Sugestion to satisfy both 4th and 3rd edition fans

One think that I think WOTC should think is to release 2 different sets, like Advanced D&D or just D&D (that would use the Next approach) and D&D or Tactics D&D (that would use 4th edition approach).

4th edition could replace the old Chain Mail. If you want to play like Hack'n'Slash, focus on battle tatics, you use the new 4th edition approach. It is 10000 better for that. If you want to play with more skill, more alignment options, more realistic recovering approach... then you got D&D Next.

What 4th introduced that was amazing was that, all the characters can fit a table matrix, where you can compare then. They are really ballanced. D&D Next must review too much to not have many errata after. It's too unbalanced now. Good rules MUST have viable mathematics. We must put the classes and races on a matrix and compare, a 1st level wizard and a 1st level fighter should have the same power. The same should happen with a 20th level wizard and fighter.

WOTC would sell more products, and satisfy both old and new fans! I would buy both sets. I would play the Advanced (D&D Next) for long campaigns, with entire days sections, and would play the Basic (new 4th edition) for 4h hack'n'slash sessions!

The 4th edition approach to separate: Hero Path, Paragon Path and Epic Path is classic. Like 1st edition Basic, Expert and Master.

You could have PH. MM and DM triad for each... you would have the entire set of rules on the first, and adding levels, powers, customization for the previous levels on the others! 9 books instead of 3. Complete! All with amazing classic visual presentation (like 1st, 2nd and 4th edition did... 3rd is too modern for a fantasy rpg)!

You can have that Martial, Divine, etc. extra books to offer even more feats, customization and roleplaying options (more build options, subclasses)... and also for races (instead of just elves, add all the subtypes)...

All of that is classic! But I really miss the comparable matrix approach of 4th. You don't need to call it powers or separate it as at will, encounter... but you would need to present all classes in a tabular view, that you can put each other, side by side, and be similar!

That's it!

As i understand it, next will feature several modules that will expand it into the direction of 4e (a more tactical focused RPG) so that should cover us 4e fans.

The problem with keeping an old edition 'alive' is that it creates brand dillution, ie you want everyone on the same platform - so the playing feild is level. Also consider development at WoTC, its much better to have a unified team with several projects than 2 seperate teams.

Im a big 4e fan dont get me wrong, and theres a lot about next that i want to see changed - but i can see enough 4e inside the mechanics of next that provides me with player/dm 'quality of life' around the table so im content to see where it goes. 
Great feedback! Thanks!

80% of the games I played was AD&D or previous stuff. 15% was 3rd edition. I almost didn't played 4th. I enjoyed to be full customizable (original) and also offering ready sets (essentials). And beeing fan of tabletop battle systems like Games Workshop, I liked the battle of 4th, mailly the Power system.

A lot of things can be merged as one single system, like you said... but need to be careful. Really well ballanced classes and races, and like they already are doing in Next, set parts as optional (the DM when creating the campaign set it and done), like feats and skills...

The optional customization can be extended to realistic or 4th recovering/healling system. And if the visual display of the class features be very well defined, you can use just features that can be presented like cards on the tatics game, without changing rules (and becoming easier to compare powers.

So would be just the Ability Stats, Races Traits and Classes Features - Feats and Skills if you want go deep. And bring all the Powers from 4th to the Features and Traits. Using the colors and so...

Wait a minute!!!!

I just downloaded the new Playtest. I know it's not complete and also there's no visual added to the text... But it's already doing it!

They have the AD&D style table for each class... they have subraces... 3rd edition engine... and the features, GREAT, are including some of the powers as features / feats... oh...

Sorry... now I really like D&D Next. When will be released?

PS: they just need the original 4th edition look and feel, mainly the Book Spine... I have all D&D versions... if you look to the shell, nothing is so elegant and beautiful than the original 4th edition (not the ugly essentials)... that white part.... and a strong color for each type of book... always hard cover.... with well selected fonts and an image... in fact are the most beautifull Book Spine that always existed!
Hi,

This isn't a playtest session report, so I'll be moving it to D&D Next General Discussion.

Thanks!

Monica

Monica

Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator

A friendly dragon.

Getting to Know Your Magic Online Client

Basic Dungeons & Dragons FREE

I also removed some content that could be misconstrued as edition warring. Let's avoid saying some editions aren't "roleplaying games" or that they aren't the same game as D&D.

Thanks,

Monica

Monica

Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator

A friendly dragon.

Getting to Know Your Magic Online Client

Basic Dungeons & Dragons FREE


PS: they just need the original 4th edition look and feel,



Couldn't agree more, I'm a designer by trade and I felt 4ed featured some of the nicest most accesable and functional graphic design in a TTRPG i've ever seen.

I'd probably feel better about this if their design logs hadn't been missing the point of 4E things, what they want, and generally the overall 4E experience.

Facing rules for example, which was never a concern for 4E players.
They don't need "two separate sets" but there most certainly will be pieces of separate options that will be used.  They don't need to be all tied together.  Mix&match between the "3e Set" and the "4e Set" should be encouraged.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
They don't need "two separate sets" but there most certainly will be pieces of separate options that will be used.  They don't need to be all tied together.  Mix&match between the "3e Set" and the "4e Set" should be encouraged.



Exactly.  You want a better D&D?  This is how you make it.  More options treated as options. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Sorry Monica, I really enjoy 4th! In fact I am defending it, baucase I see many 4th players that are afraid of D&D Next. The intention is really to keep all the fans and reach even more!

About the Next, I was comparing with a Playset from 2012! I made a mess with my files... with the latest version, my concerns are gone! I really am enjoying the direction! I just think that 27 points is too few for the character. An standard array of 15,14,13,12,11,10 would me much better!

Again talking about the 4th edition (original set) presentation. If Next use tables with beautiful "cardiable" colors to list the Features, etc. (just that, visual change), then would be really all D&D editions in one!
 
As i understand it, next will feature several modules that will expand it into the direction of 4e (a more tactical focused RPG) so that should cover us 4e fans.

The problem with keeping an old edition 'alive' is that it creates brand dillution, ie you want everyone on the same platform - so the playing feild is level. Also consider development at WoTC, its much better to have a unified team with several projects than 2 seperate teams.

Im a big 4e fan dont get me wrong, and theres a lot about next that i want to see changed - but i can see enough 4e inside the mechanics of next that provides me with player/dm 'quality of life' around the table so im content to see where it goes. 



Sorry, you can't build 4E style play on top of the core/basic they have now. Its just not possible. They have too many assumptions baked into core...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 dont see how its impossible at all - in fact several rules options have been presented already that are almost identical mechanicaly to 4e, albeit presented in a different way.
I have removed content from this thread because Edition Warring is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

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

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
We have no evidence it's impossible.

We do however, have the anecdotal evidence of the dissatisfied 4E players that it is not currently being successfully done.

Whether you find that relevant is up to the individual.
We have no evidence it's impossible.

We do however, have the anecdotal evidence of the dissatisfied 4E players that it is not currently being successfully done.

Whether you find that relevant is up to the individual.


I'd hope it's not that up to the individual, considering the parts of Next that are intended to satisfy 4e players have not yet been included in a packet.

Next hasn't been trying to make 4e fans happy yet.  I consider that to be a mistake, but it's a far different case than if they had tried and failed.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Sorry, you can't build 4E style play on top of the core/basic they have now. Its just not possible. They have too many assumptions baked into core...




Of course you can, I ran a session, AEDU style, ports over quite nicely, thank you...Smile
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 
Hadn't heard of anyone actually doing that yet (though admittedly not looking particularly hard for it either).  Curious about specific port techniques, how you did it, what existing structures you utilized if any, etc.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Hadn't heard of anyone actually doing that yet (though admittedly not looking particularly hard for it either).  Curious about specific port techniques, how you did it, what existing structures you utilized if any, etc.



Right, well, gut out the existing classes' mechanics, but keep the basics (HD, attack bonus, etc), adjust for Minor Actions and Conditions are the big ones.

Really, have a go; fun. 
I do not see the havinbg 2 product lines. AD&D ate up D&D long ago for example. Dilutes the player base and creates problems for people ordering the game.

 Building of SWSE and being able to strip out feats and a better optional skill system may have been one way to get the 3rd and 4th ed players togather but likely at the expense of the TSR players. D&DN success is going to come down to the casuals anyway.  

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


I do not see the havinbg 2 product lines. AD&D ate up D&D long ago for example. Dilutes the player base and creates problems for people ordering the game.

 Building of SWSE and being able to strip out feats and a better optional skill system may have been one way to get the 3rd and 4th ed players togather but likely at the expense of the TSR players. D&DN success is going to come down to the casuals anyway.  

Really if they support all settings that is a big step on gaining everyone.
 Building of SWSE and being able to strip out feats and a better optional skill system may have been one way to get the 3rd and 4th ed players togather but likely at the expense of the TSR players. D&DN success is going to come down to the casuals anyway.  



SWSE and ToB were snapshots into 4th Ed design, for me, unfortunately, they took the latter road of design...without recharge...
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.
As i understand it, next will feature several modules that will expand it into the direction of 4e (a more tactical focused RPG) so that should cover us 4e fans.

The problem with keeping an old edition 'alive' is that it creates brand dillution, ie you want everyone on the same platform - so the playing feild is level. Also consider development at WoTC, its much better to have a unified team with several projects than 2 seperate teams.

Im a big 4e fan dont get me wrong, and theres a lot about next that i want to see changed - but i can see enough 4e inside the mechanics of next that provides me with player/dm 'quality of life' around the table so im content to see where it goes. 

I am still a 3.5 fan, but I'm liking the approach I'm seeing so far. They've been pretty clever and creative in managing to please 3.5e and 4e fans (Epic Feat).

I was pretty sure when I heard discussion of evil paladins that I was pretty much going to stock up on 3rd edition books and hope the next edition 'got it right'. But then I see that they found the middle ground by keeping them lawful (which at least fits with one definition of paladin as a knight who follows a code). And added the OATH... which allows for traditional paladin, black guard and the neutral Warden (nice touch, WOTC! nice touch!).

I'm hopeful. While I personally felt like 4e was a betrayal of anything that dared call itself D&D, many 4e fans feel like 4e 'finally got it right', and many never got a chance to see that there was another way to play so as to have a point of comparison. The reason I'm hopeful is that it looks as if the new system will provide the capabilities to play the traditional style of play that I like (where monsters are deadly, magic is mysterious, and the ability to play the type of character I want to play) and the 4e people get what they want most (which I gather to be: more balanced classes, more spells per day, less chance for character death and the ability to play the type of character they want to play).

Maybe some time after Next is out, 3.5 fans and 4e fans will have a big Thanksgiving Dinner together. The paladin and the blackguard will be seated at opposite ends of the table, probably, but there will be not only greasy sausage, blood pudding and veal, but a variety of vegetarian options as well. I'm not sure warforged eat, but if they do, I'm sure the old-school hobbit.. umm... halfling has a recipe.

No, seriously.. It looks promising.

And I'd thought about the idea of just going ahead and making two games as well. I like your thinking there. I agree that it would just dilute their project teams so that no one would really be served well.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.




So you are saying I have showed that it is possible to apply the AEDU system to 5th Ed, but at the same time I am not illustrating anything...?

I think it is obvious to us now that you come here purely looking for an argument.

...reminds me of that Python sketch... 
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.




So you are saying I have showed that it is possible to apply the AEDU system to 5th Ed, but at the same time I am not illustrating anything...?

I think it is obvious to us now that you come here purely looking for an argument.

...reminds me of that Python sketch... 


I hate to keep harping on failed reading comprehension, but posts like this seem to make it necessary.
This is one of those threads that should just quietly die off...

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Sorry, you can't build 4E style play on top of the core/basic they have now. Its just not possible. They have too many assumptions baked into core...




Of course you can, I ran a session, AEDU style, ports over quite nicely, thank you...



AEDU is not 4E no matter how many times you repeat it...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.
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.




So you are saying I have showed that it is possible to apply the AEDU system to 5th Ed, but at the same time I am not illustrating anything...?

I think it is obvious to us now that you come here purely looking for an argument.

...reminds me of that Python sketch... 


I hate to keep harping on failed reading comprehension, but posts like this seem to make it necessary.




Hehehehehe, so, looking for an argument, it is...?
Sorry, you can't build 4E style play on top of the core/basic they have now. Its just not possible. They have too many assumptions baked into core...




Of course you can, I ran a session, AEDU style, ports over quite nicely, thank you...



AEDU is not 4E no matter how many times you repeat it...




Never said it was, and have not repeated it, what are you on about...?Smile

I think (know) I have touched a nerve...Smile
Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.




So you are saying I have showed that it is possible to apply the AEDU system to 5th Ed, but at the same time I am not illustrating anything...?

I think it is obvious to us now that you come here purely looking for an argument.

...reminds me of that Python sketch... 


I hate to keep harping on failed reading comprehension, but posts like this seem to make it necessary.




Hehehehehe, so, looking for an argument, it is...?


Less an argument, and more you insisting I said something I never said, despite the fact you even quoted the post.
One think that I think WOTC should think is to release 2 different sets, like Advanced D&D or just D&D (that would use the Next approach) and D&D or Tactics D&D (that would use 4th edition approach).




They already tried splitting 4th into 3 tiers and it diden't work.
Essentials red boc (basic)
Essentials (standard)
4th core ( advanced)
 
Sorry, you can't build 4E style play on top of the core/basic they have now. Its just not possible. They have too many assumptions baked into core...




Of course you can, I ran a session, AEDU style, ports over quite nicely, thank you...



Just to fill in more information. They've said the 5E core/basic game is just about done and set in stone. So what that means is they aren't going to change the core.

Now one of the defining features of 4E was having interesting tactical options on each round that were not inferior to just dealing damage.

In order to fix this a lot of the core assumptions of 5E would have to be changed. Starting hit points, monster hit points, removal of save or die effects, codified rules for DC difficulty, improvised damage, improvised status effects. Spell casters would have to be reigned in, they'd have to add in multiple targets for defenses that made sense (like spells that could target more than just Dex, Int, or Con) and allow non-casters to target those same defenses. They would have to rebalance the classes in all pillars of play. They would have to implement some kind of healing surge mechanic (or some other way to limit the amount of hit point recovery a character can have during a period of time, even if its just 1 hour wait between potion use and 5 minutes between cures or something). They'd have to let us break bounded accuracy and scale things based on character level (not necessarily +1/2 like 4E but stuff like 2E where Fighters got +1 to BAB per level and Wizards got +1/4 or whatever).

They've also explained that they won't make more than one module that rewrites core to be used at a time and their examples were things like armor as DR will be one of those and ability scores as defenses would be another (IIRC). So no we can't have all those changes I listed in the game with modules because they've already said they won't support that. They already said they won't support breaking bounded accuracy.

So no we really can't just layer 4E on top of the core right now and they've said they have no intention of changing the core...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.
One think that I think WOTC should think is to release 2 different sets, like Advanced D&D or just D&D (that would use the Next approach) and D&D or Tactics D&D (that would use 4th edition approach).




They already tried splitting 4th into 3 tiers and it diden't work.
Essentials red boc (basic)
Essentials (standard)
4th core ( advanced)
 



Thats because they nerfed alot of 4th ed. rules with essentials.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.




So you are saying I have showed that it is possible to apply the AEDU system to 5th Ed, but at the same time I am not illustrating anything...?

I think it is obvious to us now that you come here purely looking for an argument.

...reminds me of that Python sketch... 


I hate to keep harping on failed reading comprehension, but posts like this seem to make it necessary.




Hehehehehe, so, looking for an argument, it is...?


Less an argument, and more you insisting I said something I never said, despite the fact you even quoted the post.




Ah, so back-pedalling is the deal...wouldn't blame ya...Smile
Sorry, you can't build 4E style play on top of the core/basic they have now. Its just not possible. They have too many assumptions baked into core...




Of course you can, I ran a session, AEDU style, ports over quite nicely, thank you...



AEDU is not 4E no matter how many times you repeat it...




Never said it was, and have not repeated it, what are you on about...?

I think (know) I have touched a nerve...



No, I could care less, but you are insinuating that 4E = AEDU. When it doesn't. Its more like 4E = interesting tactical options (to summarize my other posts on the subject)...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.


Just to fill in more information. They've said the 5E core/basic game is just about done and set in stone. So what that means is they aren't going to change the core.




Actually, they said:
For most classes, the changes will be largely cosmetic or a simple rearrangement of what you've already seen.

Do you have a playtest report on that by any chance?



No, why?

It's very easy to adjust the AEDU Powers system to 5th Ed: that's my favourite part of 5th Ed: ease of converting previous edition material. 

The chassis of 5th Ed is perfect for slathering/porting over, etc, etc. 


I wish people would get over the "What 4e players want=AEDU" mindset. It's not helping discussion very much.




You don't seem to be helping discussion, seems like a whole lot of hot-air...and posturing.

I am constructively illustrating how 4th Ed can be implemented in 5th Ed, what are are gonna do'? 


You're not illustrating that though. All you showed was it's possible for an AEDU system to be put into 5e, which nobody has denied.




So you are saying I have showed that it is possible to apply the AEDU system to 5th Ed, but at the same time I am not illustrating anything...?

I think it is obvious to us now that you come here purely looking for an argument.

...reminds me of that Python sketch... 


I hate to keep harping on failed reading comprehension, but posts like this seem to make it necessary.




Hehehehehe, so, looking for an argument, it is...?


Less an argument, and more you insisting I said something I never said, despite the fact you even quoted the post.




Ah, so back-pedalling is the deal...wouldn't blame ya...


I haven't budged an inch :|. ike I said, you insisted I said something, I highlighted the parts that show you're wrong.