missing at-will, encounter and daily powers from 4th

are we gonna miss all the at-will, encounter and daily powers from 4th ?

they were a bunch!

they added customization Smile

they had dnd lore and flavor!



 
are we gonna miss all the at-will, encounter and daily powers from 4th ?

they were a bunch!

they added customization Smile

they had dnd lore and flavor!



 

I hope to see lots of 4e stuff, but with the chopping of the warlord it's looking pretty grim to me.

I bet they are still there, in another shape.

It is just less codified, rigid and uniform than in 4E. In fact I would go farther and say that they already existed before 4E, but that edition introduced a common structure for everyone. And magical at-wills.

It's this structure that is absent from D&D Next. It seems that WotC will not go the same route for D&D Next, mixing diverse progression paths together instead of having the same for everyone.
I find it interesting that people look at 5E and see a lack of encounters/at will powers. Wizards/druids/clerics ALL have pretty good "At-will" powers right now, and fighters/rogues/monks/barbarian have standard attacks with cool "bonuses" that are essentially "At-Will" powers. Some classes have stuff they can do every encounter, like fighters and expertise dice. And other classes have things that they can only do a certain number of times a day (Wizards, barbarians) for daily powers.

I see them taking a lot of the good ideas from 4E and putting them into 5E. Just because they don't have the "format" you're used too doesn't mean that they aren't there. Lot's of people weren't in favor of "power cards" but that doesn't mean that you couldn't take the 5E powers and put them onto cards.

Example (Rogues):
Isolated Strike: "At-Will" - free action - whenever an enemy has no one with a 5ft radius you have advantage on that enemy.

Sneak Attack: "At-Will" - standard action - You make a melee attack on an enemy with disadvantage. +[dex/str] to hit, 1[w] + [str/dex] + 1d6 dmg. At levels _, _, _, & _ add an additional d6 to your dmg. You can cancel the disadvantage on an attack if you have advantage.

D&D has ALWAYS had this, they just put it in a different format in 4E which soooooo many people hated sitting at a table with a stack of cards. This doesn't mean that they weren't a good idea, I personally liked having my powers on cards, but I played a ton of games were people just didn't like them. Honestly people could have just written their powers down on their character sheets and never printed out cards and would have been just as happy with the game "imo".

As for customization, lore and flavor I think it has been there in every edition. I do, however, feel that a lot of the awesome utilities that existed in 3E were very lacking in 4E. I also miss more skills and the ability to customize "who" your character was through skill selection. But I think in the current play packets where you can pick new skills or get better at the skills you already have (through bigger skill dice) has accurately addressed this. I'm really liking 5E so far. There are a few things like moving everything into feats which I thought was dumb, and I'm glad swinging back the other direction and suring up classes based more on what the "class" should be good at before they introduce a bazillion feats. But I like feats too, I just want the classes to be good before we go throwing a ton of feats at them.

So anyways, there is PLENTY of 4E in this edition, people just need to realize that things are "formatted" differently. And that isn't a problem you just have to see past it until the final release. 
I find it interesting that people look at 5E and see a lack of encounters/at will powers. Wizards/druids/clerics ALL have pretty good "At-will" powers right now, and fighters/rogues/monks/barbarian have standard attacks with cool "bonuses" that are essentially "At-Will" powers. Some classes have stuff they can do every encounter, like fighters and expertise dice. And other classes have things that they can only do a certain number of times a day (Wizards, barbarians) for daily powers. 

I noticed your HUGE list of encounters martial and spellcasters get. Wink

At-wills and Encounters, yes, I would like many more of those.
Dailies can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.
Vancian magic is bad enough...Vancian martial is just silly.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
I really don't need AEDU replicated, but to act as if 4e ideas are ring incorporated in next is just silly.

5e is basically using the power structure of 3e. At-will abilities are primarily gained trough feats. Most classes use the same daily power structure with a few other classes possessing dailies for no particular reason (monk, barbarian, rogue, fighter). 5e is much more strongly influenced by the 3e design philosophy than 4e and it shows.

The classes are aimless and focus less. There is no clear goal for each class. Each class lacks a unifying mechanic that really makes it stand out. The powers that we do see available to the non casters are about as dull as possible.
At-wills and Encounters, yes, I would like many more of those.
Dailies can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.
Vancian magic is bad enough...Vancian martial is just silly.

Good to see someone that agrees with me! Two thumbs up!

I really don't need AEDU replicated, but to act as if 4e ideas are ring incorporated in next is just silly. 5e is basically using the power structure of 3e. At-will abilities are primarily gained trough feats. Most classes use the same daily power structure with a few other classes possessing dailies for no particular reason (monk, barbarian, rogue, fighter). 5e is much more strongly influenced by the 3e design philosophy than 4e and it shows. The classes are aimless and focus less. There is no clear goal for each class. Each class lacks a unifying mechanic that really makes it stand out. The powers that we do see available to the non casters are about as dull as possible.

Worst... pep... talk... ever... Tongue Out

At-wills and Encounters, yes, I would like many more of those.
Dailies can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.
Vancian magic is bad enough...Vancian martial is just silly.


You see, I'm the other way.  At will and Daily are fine by me (though not everyone has to have both), but in my mind Encounter Powers, as a concept, could bugger off and I'd say "Good Riddance".

Hopefully, we'll both be able to get what we want out of Next.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."
On Worldbuilding - On Crafting Aliens - Pillars of Art and Flavor - Simulationism, Narritivism, and Gamism - Shub-Niggurath in D&D
THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

See I don't know why you think encounters are gone, they just adjusted them so that you have to manage your resources better. Most of the wizards/monks "crazy amount of daily powers" aren't really the same level as daily powers from 4E. The damage got scaled way back, and they are really your encounter powers. But instead of only getting an encounter power once in a fight they said you can cast it x number of times per day.

By the average of 2-3 big fights per day and only being able to cast encounters 2-3 times per day is exactly the same thing as saying you can cast x spells 2-3 times per day. Except for worthless fights where you don't care about casting the bigger spells you don't have to use them, and on the bigger fights where you wish you could cast that encounter spell 3 times, now you can choose to use it three times in the one big fight.

Gotten rid of encounter powers? No sir, not at all, give the player more flexabiltity in where and when he can use those encounter powers? Hell yes! IMO good job Wizards. I WANT to be able to choose when I can blow those 3 big spells/ki abilities/rages/etc.
 
I would love to see a module that allows me to port AEDU to D&D Next, but it would appear that it's not happening.

They think we'd rather see facing rules than AEDU rules. How sad is that? 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
The idea of "powers" at all in D&D is a concept that needs to be exiled, removed from game, and forgotten about.

This isn't a superhero game. Superheroes have "powers"

"powers" can die upon the altar of ill-concieved constructs for a fantasy role-playing game. They belong in a superhero role playing game.

Maybe He-Man.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
The idea of "powers" at all in D&D is a concept that needs to be exiled, removed from game, and forgotten about.

This isn't a superhero game. Superheroes have "powers"

"powers" can die upon the altar of ill-concieved constructs for a fantasy role-playing game. They belong in a superhero role playing game.

Maybe He-Man.

You mean like the sorceress of castle grayskull from he-man? Yes, we should get rid of all those magic powers. This an't no superhero game! We just grab sticks or rocks and smack the bad guys until they die! Tongue Out
The idea of "powers" at all in D&D is a concept that needs to be exiled, removed from game, and forgotten about.

This isn't a superhero game. Superheroes have "powers"



So if we call them 'fantasy actions' that would be fine. Right?
I can settle for that.

I have to admit however that calling them 'powers' was not terribly bright. 
The idea of "powers" at all in D&D is a concept that needs to be exiled, removed from game, and forgotten about.

This isn't a superhero game. Superheroes have "powers"



So if we call them 'fantasy actions' that would be fine. Right?
I can settle for that.

I have to admit however that calling them 'powers' was not terribly bright. 



+1.

If the sole argument again 4E's powers is the name, then there is no argument in fact. You could also say that you don't like Priest because when you think of one you imagine someone in a funny dress lecturing an assembly in a church, instead of a heavily armored warrior fighting evil with a mace.

Take a look at those "superhero" powers 4E give, they are basically the same things one could have done in D&D for many years, just differently codified and organized. I understand that for a lot of people it feels too different as a way to present things from the former editions, and probably too specific, but it's still the same range of actions, not more Manga/Superhero/Whatever cliché you see them.

Frankly, calling that Powers, Actions, Evocations, Spells, Maneuvers, Class Ability, etc., does not change anything unless you really care about nomenclature in a game system. Or else wanting actions to be absolutely not codified in any way.

My personal view is that AEDU as presented in 4E was a refreshing way to play D&D. It broke a lot of old, traditionnal codes, that would have felt useless in a new edition. I loved 4E the way I never loved any other D&D edition for that, for its courageous, volontary, innovative reboot of D&D.
I really don't need AEDU replicated, but to act as if 4e ideas are ring incorporated in next is just silly. 5e is basically using the power structure of 3e. At-will abilities are primarily gained trough feats. Most classes use the same daily power structure with a few other classes possessing dailies for no particular reason (monk, barbarian, rogue, fighter). 5e is much more strongly influenced by the 3e design philosophy than 4e and it shows. The classes are aimless and focus less. There is no clear goal for each class. Each class lacks a unifying mechanic that really makes it stand out. The powers that we do see available to the non casters are about as dull as possible.



I think you are right.  They are using the structure of pre-4e NOT JUST 3e.  They want to make money so they had to pick a structure.  If they stick with 4e, they will get exactly the same result as 4e.  Whether that is good or bad in you opinion, they decided they didn't want that exact same result.  

I thought the pro-4e camp would see beyond AEDU in their evaluation of 5e.  

Here are things that in my opinion at least had to come somewhat from 4e
1.  HD as a healing recovery mechanic.  Surely surges influenced this.  No one pre-4e is calling for anything but hit points.  I know it's not exactly the same but it is an influence.
2.  At will magic for casters.  This is popular I think.  I don't love it but I can live with it.
3.  Healing powers that let you also do something else at the same time.
4.  The complete lack of level drain of any sort
5.  Monster x.p. budget.

So sure.  4e AEDU is gone.  It had to go if they want to increase their fan base even a little.  They did not throw everything out though.  And in some cases for me thats bad.
 
Going back to playing without powers was fun for an hour or two; then the nostalgia wore off, and the boredom set in. By the end of the playtest I DMed, I was bored out of my mind. I simply can't go back to the drudgery of playing a 3.5-ish fighter... or rather I won't. I imagine some others feel this way as well.

 

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

At-wills and Encounters, yes, I would like many more of those.
Dailies can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.
Vancian magic is bad enough...Vancian martial is just silly.



Can we just get rid of Vancian everything once and for all?
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Going back to playing without powers was fun for an hour or two; then the nostalgia wore off, and the boredom set in. By the end of the playtest I DMed, I was bored out of my mind. I simply can't go back to the drudgery of playing a 3.5-ish fighter... or rather I won't. I imagine some others feel this way as well.


 I know. it's hard to ROLE-play without pre-fabricated, spelled out, canned options in front of you.

Heaven forbid
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Going back to playing without powers was fun for an hour or two; then the nostalgia wore off, and the boredom set in. By the end of the playtest I DMed, I was bored out of my mind. I simply can't go back to the drudgery of playing a 3.5-ish fighter... or rather I won't. I imagine some others feel this way as well.


 I know. it's hard to ROLE-play without pre-fabricated, spelled out, canned options in front of you.

Heaven forbid



Game design has advanced in the last 30 years. No longer do we have to play systems that rely on the DM constantly and arbitrarily making things up on the spot. Thats what rules are for. You are certainly welcome to your own opinion if you think a lack of clearly defined rules inhibits role playing... but my group certainly did not feel that way. There's no going back to DM fiat for us.

 

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

Going back to playing without powers was fun for an hour or two; then the nostalgia wore off, and the boredom set in. By the end of the playtest I DMed, I was bored out of my mind. I simply can't go back to the drudgery of playing a 3.5-ish fighter... or rather I won't. I imagine some others feel this way as well.


 I know. it's hard to ROLE-play without pre-fabricated, spelled out, canned options in front of you.

Heaven forbid



Game design has advanced in the last 30 years. No longer do we have to play systems that rely on the DM constantly and arbitrarily making things up on the spot. Thats what rules are for. You are certainly welcome to your own opinion if you think a lack of clearly defined rules inhibits role playing... but my group certainly did not feel that way. There's no going back to DM fiat for us.



Monopoly doesn't require a DM "constantly and arbitrarily making things up on the spot" either. It is also not a role-playing game. When you are telling a shared story, and not playing a board game, you need a DM to rule how the fluff reacts to the mechanics. Otherwise it is just avatars playing a virtual board game.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Game design has advanced in the last 30 years. No longer do we have to play systems that rely on the DM constantly and arbitrarily making things up on the spot.

Uh huh. Right. Because there's an absolute rule about what constitutes "light" cover or when a monster will choose to use its daily, or how much bonus to apply to a CHA check for a well-delivered bit of roleplaying. Yeah, it's not as though people were, you know, making things up on the fly.

All 4e did was hide the mechanism. Well, from some people, anyway.
Going back to playing without powers was fun for an hour or two; then the nostalgia wore off, and the boredom set in. By the end of the playtest I DMed, I was bored out of my mind. I simply can't go back to the drudgery of playing a 3.5-ish fighter... or rather I won't. I imagine some others feel this way as well.


 I know. it's hard to ROLE-play without pre-fabricated, spelled out, canned options in front of you.

Heaven forbid



Game design has advanced in the last 30 years. No longer do we have to play systems that rely on the DM constantly and arbitrarily making things up on the spot. Thats what rules are for. You are certainly welcome to your own opinion if you think a lack of clearly defined rules inhibits role playing... but my group certainly did not feel that way. There's no going back to DM fiat for us.



Monopoly doesn't require a DM "constantly and arbitrarily making things up on the spot" either. It is also not a role-playing game. When you are telling a shared story, and not playing a board game, you need a DM to rule how the fluff reacts to the mechanics. Otherwise it is just avatars playing a virtual board game.



Well thanks for your opinion, but my and my group's experience contradicts it. When we played 4e, we could still tell our 'shared story' without constantly needing DM rulings. The fluff and the mechanics needed very little arbitration, because the rules were carefully and coherently designed. And we were able to roleplay just fine. But I guess according to you that was just badwrongfun?

 

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

I think we should all agree that roleplaying is possible whatever the underlying rules mechanism.  We can also agree that for us one way or the other helps us enjoy and roleplay.

The question is - do you enjoy the mechanical approach to choosing from a fixed menu of powers or not?

Some do and some don't.  I'm not even sure why some people consider that more interesting.  I think part of it is their desire to make combat more important and more central to the game.  A more tactical game where you use powers to gain your advantage is the kind of "game" they are interested in.  

For me if there is tension, threat of loss, intrigue, etc..  then it's fun.  I definitely don't need a menu of powers to make the game fun.  In fact for me, this menu gets in the way because it slows down the game and makes combat far more central to the experience.  Combat in my game is how we quickly resolve the build up to that point.  It's a lot more about preparing, planning, and engaging.  Now I don't disagree that every bit of that stuff is possible with any roleplaying game.  The difference is I don't want that stuff interrupted by a long very tactical combat that takes hours.  I want my long combats to take 30 minutes max and I want the average to be 15.   Why?  Because I want to focus on everything else to an equal degree.  The puzzles, the traps, the exploration, the interaction, etc...  

I accept some of you prefer a more serious combat oriented game.  I can also see where some people would prefer this style.  But please stop implying that we aren't having fun playing our way or that our way is boring for us.  It's not honest.



Edit:
One of the most annoying arguments these days is the "game design has advanced" theory.  Let me just tell you that if you listened to a lot of people that talk about modern design, we'd all be playing FATE.  Game design trends a cyclical.  In the arena of wargames, simplicity has been the trend.  Just look at Axis and Allies compared to Third Reich.  Are either of these games bad?  No.  They are different and they serve a different though overlapping market.   Same for rpgs.
You can role-play chess and monopoly too.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Emerikol's last post should be bronzed. And tattooed onto the foreheads of everyone involved in the DDN design process. In reverse, of course, so they can see it in the mirror every morning.
Emerikol's last post should be bronzed. And tattooed onto the foreheads of everyone involved in the DDN design process. In reverse, of course, so they can see it in the mirror every morning.



Thanks.  I'm used to battling opposition so much it's nice to get a word of encouragement.
I think we should all agree that roleplaying is possible whatever the underlying rules mechanism.  We can also agree that for us one way or the other helps us enjoy and roleplay.

The question is - do you enjoy the mechanical approach to choosing from a fixed menu of powers or not?

Some do and some don't.  I'm not even sure why some people consider that more interesting.  I think part of it is their desire to make combat more important and more central to the game.  A more tactical game where you use powers to gain your advantage is the kind of "game" they are interested in.  

For me if there is tension, threat of loss, intrigue, etc..  then it's fun.  I definitely don't need a menu of powers to make the game fun.  In fact for me, this menu gets in the way because it slows down the game and makes combat far more central to the experience.  Combat in my game is how we quickly resolve the build up to that point.  It's a lot more about preparing, planning, and engaging.  Now I don't disagree that every bit of that stuff is possible with any roleplaying game.  The difference is I don't want that stuff interrupted by a long very tactical combat that takes hours.  I want my long combats to take 30 minutes max and I want the average to be 15.   Why?  Because I want to focus on everything else to an equal degree.  The puzzles, the traps, the exploration, the interaction, etc...  

I accept some of you prefer a more serious combat oriented game.  I can also see where some people would prefer this style.  But please stop implying that we aren't having fun playing our way or that our way is boring for us.  It's not honest.



Edit:
One of the most annoying arguments these days is the "game design has advanced" theory.  Let me just tell you that if you listened to a lot of people that talk about modern design, we'd all be playing FATE.  Game design trends a cyclical.  In the arena of wargames, simplicity has been the trend.  Just look at Axis and Allies compared to Third Reich.  Are either of these games bad?  No.  They are different and they serve a different though overlapping market.   Same for rpgs.




+1 on ALL that

Actually, I find the more codified combat is, the less the game is about combat and more it is about roleplaying and exploration. You don't have to worry about the mechanical part of the game, because its well balanced. I don't want mere 15 min or 30 min combat encounters, however, because that seems like a waste of even calling it an encounter, just like I don't want 15 min or 30 min social encounters. I like whatever we're doing to be meaningful. With codified combat, the mechanics of it all fades to the background for me and my players. The combats are meaningful, but not the central focus of the story, and carry equal weight to the social and exploratory segments of the game. 

I have puzzles in my games, funny voices, dance competitions, singing bards, scavenger hunting, rare rituals, AND combat! The whole experience, just as its been in every edition, but in no edition so much as 4e has the mechanics so faded out of the way, so that what the PCs are doing, no matter what pillar, really mattered as much.

note, My combats in older editions were generally planned just as long as my 4e combats, only ending earlier because of a TPK/Run away scenario usually. I don't count a coupla guards vs 5 or more PCs as an encounter, that's a Hiccup! 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Actually, I find the more codified combat is, the less the game is about combat and more it is about roleplaying and exploration. You don't have to worry about the mechanical part of the game, because its well balanced. I don't want mere 15 min or 30 min combat encounters, however, because that seems like a waste of even calling it an encounter, just like I don't want 15 min or 30 min social encounters. I like whatever we're doing to be meaningful. With codified combat, the mechanics of it all fades to the background for me and my players. The combats are meaningful, but not the central focus of the story, and carry equal weight to the social and exploratory segments of the game. 

I have puzzles in my games, funny voices, dance competitions, singing bards, scavenger hunting, rare rituals, AND combat! The whole experience, just as its been in every edition, but in no edition so much as 4e has the mechanics so faded out of the way, so that what the PCs are doing, no matter what pillar, really mattered as much.

note, My combats in older editions were generally planned just as long as my 4e combats, only ending earlier because of a TPK/Run away scenario usually. I don't count a coupla guards vs 5 or more PCs as an encounter, that's a Hiccup! 



We just have different experiences. 

As an addendum to what I said above...
For me another aspect of the game in early editions of D&D was that minor encounters mattered far more than they did in 3e or 4e.  At least in the way I played those games.
I think we should all agree that roleplaying is possible whatever the underlying rules mechanism.  We can also agree that for us one way or the other helps us enjoy and roleplay.

The question is - do you enjoy the mechanical approach to choosing from a fixed menu of powers or not?

Some do and some don't.  I'm not even sure why some people consider that more interesting.  I think part of it is their desire to make combat more important and more central to the game.  A more tactical game where you use powers to gain your advantage is the kind of "game" they are interested in.  

For me if there is tension, threat of loss, intrigue, etc..  then it's fun.  I definitely don't need a menu of powers to make the game fun.  In fact for me, this menu gets in the way because it slows down the game and makes combat far more central to the experience.  Combat in my game is how we quickly resolve the build up to that point.  It's a lot more about preparing, planning, and engaging.  Now I don't disagree that every bit of that stuff is possible with any roleplaying game.  The difference is I don't want that stuff interrupted by a long very tactical combat that takes hours.  I want my long combats to take 30 minutes max and I want the average to be 15.   Why?  Because I want to focus on everything else to an equal degree.  The puzzles, the traps, the exploration, the interaction, etc...  

I accept some of you prefer a more serious combat oriented game.  I can also see where some people would prefer this style.  But please stop implying that we aren't having fun playing our way or that our way is boring for us.  It's not honest.



Edit:
One of the most annoying arguments these days is the "game design has advanced" theory.  Let me just tell you that if you listened to a lot of people that talk about modern design, we'd all be playing FATE.  Game design trends a cyclical.  In the arena of wargames, simplicity has been the trend.  Just look at Axis and Allies compared to Third Reich.  Are either of these games bad?  No.  They are different and they serve a different though overlapping market.   Same for rpgs.



I agree.

I would just say that 1h+ long encounters should not be dismissed all the way just because it feels not necessary most of the time, because sometimes you just want to make an encounter truly epic and you want that tactical choices and time of play matters in order to carry that epicness. If the game can be summed up with a 10 minutes combat encounter to kill the BBEG, then why can't it be also manageable to make it last 1h or more and still be fun.

In that way, 4E did really great. You could make living story combat encounters, with lots of twists, that take up to 2 or 3h of play and still be fun and entertaining. But you could also manage to reduce the time for small, quick, and not really meaningfull combat encounters if you wanted too - despite the lack of guidelines in the books, since minionifying ennemies wasn't really that hard to do. Long, uninteresting encounters were not a game design flaw, but more an experience about finding how to use a gaming system matter. And for that we can all happily agree to say that the way adventures and campaigns were written in 4E was for a good part the principal flaw of this edition. Instead of showing how this system could be used to tell living stories and how combat encounters could be simplified, they were just a collection of individual, long, poor sensical, and boring combat encounters. From my point of view, the backstab to 4E was the lack of good written, opening eyes, adventures.

I hope that D&D Next would provides light rules for short and furious encounters, as it is now, as well as more codified rules for long and tactical ones. It seems that devs have that in mind as in a kind of advanced module more than in the basic DMG. I won't spit until I see that, but it makes me feel that it would be more difficult to bring it to life that way around than to do it from complex to simple as in 4E. Time will tell.

hopefully it will be a module.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Other than organized play (Gamedays, Encounters) I rarely used published modular adventure material, which is quite possibly why I never had the problems that others had. I read through many an issue of Dungeon Magazine, and I did use 1 of the of the Adventure Paths for a Store Game (Drums of War I think)

I always tailor my encounters to what I want the feel of them to be. I want battles to have meaning, then the encounter is made meaningful, with set pieces that interact, monsters using the magical treasure they guard, monsters that attack with at least as much tactical consideration as their intelligence indicates (or their organization does, pack animals can be instinctively tactical). I attack in waves, hold some back until the party is commited, things of that nature to make the whole thing feel as organic as possible.

I have done the small, hiccup encounters, but to -->ME<-- those aren't combat encounters, those are more social/puzzle/exploration encounters that just happen to feature combat, but are more about getting around/over/through the obsticle, than they are about the battle itself. Those 2 Guards can be bluffed past, snuck past, retreated from as they find another way in, distracted, or even made to attack each other, depending on the approach used. In this way, they can be significant encounters in and of themselves, but not combat encounters per se.

Like others have stated, I definitely want the BBEG battle to be something my players are talking about long after the campaign is over with, just as much as I want to overhear them bragging about some descriptive fluff text I did for a room, or relating to their friends some Trap or Puzzle I developed. I take great pride in the fact that my games come to life with my players, and I saw 4e as a great venue to do that! Everyone's experiences of course vary and this is by no means the only way it comes about. You not only get into the game what you invest, but also, the more a particular system plays to your nature/strengths, the more you as an individual will be able to gleen from it. 

Pathfinder, for instance, does nothing for me whatsoever...not sure where the disconnect is, but if I want to go back and make adventures using something similar to that, I run a 3.5 game with the WotC books (still own them) but Pathfinder doesn't inspire the same out of me. I've played in some pathfinder, and like any other game, from a player standpoint, it is much much more about the DM than the mechanical system as to my overall enjoyment there...and most of the Pathfinder DMs I've played with don't tend to bring much out of the system for me (again, in My Experience)

 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
picking powers brought depth to the game and the combat is dnd's core IMHO

now all classes have equal at-will powers, looking like 3.5th rather than 4th

in the end remains multiclassing
picking powers brought depth to the game and the combat is dnd's core IMHO



If you think that D&D is primarily a combat game, and you require spelled-out options such as pre-determined "powers" in order to believe tactical depth is possible, you might want to consider any of the many excellent boardgames, inluding the various WotC published fantasy boardgames, rather than a tabletop roleplaying game.

This thread is full of crap.


First of all role-playng is not hurt or heped by powers. (Full stop)


Second it is BS that people pretend you can do 'anything' in a game without powers.


lets look at 2e and 4e games.


4e my 10th level fighter can cleave and reaping strike... and mark


2e, where I can do 'anythin'... I tell the DM I want to swing my sword through the goblin in front of me and catch the one next to him the the tip of my sword as I swing, doing my str mod damage... and well I am at it I am so focused on that first goblin that he dare not move or attack anyone else or I will swing again... even if the Mage is next to us both... yea see how well that goes over.
I bet 7 out of 10 DMs tell you to suck an egg, you get x number of attacks, and that is it, and attacking the mage doesn't provok. 


Lets look at 3e and 4e, remember you can do 'anything' in 3e.


So my 8th level fighter has come and get it...and mark and a dozen other things


3e there I can do 'anything' I tell the DM I am insulting the Death Knights honnor, and lowering my sword, holding my other hand out and motioning with my four fingers to come get me... but the death knight is fighting the cleric, and has to move through a few feet to reatch me, leaveing the cleric free to cast spells once again... Maybe the DM goes for it, or maybe he says "I fight you after your healer is toast. No way to make your character do it if the DM says No...



Lets go back to 2e and 3e for another moment.


4e I am a Warlord, a Leader of Men, who was Commander strike, Knights move and Inspireing words, but in 2e I can do 'anything' except I am a Fighter, in 3e I am a fighter with the leadership feat, and a cohort and 35 followers.

We are fighting a Death knight in all 3 games, the mage is down to single digit HP, the  rouge/thief is not in a good postion to help, and it is my turn.  


So 4e I can say I ues Knights move as my move action to let a rouge PC move into flank, I use commander strike to not only let him get a free attack, but add my int mod to damage, I then use an inspireing word on the mage.


3e and 2e, I tell the DM, I yell for th rogue/thief to move, and try to hold the death knights attantion as he moves into postion, then sneak attacks (or back stabs) as I destract him... oh and after the rouge/thief hits I yell over to the mage "We are about to turn this around, don't give up now" and inspire him to get his second wind... what do you think I will be told about that round...     

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?


First of all role-playng is not hurt or heped by powers. (Full stop)


If a game with powers lengthens combat and makes most of the session a wargame, it most definitely can reduce roleplaying.  It's just a matter of time alloted for each activity.   


Second it is BS that people pretend you can do 'anything' in a game without powers.


You are right.  Powers introduce into the game stuff that no sane person would allow you to improvise.  If you spent any time on these boards, you'd realize that powers are being attacked viciously for exactly that reason.  The powers introduced effects that were wuxia for a lot of people.  So the DM disallowing such things was not a problem it was a feature.

First of all role-playng is not hurt or heped by powers. (Full stop)


If a game with powers lengthens combat and makes most of the session a wargame, it most definitely can reduce roleplaying.  It's just a matter of time alloted for each activity.   


If the complaint was about combat length, I would not argue. I found the way my game handled that was to increase damge or lower HP, or in some cases both... but that had little to nothig to do with powers.

The fact that I introduced alien tech style blasters that the rifle did3d8 brutal 2 high crit for it's W and a laser sword that did 3d6 brutal 1 off hand light blade... and it didn't hurt the game at all. Tells me that HP were WAY too high...   

  

Second it is BS that people pretend you can do 'anything' in a game without powers.


You are right.  Powers introduce into the game stuff that no sane person would allow you to improvise.  If you spent any time on these boards, you'd realize that powers are being attacked viciously for exactly that reason.  The powers introduced effects that were wuxia for a lot of people.  So the DM disallowing such things was not a problem it was a feature.



except most of the problems really come down to 'fighters can't have nice things'


look at my above examples and tell me one of them that was too over the top. There is 0 reason we can't have rules in every edtion to cover everyone of those situations. And they don't have to just be 4e powers... especialy look at he warlord one...  

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?


First of all role-playng is not hurt or heped by powers. (Full stop)


If a game with powers lengthens combat and makes most of the session a wargame, it most definitely can reduce roleplaying.  It's just a matter of time alloted for each activity.  

Powers aren't to blame, really.

"Powers" are just a partt of the "awesome epic combat engine" of 4e, which was intentionally made the focus of the game because the developers were so damn proud of it.  The intent to hook it into VTT subscriptions (which never actually materialized) likely contributed as well.  The true culprit, however, is HP bloat.

Going back to playing without powers was fun for an hour or two; then the nostalgia wore off, and the boredom set in. By the end of the playtest I DMed, I was bored out of my mind. I simply can't go back to the drudgery of playing a 3.5-ish fighter... or rather I won't. I imagine some others feel this way as well.


 I know. it's hard to ROLE-play without pre-fabricated, spelled out, canned options in front of you.

Heaven forbid


I think part of the appeal of DnD is that it is a well thought out, interesting, challenging universe. If I wanted to make a 'rely on everything from the DM and the players' then I wouldn't spend $300+ on DnD books- I'd spend $0.20 on a pencil and make it all up on the spot with my friends. The system is what I'm buying and what I'm using - so I want it to be a well thought out one that supports my roleplaying, rather than a system that demands roleplaying for it to be moderately interesting. Otherwise, as you say, I could roleplay chess which has nice simple (and bland) 'combat rules.'

I personally enjoyed being able to match the idea in my head with what was on the paper to a decent degree. If I say my wizard is an illusionist magician, but I have to choose fire spells only due to limited options ...well, that doesn't encourage roleplay or make the game more enjoyable to me.

 You are right.  Powers introduce into the game stuff that no sane person would allow you to improvise.  If you spent any time on these boards, you'd realize that powers are being attacked viciously for exactly that reason.  The powers introduced effects that were wuxia for a lot of people. So the DM disallowing such things was not a problem it was a feature.

So the DMing disallowing players to have fun or do cool things (without spells) = good thing?

Especially given that the DM still has to let spells through that might be 'wuxia'