense of progression"?
4E and d20 gave a sense of progression, but it was, basically, an illusion of progression.
In 4E, you started out at level 1 having a +/- 53% chance of hitting a same-level enemy (with no buffs/debuffs in play). At level 15, you still had a +/- 53% chance of hitting a same-level enemy. Your numbers got bigger and bigger with every level, but you still haven't really "progressed".
Now, for some people, they just enjoy writing increasingly larger numbers on their character sheet. That's fine, if you consider that part of the fun of D&D. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that your PC has actually "grown" any.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft

D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.



5 and 7 are a big problem there for many of us. It's the inability to custom tailor our character each and every level with a meaningful choice.



actualy looking at my 3.5 players handbook level 5 and 7 where also what wou would consider deat in 3.5.
both level 5 and 7 only gave you a increased bab by 1 point nothing you could customise. 



Oh, well if they made that mistake in 3.5E or 4E it must be ok to do it again in 5E...Wink
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What's with the obsession some folks seem to have with a "sense of progression"?
4E and d20 gave a sense of progression, but it was, basically, an illusion of progression.
In 4E, you started out at level 1 having a +/- 53% chance of hitting a same-level enemy (with no buffs/debuffs in play). At level 15, you still had a +/- 53% chance of hitting a same-level enemy. Your numbers got bigger and bigger with every level, but you still haven't really "progressed".
Now, for some people, they just enjoy writing increasingly larger numbers on their character sheet. That's fine, if you consider that part of the fun of D&D. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that your PC has actually "grown" any.



It's the idea that leveling up should be exciting. Getting something new every level that allows you to expand your options in one way or another. Leveling up should be a big deal. Getting a few more hp as the only reward is boring. I want each level to have a major impact on my character.
What's with the obsession some folks seem to have with a "sense of progression"?
4E and d20 gave a sense of progression, but it was, basically, an illusion of progression.
In 4E, you started out at level 1 having a +/- 53% chance of hitting a same-level enemy (with no buffs/debuffs in play). At level 15, you still had a +/- 53% chance of hitting a same-level enemy. Your numbers got bigger and bigger with every level, but you still haven't really "progressed".
Now, for some people, they just enjoy writing increasingly larger numbers on their character sheet. That's fine, if you consider that part of the fun of D&D. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that your PC has actually "grown" any.



Every time someone brings this up we answer it in the same way. Its not about at level challenges which will be the same in a bounded or unbounded system. Its about when you fight monsters that were difficult to you before they are now easy or even not worth your time. So in a bounded system an Ogre might be a truly difficult Fighter for level 2-3 characters, but at level 5-7 its still a difficult fight, its still hitting the same and dealing the same damage you only have +10%-20% more hit points so you aren't feeling the difference. In an unbounded system that Ogre is hitting you less and you are hitting it more and for more damage so you have more of a sense of progression. We also don't want to constrain half our variables. We want to be able to use different combinations like hard to hit but weak monsters that go down in 1-2 hits or easy to hit monsters that can just keep on fighting taking 7-8 hits to take down. Its the difference in feel between a speedy kobold and a slow but powerful hill giant. In a bounded system they just shifted all of that over to hit points, which to us just lengthens combat and doesn't give the same feel, it doesn't require tactics it just takes more rounds. In an unbounded system a Fighter might seek out advantage against the speedy kobold because it has a high AC and is hard to hit. They might seek out disadvantage in order to get a damage increase against the hill giant. In a bounded system its all in the hit points and advantage or damage increase don't really matter...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I realize this is a bit of a tanget, but since it was bought up and I happen to be currently running a 2E campaign with this modification, I thought I'd bring it up:

THAC0 is trivially easy to convert to BAB.

20 - THAC0 = BAB
20 - AC = New AC

Done.

Fort/Ref/Will for saving throws is a lot more work and ultimately I decided not worth the effort.

I am not familiar with 4th edition so I can't comment on the third thing.
I LOVE this OP.  I really do, you are speaking my language.

I still fail to see where D&DN is asserting itself as a superior  product.  The problems solved by Bounded Accuracy are countered immediately by the problems caused by bounded accuracy.  Scaling is an issue in previous editions, that is no secret.  3.5 had big problems here.  Pathfinder, currently, has similar problems, because the assumption of magic items and (in the case of casters) the assumption of spell focus.  

So the scaling is/was problematic and needed retooling.  Okay.  So retool it.  Pick a target accuracy rate per class group and set up the monsters to follow that range.

For example, a fighter attacking something at-level.  Lets say that the intended rate is something like 70%. You set that number up based on a reasonable set of assumptions and then allow it to get pushed by, say 20% in either direction based on the nature of the monster.  Apply an adjustment that assumes the fighter has an ability bonus of +5 divided across 20 levels (so +1 from 1-4, +2 from 5-8 etc.)

So using the old BAB progressions, 
level 5 monster should have an AC range of 12-16
level 10 monster should have an AC range of 16-24
level 15 monster should have an AC range of  22-30
level 20 monster should have an AC range of  26-38

This way the fighter always has a better than average chance to hit, and any bonuses from spells, magic items, feats or the like are not part of the equation.  

Then if you compare that list of armor classes to, say a 3/4 BAB progression rogue (and lets say that rogue has a +5 ability bonus at lvl 20, a +4 at lvl 12, and a +3 at lvl 1)

You get an average accuracy of
level 5 -  60%
level 10 -  55%
level 15 -  50%
level 20 -  45%

Since the rogue has a 3/4 progression, he has a hard time keeping up with the fighter at high level.  But if he takes the time to feint or attack from hidden etc, he can mitigate this.  

Now you could go the other way and base the AC scale on the 3/4 progression OR you could have a simpler low/med/high AC category for each monster, with the mosnters in the low category following the 1/2 progression, the medium monsters following 3/4 and the high ones following 1/1.

Then you would have an ac list  like:
level 5: low=12 AC / med=13 AC / high=15 AC
level 10: low=16 AC / med=18 AC / high=21 AC
level 15:  low=19 AC / med=23 AC / high=27 AC
level 20:  low=23 AC / med=28 AC / high=33 AC

That means that a character attacking a monster that matches his level and accuracy progression would have an average baseline hit chance of 60%.  The fighter will stay at around 60% hit chance (before other bonuses outside BAB and Str.) against high AC monsters, but continue to outpace lower AC prgoressions.  The rogue at 3/4 progression will keep advantage on low and medium AC progressions, but lose some ground on high AC targets.

If the DM wants more hits, he can give out more magic items or drop the monster ACs down by a flat number across all levels.  

So, I don't know.  I agree with taking magic items out of the baseline math for accuracy.  I agree with limiting ability scores (although a feat that raised the cap by 2 would be cool) but if you do these things and retool the scaling you get an effect that emulates bounded accuracy without having to ditch scaling altogether.  Of course this is a treadmill, but so is the Damage/Hitpoints scale in D&DN.  Treadmills are just the nature of the beast.  As players become higher in level, so do the monsters... there's your treadmill.

As for low level monsters being a threat, there are a lot of ways to make that happen without just forcing players down to their level.  You can add in rules for glancing blows (missed AC but hit touch AC, deals min damage) you can add an attrition system that makes avoiding progressively more attacks in a single round more and more difficult.  But with less assumed access to magic, the players will have lower ACs generally, and I don't see this being a problem.  Sure a bunch of level 1 monsters will have a tough time doing much to a level 20 party.... but so what?  Monsters within 7-10 levels would still be threatening.   
I realize this is a bit of a tanget, but since it was bought up and I happen to be currently running a 2E campaign with this modification, I thought I'd bring it up:

THAC0 is trivially easy to convert to BAB.

20 - THAC0 = BAB
20 - AC = New AC

Done.

Fort/Ref/Will for saving throws is a lot more work and ultimately I decided not worth the effort.

I am not familiar with 4th edition so I can't comment on the third thing.



 To d20 2nd ed saves, ability checks and proficiency checks all become DC 20. Checks beome d20 + ability score. If its a harder check the DM just adds whatever penalties he thinks are fine.
 Saves are tweaked. 16 becomes +4, 3 becomes +17 and you can keep the 2nd ed 5 save categories.
 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


Every time someone brings this up we answer it in the same way. Its not about at level challenges which will be the same in a bounded or unbounded system. Its about when you fight monsters that were difficult to you before they are now easy or even not worth your time. So in a bounded system an Ogre might be a truly difficult Fighter for level 2-3 characters, but at level 5-7 its still a difficult fight, its still hitting the same and dealing the same damage you only have +10%-20% more hit points so you aren't feeling the difference. In an unbounded system that Ogre is hitting you less and you are hitting it more and for more damage so you have more of a sense of progression. We also don't want to constrain half our variables. We want to be able to use different combinations like hard to hit but weak monsters that go down in 1-2 hits or easy to hit monsters that can just keep on fighting taking 7-8 hits to take down. Its the difference in feel between a speedy kobold and a slow but powerful hill giant. In a bounded system they just shifted all of that over to hit points, which to us just lengthens combat and doesn't give the same feel, it doesn't require tactics it just takes more rounds. In an unbounded system a Fighter might seek out advantage against the speedy kobold because it has a high AC and is hard to hit. They might seek out disadvantage in order to get a damage increase against the hill giant. In a bounded system its all in the hit points and advantage or damage increase don't really matter...Smile



You can have a kobold with high AC and low hit points for his level in a bound system just as you can have a low AC, high hit point bugbear or hill giant. You could say that the kobold has, say 75% of the normal health for a monster of his level but a higher AC and a higher damage output.

In an unbound system, the kobold loses his "high AC" property if you throw the kobold against PCs of higher level. In a bound system, the kobold has a high AC whether he's fighting level 1 or level 20 PCs.

This is actually a good example of why a totally bound system can be upsetting. If your attack bonus never changes, then that kobold that you can one-shot at level 1 is just as hard to hit and one-shot at level 20. That can be upsetting. But good news, D&D Next is not totally bound. You have a +5 bonus to hit at level 20.
Where it really has missed, though, is in trying to reinvent the wheel. It has a lot of solid foundations from which to build on that are already modular in nature. SWSE or 4e's barebone foundation would work perfect. 4e's foundation being brought into something like what they did with Gamma World, where it is extremely simple and flexible to basically do whatever you want with it. 

SWSE's chassis would have introduced elements that both 4e fans and 3.5 fans can instantly recognize and appreciate, and then they could add in some old school elements from there. It is a solid enough system that it shouldn't have been much of a problem to do.

That ship has sailed, though. We have what we have now, and it is a mess. 



 Twice in a week we agree on something;). BA could have been added to that, cap scores at 20 done.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

If the Ogre that is a challenge at levels 3-5 needs to be a challenge at levels 7-9, you could always give him 4 levels of a PC class.  Allowing monsters to gain PC classes eliminates the need for Bounded Accuracy.

If for some odd reason one doesn't like that (I've heard arguments that monsters with PC classes become too hard, for example) the game could always invent monster classes that serve the same purpose.

There has never been a reason for lower level monsters to become speed bumps.  There have always been options, sometimes houseruled in previous editions, to make even the Kobold dangerous to level 20 characters.

Every time someone brings this up we answer it in the same way. Its not about at level challenges which will be the same in a bounded or unbounded system. Its about when you fight monsters that were difficult to you before they are now easy or even not worth your time. So in a bounded system an Ogre might be a truly difficult Fighter for level 2-3 characters, but at level 5-7 its still a difficult fight, its still hitting the same and dealing the same damage you only have +10%-20% more hit points so you aren't feeling the difference. In an unbounded system that Ogre is hitting you less and you are hitting it more and for more damage so you have more of a sense of progression. We also don't want to constrain half our variables. We want to be able to use different combinations like hard to hit but weak monsters that go down in 1-2 hits or easy to hit monsters that can just keep on fighting taking 7-8 hits to take down. Its the difference in feel between a speedy kobold and a slow but powerful hill giant. In a bounded system they just shifted all of that over to hit points, which to us just lengthens combat and doesn't give the same feel, it doesn't require tactics it just takes more rounds. In an unbounded system a Fighter might seek out advantage against the speedy kobold because it has a high AC and is hard to hit. They might seek out disadvantage in order to get a damage increase against the hill giant. In a bounded system its all in the hit points and advantage or damage increase don't really matter...Smile



You can have a kobold with high AC and low hit points for his level in a bound system just as you can have a low AC, high hit point bugbear or hill giant. You could say that the kobold has, say 75% of the normal health for a monster of his level but a higher AC and a higher damage output.

In an unbound system, the kobold loses his "high AC" property if you throw the kobold against PCs of higher level. In a bound system, the kobold has a high AC whether he's fighting level 1 or level 20 PCs.

This is actually a good example of why a totally bound system can be upsetting. If your attack bonus never changes, then that kobold that you can one-shot at level 1 is just as hard to hit and one-shot at level 20. That can be upsetting. But good news, D&D Next is not totally bound. You have a +5 bonus to hit at level 20.



If you go by what the developers have said, then no you can't have a super high AC Kobold, because AC doesn't go up with level. It has to have a reason and the measly +4 from dex is only going to put that Kobold at AC 14, if you throw medium armor on him you can get that up to AC 18, but at level 20 the Fighter is still going to hit that kobold on a (+10 vs. AC 18 = 8) 8 on the dice which means 65% of the time. In other words no you actually can't do what you are saying because the bounds are set by actual reasons instead of level, so a dragon has the same AC as dragon scale armor no matter their level (AC 15). So you can't have a monster that is hard to hit but easy to kill once hit. You can't have a monster that is easy to hit but hard to kill because they are a sack of hit points. You can't have a monster that hits rarely but causes a lot of damage. You can't have a monster that hits often but deals very little damage. Not according to the articles and interviews where they talk about bounded accuracy...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I realize this is a bit of a tanget, but since it was bought up and I happen to be currently running a 2E campaign with this modification, I thought I'd bring it up:

THAC0 is trivially easy to convert to BAB.

20 - THAC0 = BAB
20 - AC = New AC

Done.

Fort/Ref/Will for saving throws is a lot more work and ultimately I decided not worth the effort.

I am not familiar with 4th edition so I can't comment on the third thing.



 To d20 2nd ed saves, ability checks and proficiency checks all become DC 20. Checks beome d20 + ability score. If its a harder check the DM just adds whatever penalties he thinks are fine.
 Saves are tweaked. 16 becomes +4, 3 becomes +17 and you can keep the 2nd ed 5 save categories.
 



The only ting about d20 saves that is inherently better, in my opinion, is the three categories that make some kind of intuitive sense - reflex, willpower, fortitude. Why bother changing the 3 on the sheet to +17 if you always need to roll a 3 to succeed? Much better to just have the number you need to roll on the sheet. Saves have always been "roll high" so I see no need to add an extra calculation to them.

For ability scores and proficiency checks, "20 - Ability score = DC" makes more sense to me, if you want to make everything "roll high." But I see no need to do so. I think "roll under" works just fine.

So like I said, as far as I am concerned, it's more trouble than it's worth.

D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.



5 and 7 are a big problem there for many of us. It's the inability to custom tailor our character each and every level with a meaningful choice.



actualy looking at my 3.5 players handbook level 5 and 7 where also what wou would consider deat in 3.5.
both level 5 and 7 only gave you a increased bab by 1 point nothing you could customise. 



3.5 was LOADED with dead levels for most classes. It is something that both 4e and Pathfinder fixed.




I just looked and no class ever had a level where it did not gain at least some skill points points and something more, even if that something more was only base attack.  There were no dead levels at all.  Now, if you're defining dead as "Not giving me enough to satisfy my personal desires.", then yes, there probably are "dead" levels for you.  Your personal desires are not enough to claim "dead" levels as a mechanical problem, though.
 I can use either Quasadu but I am running 2nd ed with d20 era players and they are kind of struggling with THACO and some mechanics like saves and atacks are roll high while others like ability checks are roll low. It works but with new players and d20 era players I can see them not liking it although they are not having that much trouble getting used to not having feats etc.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 I can use either Quasadu but I am running 2nd ed with d20 era players and they are kind of struggling with THACO and some mechanics like saves and atacks are roll high while others like ability checks are roll low. It works but with new players and d20 era players I can see them not liking it although they are not having that much trouble getting used to not having feats etc.



My players are a mix of old schoolers and d20 players, although the previous campaign was 3.5 so we've all been playing d20 for at least a year, even the old schoolers. I didn't want to bother them with learning THAC0 so I converted that (which I had actually done already right BEFORE 3rd edition came out way back when). Witht he other stuff though, I am sticking with the 2nd edition rules as written and so far everyone seems okay with it.

As far as no feats, I really opened up character creation a lot - humans can multiclass pretty much anything, no level limits, freed up some of the other restrictions, etc... and I'm allowing some to use the Skills and Powers system if they want to, which is helping them get that level of customization that 3rd edition offered. So far so good.
 Sounds very similar to my 2nd ed game. No LL, racial restrictions some Skills and Powers options allowed.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


D&DN is a simplified version of d20 which is fine. Bounded accuracy however s boring and seems to contribute to this via class design. Fighters for example get +5 to hit over 20 levels and they have dead levels. Even in second ed which was very simple you had a +1 to hit bonus to look forward to along with increased saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiency's. 



I don't realy see dead levels in the fighter class, just a few levels where you get somthing from another source then the class itselve.
Or somthing you did not name as advancement.
 
lets look at the levels that don't have a class ability listed with it.
levels 3,6,9,12,15,18 you gain a feat
Level 5 and 7 the number of martial dice you have increases.
level 13,16,19 these are the levels where the options from the legecy system will slot into but they have't been reavealed yet.

so you do get somthing at each of these levels.



5 and 7 are a big problem there for many of us. It's the inability to custom tailor our character each and every level with a meaningful choice.



actualy looking at my 3.5 players handbook level 5 and 7 where also what wou would consider deat in 3.5.
both level 5 and 7 only gave you a increased bab by 1 point nothing you could customise. 



3.5 was LOADED with dead levels for most classes. It is something that both 4e and Pathfinder fixed.




But what my main pint was that if at a cerain level you do not get somthing from class it might be coverd by somehing else like feats.
but if 5 and 7 are truble levels what would be somthing we could add there ?

some kind of bonus on strength chscks to perform feats of strength ?
 
Where it really has missed, though, is in trying to reinvent the wheel. It has a lot of solid foundations from which to build on that are already modular in nature. SWSE or 4e's barebone foundation would work perfect. 4e's foundation being brought into something like what they did with Gamma World, where it is extremely simple and flexible to basically do whatever you want with it. 

SWSE's chassis would have introduced elements that both 4e fans and 3.5 fans can instantly recognize and appreciate, and then they could add in some old school elements from there. It is a solid enough system that it shouldn't have been much of a problem to do.

That ship has sailed, though. We have what we have now, and it is a mess. 



Thats what I have being saying from the beginning. That was the logic way to do it.