Root cause analysis 4th edition

Root cause analysis 4th edition

Here we look at the Why  behind certain changes that where made in 4th edition.


basic posts should be build up in the folowing manner :

1 ) discribe a 4th edition mecanic.
2 ) discribe what the problem was this 4th edition mecanic tried to resove compared to editons before it.
3) does the current playtest packet adress the problem discribed at numer 2
4) if your awnser at number 3 is no make a sugestion on hoe 5th might adress the problem. 
1 ) 4th edition moved healing from spells to class abilities.

2 ) It tries to resolve healer paralisis.
This is where a player gets very reluctant to use recources to do anything else then heal becouse they might need the healing later on.
By splitting the healing and the spell recource it freed up players to make use of their spell recource without it effecting their ability to heal.


3) the current packet introduced this problem in a even worse way then it was in older edition becouse of the lower number of spells you can cast.
There is however a big exeption to this being the priest with access to the Restore Health channel divinity.

4) make it so that the Restore Health channel divinity either becomes a standard feature of the cleric class, or that it can be chosen as a option no matter witch Deity you chose.
 
I think you need to add a 2b.  Mainly, what are the downside.  If it was pure upside, then we can simply transfer the mechanic.


1) 4e gaves all classes plenty of interestings choices.

2) To counter the "simple fighter, complex wizard".  Everyone got equal oppertunity.
2b) Many people where overwhelmed with the number of options and their turns took a long time while they considered all of them, slowing the game as a whole.

3) Some classes have options, some are simple.  Giving players their choice of how much thought they want to put into mechanics.

4) Break up complex and simple into sub-classes.  That will allow people to play the class they want, as well as the complexity that suits them.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

1) Encounter Powers and Daily Powers for all classes (At least before Essentials), accumulated at the same rate.

2) Encounter powers made player character effectiveness more stable and reliable accross multiple encounters. The fact that powers and resources were acquired at the same rate also meant that fluctuations in the number of encounters between long rests effected every character roughly equivalently. Thus, the DM doesn't favor any particular class or playstyle based on how s/he designs the adventure.

3) D&DN not only fails to address this problem, it embraces it as a design choice.

4) Start over. I think there's no way to fix this with "classic" (pre 4th or late 3rd) D&D mechanics. Obviously not everyone cares about this "feature," but none of the playtest material is really appropriate for those who do.
1) Encounter Powers and Daily Powers for all classes (At least before Essentials), accumulated at the same rate.

2) Encounter powers made player character effectiveness more stable and reliable accross multiple encounters. The fact that powers and resources were acquired at the same rate also meant that fluctuations in the number of encounters between long rests effected every character roughly equivalently. Thus, the DM doesn't favor any particular class or playstyle based on how s/he designs the adventure.


I agree that these goals were achieved.



3) D&DN not only fails to address this problem, it embraces it as a design choice.


For me it was always a playstyle design choice.  It's a problem only for those who have a problem with it.   I think the adventuring "day" has always been a staple of D&D.



4) Start over. I think there's no way to fix this with "classic" (pre 4th or late 3rd) D&D mechanics. Obviously not everyone cares about this "feature," but none of the playtest material is really appropriate for those who do.



I agree the classic D&D concept is days.  It's a resource management game for the caster classes.  I like this aspect of D&D and feel it's essential for it to be D&D for me.   I do though think that depending on the classes you choose you could have sufficient variety of options to have it both ways.   

Suppose we make up a mage class that has only at-wills and encounters.  Doesn't that at least somewhat make up for the issue?  Especially if the mage did more of the utility stuff as a ritual.

I think the key here modularity wise is the classes (subclasses). 



4) Break up complex and simple into sub-classes.  That will allow people to play the class they want, as well as the complexity that suits them.



This seems like a somewhat likely possibility.
However, at least as presented so far, each subclass has a distinct archetypal identity.
I think most archetypes are fairly neutral by nature with respect to simple v complex: I could certainly see an argument for Wizards in particular being complex as part of their archetype as long as there's sufficient coverage from a sorcerer or something. But most archetypes should be able to support both simple and complex. Surely there's nothing about a Fighter as an archetype that says "this could only possibly be done as simple!"   

When we dig into subclasses, you end up mostly in the same position. For example, does it makes sense for Blackguard to be simple and Cavalier to be complex? or the opposite?

Ideally, I would think it could be done by providing a repeatable default for a lot of the options, with perhaps the Basic game has all classes chosing the default every time. Using 4e as an example, imagine if the Fighter had Power Strike as an option they can take instead of any/all encounter powers, but only as one of the options. So some players might chose it every time, others might chose only explicit encounter powers, and others might mix-n-match. And maybe a free SRD-style primer might only list Power Strike, giving people the chance to make a functional but simple Fighter, or pay for the books for more customization options.

The idea of +1 to an attribute being a substitution for a feat speaks to this idea. Assuming it's well balanced, the simple guy has higher raw numbers but no real versatility, while the complex guy picks up a bunch of cool tricks that let him adapt to various situations and/or combo up to greater heights (but does less well in fairly common situations due to simply lower stat numbers). 
1 ) It's difficult to run the game when some players have infravision and some do not.  Plus it's weird that underground dwarf cities don't need torches even though they are portrayed this way in almost all popular fantasy media.

2 ) 4ed removed infravision from all playable races.

3) No

4)  Do what 4ed did and remove infravision from all player races.
With light spells being cantrips infravision has not meant that much for a while.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Root cause analysis 4th edition

Here we look at the Why  behind certain changes that where made in 4th edition.


basic posts should be build up in the folowing manner :

1 ) discribe a 4th edition mecanic.
2 ) discribe what the problem was this 4th edition mecanic tried to resove compared to editons before it.
3) does the current playtest packet adress the problem discribed at numer 2
4) if your awnser at number 3 is no make a sugestion on hoe 5th might adress the problem. 




Short Rest-after during a 5 minute healing characters can spend however many healing surges they need (up to the amount of surges they currently have) to heal themselves and regain encounter powers


 The mechanic 4E solved with this mechanic is the need for PCs, particularly at low levels, to have the stop the adventure after just one encounter and return to homebase (i.e, the town, their campsite, etc) due to a low amount of hit points and combat resources.  In addition, it was designed to lessen the amount of magical healing the characters needed to continue adventuring.


The current DnD Next packet fails to address this problem and returns the game to the Pre-4E mechanic that many DnD games players complained about.  The current packet allows a short rest but you must rest for one hour for it to restore hit dice and such.  One hour is far too long and it likely to be unachievable in a Dungeon or closed environment populated by hostile creatures or events.

The Way the current packet could address or fix this issue is to allow short rest to be short.  In honesty, I don’t’ think they should even be five minutes long they should be an short amount defined as “a short enough time for characters to catch their breath and take a breather”.  This would make sense from both a mechanical and narrative standpoint.  For example, if the PCs are in a Dungeon and they kill  bunch or goblins in one room, and in the next room there is another pack of goblinoids waiting for them.  After, the fight the characters say “We catch our breath” and then they charge into the next room, that way  they are not spending five minutes just sitting there (and the goblins likewise) while the characters refresh to be at a level where it is not a near or actual TPK to face the enemy, and they certainly wouldn’t be sitting there an hour. Now, if during the initial fight the DM wanted the goblins to burst in and aid their allies that is a different story.   In essence, I see short rest as something that can never be interrupted but can be prevented if that makes sense.

@Emerikol: I was definitely thinking that you're among the audience that's less concerned with the impact that the adventuring day has on game balance. Or at least, you've made it clear that you prefer different levels of resource cycle dependency and accept the ramifications it has on game balance. However, I want to run a game where I don't have to carefully design around the adventuring day. I don't like to prune my player's options anymore than I like GM's to arbitrary restrict my decisions as a player.

As a potential customer I'd prefer a game that was actually built to cater for my play-style. This is where I think we would both gladly prefer WotC support several distinct versions of D&D instead of promising us something that neither of us really wants: a rough set of rules that need to be carefully sclupted and house-ruled to fit even our general preferences.