Here's the problem: 4E did have variety of classes to please everybody. 3E did have variety of classes to please everybody. In fact, 3E had even more classes than 4E, and the main if not only problem of 4E was in format (specifically the insistence that everyone use the same AEDU format for basic abilities) and a 3E-rooted focus on rules.
This is the first edition directly aimed at modularity. The assumption is that most people won't use all 20 classes. It will be a build your own game approach. Almost no one will just say - use everything. In same cases it won't even be possible.
Here's the problem: 4E did have variety of classes to please everybody. 3E did have variety of classes to please everybody. In fact, 3E had even more classes than 4E, and the main if not only problem of 4E was in format (specifically the insistence that everyone use the same AEDU format for basic abilities) and a 3E-rooted focus on rules.
This is the first edition directly aimed at modularity. The assumption is that most people won't use all 20 classes. It will be a build your own game approach. Almost no one will just say - use everything. In same cases it won't even be possible.
While that is certainly a possibility, I don't believe "the modular edition" assumes most people won't use all the classes. Banning or restricting classes, races, spells, whatnot has always been in the game. Modularity means alternate subsystems (which healing system are you using, which multiclassing system are you using, etc), at least as I understand it.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
This thread started out pointing out Emerikol will get his simplistic fighter and those who want detailed options for a martial archetype due to attitudes of designers, will never "really" get them and the modularity fix is a bust.
I'm not sure the modularity fix will be a bust. It may be a stretch, and the points that have been made with the issues at this point are accurate. However, I still consider it just a bit early to throw in the towel on the idea that both can exist. I'm not sure both can harmoniusly exist at the same table, however, they both may be able to exist in the same rules framework.
Just a side note. People enjoying a game does not mean it is well designed, however, it does mean it is doing the job of being a vehicle for fun. I've played gmaes that are meticulously designed, but soem how failed to amuse. I've played games that were... of questionable integrity... but were a great time. At the end of the day, I and my players only play to have fun.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Here's the problem: 4E did have variety of classes to please everybody. 3E did have variety of classes to please everybody. In fact, 3E had even more classes than 4E, and the main if not only problem of 4E was in format (specifically the insistence that everyone use the same AEDU format for basic abilities) and a 3E-rooted focus on rules.
This is the first edition directly aimed at modularity. The assumption is that most people won't use all 20 classes. It will be a build your own game approach. Almost no one will just say - use everything. In same cases it won't even be possible.
While that is certainly a possibility, I don't believe "the modular edition" assumes most people won't use all the classes. Banning or restricting classes, races, spells, whatnot has always been in the game. Modularity means alternate subsystems (which healing system are you using, which multiclassing system are you using, etc), at least as I understand it.
Based on more recent articles, apparently the modular design to be used isn't "ban classes W, X, Y and Z, and have those who want to play them to choose different classes and refluff those classes instead". The modular design to be used is "classes W, X, Y and Z each have a specific resource design, DMs determine which is to be used in their campaign."
I think that's because they realized, based on the reactions they got from the surveys as well as other Internet-based resources such as forums and commentaries/blogs/etc. on their articles, that class = system is not the solution to the issue of Vancian magic not being welcome on some tables [you know, the "just get the Sorcerer or Warlock and rename them Wizard instead"], because apparently people have associated class as an archetype: perhaps some of the more creative 4E players can get a Fighter, reflavor all abilities as magical effects (e.g. Tide of Iron = "I use my wand to create a magical fist that punches so hard it knocks enemies away") and play as a melee wizard; and others might be able to get a Wizard, load him with so many defensive buffs and melee/close spells and reflavor them as limited physical abilities so he'd be a really powerful fighter who is limited in stamina; but most people recognize Wizard = study-oriented magic wielder and Fighter = skilled well-rounded combatant, regardless of the mechanics used to mechanically enforce the concept.
EDIT: Actually I wouldn't mind if they said "for the Fighter, there will be an option for them to gain additional feats/specializations instead of additional maneuvers beyond that which is given by Combat Superiority" -- emulating the pre-4E Fighter -- but I certainly wouldn't use that option on my table, regardless of how faithful that is to original Fighter design. Then again, there's 13th Age for me, and I'd likely focus on converting D&D Next to 13th Age instead of the other way around.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
Yeah I am eager for a game that hews to D&D tradition enough for it to be D&D. And when I say D&D tradition I am specifically excluding 4e as it broke violently from the past at least in the areas that I cared about.
What I fear is the the "3e is massively broken crowd" will win out. I don't see how the game can really be good for me if their opinions are truly embraced. Everyone wants improvements in a new edition and I'm sure I could come up with some. I'd like skill points to be mostly independent of class for example. But these are tweaks not overhaul.
It would seem to me that the issue with a broad array of class options in the past has been archetypes. If 3e had had a tier 3 wizard and a tier 1 fighter (I'm using their own definitions for this) then perhaps it would have been better. I would have still picked the classes as they existed in most instances. I think the "expert" classes like Rogue need the most help if anyone does.
I was kind of hoping we might get a 5e that took that approach. Provide various options for the classes so we can have the playstyle we want.
I've observed the dev's attitudes for a while now in the various video'd forums. I can see what they are giving lip service to and what they are serious about. In some cases it infuriates me and in others I am pleased. The simple fighter case for example makes me mad because it's obvious to them that none of them understand why or come from that approach. I can tell though that they don't believe the "Fighter is a henchman meme about 3e" either. But they do have a mindset. In some cases it's what I like and in others it is not. But I don't think they are buying the tier system from 3e even though they are saying they are going to try and be more balanced.
I think with the nature of magic I don't see ever liking a game loved by SeeRow or Garthanos or English. So of course we need modularity. Here are the three ways you can do things.
1. You make the game about Supernatural Tall Tales, Wuxia, Fighters. 2. You make wizards into nothing more than damaging blasters with little utility (4e leaned this way) 3. You realize that fighters and wizards are different. That magic is the province of wizards. That where the fighter needs some help magically he gets it through his magic items. (3e approach).
They can't accept 3 and I can't accept 1 or 2. So modules that let me get 3 and them 1 OR 2 would be desirable.
Just a side note. People enjoying a game does not mean it is well designed, however, it does mean it is doing the job of being a vehicle for fun. I've played gmaes that are meticulously designed, but soem how failed to amuse. I've played games that were... of questionable integrity... but were a great time. At the end of the day, I and my players only play to have fun.
What is the definition of well designed? I would posit that a game thats not fun for anyone or for very few people is a poorly designed game. A game that is fun for a lot of people is a well designed one. Are not the designers trying to make a game that is popular and sells well?
Of course any game can be improved. A game that is popular and improved to be more popular is "better" designed. But that wouldn't mean the original wasn't "well" designed.
Garthanos is right. Too many personal attacks on this thread. Not enough respectful debate that aims to improve Next. Can we please snake a fresh start?
Yeah I am eager for a game that hews to D&D tradition enough for it to be D&D. And when I say D&D tradition I am specifically excluding 4e as it broke violently from the past at least in the areas that I cared about.
Unfortunately for you then, that 4E is
1. An edition of D&D, regardless of how violently it dismissed traditions that you didn't consider broken but apparently others did 2. Still to be taken into consideration in the development of the game, given how 2.1 It's heavily rooted in 3.5E 2.2 Until D&D Next is released, it is their what current customer base is primarily playing aside from / in addition to the other editions under the D&D franchise.
So it'll likely appeal to D&D tradition "enough", but it's unlikely to 100% render "traditional D&D" and include stuff that were considered bad broken unfun for tables that considered 3E caster supremacy a problem.
What I fear is the the "3e is massively broken crowd" will win out. I don't see how the game can really be good for me if their opinions are truly embraced. Everyone wants improvements in a new edition and I'm sure I could come up with some. I'd like skill points to be mostly independent of class for example. But these are tweaks not overhaul.
Given how 1E, 2E and 4E would likely comprise the "3e is massively broken crowd", I wouldn't be surprised if they win out. What would likely happen as well is that all four edition supporters would agree on not going the AEDU-only route for maintaining game balance, although that should be an option as well.
It would seem to me that the issue with a broad array of class options in the past has been archetypes. If 3e had had a tier 3 wizard and a tier 1 fighter (I'm using their own definitions for this) then perhaps it would have been better. I would have still picked the classes as they existed in most instances. I think the "expert" classes like Rogue need the most help if anyone does.
Except the fighter rarely got to tier 3 if he got lucky, and there really wasn't any way for him to get even close to tier 2 without violating what you perceive as tradition. Proof: Warblade and Tome of Battle. The Warblade was effectively a tier 3 Fighter (possibly getting to tier 2 with the right stuff), and he was already considered broken because he rendered the "classic" Fighter "outdated", even though theoretically that shouldn't have been a problem in the first place.
The fighter as a concept can never be a tier 1 according to 3.x standards by virtue of how tier 1 is defined: the ability to do everything well, even outdoing a specialist in the field. So that means that for a tier 1 fighter to exist, he should be able to * call forth warriors or creatures to battle * enhance his physique to superhuman levels * rain death on enemies from afar in addition to his normal melee capabilities * debilitate multiple enemies * handle skill checks and out-of-combat scenarios with ease (to the point where they can match or beat Rogues and Bards even for a limited amount of time) * support his allies, perhaps including the ability to mitigate or control the damage they take
All the while maintaining the purely "martial warrior" context that is what a Fighter is supposed to be. Seriously, if 4E Fighters were already wuxia, then what do you call a tier 1 Fighter?
A tier 2 Fighter might be possible if there were Fighter-exclusive feats that allowed him any, but not all, of this... but for the Fighter to be tier 1, he should be able to retrain feats at-will, even if it's on a daily basis. It's that uber-flexibility combined with the overpowered nature of spells that's supposedly justified by their limited nature of use that makes tier 1 classes entirely made up of casters. Something has got to give, which is why in at least one other thread I stated (in one form or another) that the inherent flexibility should be justification enough to limit their spells... but that limitation should not give them the justification to ramp up their spells' capabilities. That is just begging to make a quadratic wizard and exponential clerics/druids.
We're all probably good with boosting the Fighter a bit to give players options while keeping within the mundane bit. But given how even you have gone about neutering the casters, as "suggested" by the DMG, I think it is fair enough to assume that the system should cut the casters down to size, so to speak. Not to the point where the game becomes bland, but to the point where they can't hog the spotlight at all.
Tier 1s should never exist in any class-based game.
I was kind of hoping we might get a 5e that took that approach. Provide various options for the classes so we can have the playstyle we want.
Except by the very nature of your appeal to ignore 4E, your post does not help in "provid[ing] various options for the classes so we can have the playstyle we want". It's more like you're saying "let's all have options to play the way we want... as long as it's not 4E".
That, I believe, is the crux behind the friction between us.
I think the pro-martial camp isn't necessarily advocating for wuxia or superhero at level 1. Just for the rules to mechanically support the natural progression to superhuman that has been present since 0E, but has always been overshadowed by Wild Shape, Tenser's Transformation, summons, save-or-die spells, and other spells and class features that, even for a limited period, allowed casters to intrude upon non-caster territory "because magic". That, and for rules to provide those who want greater flexibility for their warriors so that even though they're still within the "mundane" territory, they get to do so much more with what they have... you know, more emphasis for the flexibility that "mundane" classes have that is the justification as to why you have flexible spells in the first place?
Something to the tune of * Glancing Blow: even though you miss with the attack, you initiate another effect as appropriate to the situation (enemy is forced to move 5' away, enemy is placed in an awkward position to fight and suffers disadvantage or a -2 to his next attack, etc.) * Push : whenever you take an action that involves a great amount of instantaneous force against anything that is up to one size larger than you (including an attack), you can spend an expertise die to push the target of that action up to 10' * Precise Shot : Whenever you take an action that involves a ranged weapon you're proficient in and would normally require a roll greater than 15 to succeed), you can spend an expertise die to gain a bonus to the attempt by +2 if the roll needed is 16-18, or +5 if the roll needed is 19-20. This includes attacks against creatures that have half cover or three-quarters cover.
In other words, have the fluff focus on its use in combat, but word the mechanics so that they are applicable in a lot of scenarios.
I've observed the dev's attitudes for a while now in the various video'd forums. I can see what they are giving lip service to and what they are serious about. In some cases it infuriates me and in others I am pleased. The simple fighter case for example makes me mad because it's obvious to them that none of them understand why or come from that approach. I can tell though that they don't believe the "Fighter is a henchman meme about 3e" either. But they do have a mindset. In some cases it's what I like and in others it is not. But I don't think they are buying the tier system from 3e even though they are saying they are going to try and be more balanced.
I think with the nature of magic I don't see ever liking a game loved by SeeRow or Garthanos or English. So of course we need modularity. Here are the three ways you can do things.
1. You make the game about Supernatural Tall Tales, Wuxia, Fighters. 2. You make wizards into nothing more than damaging blasters with little utility (4e leaned this way) 3. You realize that fighters and wizards are different. That magic is the province of wizards. That where the fighter needs some help magically he gets it through his magic items. (3e approach).
They can't accept 3 and I can't accept 1 or 2. So modules that let me get 3 and them 1 OR 2 would be desirable.
Given how just last Saturday I was playing as a 4E wizard who used Consult Oracle, Pyrotechnics, Far Sending, and Overland Flight, I cannot take your assumption in #2 as true for 4E unless the player or the group played it that way. Especially since I've also used my summons for utilitarian purposes (opening doors to avoid traps and cause distractions, speaking on my behalf, etc.), I and my fellow wizard companion have extensively used cantrips (namely Prestidigitation and Ghost Sound) to add both comic relief and interesting roleplay to the games, and there have been instances where spells have been used in ways other than just dealing damage. Among other stuff which I'm sure you'd probably dismiss as "good for you, but it only happens on your table, chaosfang".
As for #3: magic in literature is defined by the author. For TRPGs, it is the province of the game developer and DM first and foremost, the former by virtue of being the one writing the base rules, and the latter by virtue of being the one who both interprets the rules (as final arbiter to the game) and writes houserules for his table.
I'm stating this because it is perfectly fine to state that casters = magic, but in a team collaboration game such as D&D, magic needs rules. That's why you have the Vancian magic, as well as spell point and AEDU + Ritual, systems in the first place. It is perfectly valid that warriors do not have magic to make them more powerful or more versatile. But for those especially who like their warriors flexible, overly-defined skills + spellcasters given the option to be better warriors than warriors "because magic" is bad. Sure, you could say that wizards taking blaster options only or buffs + Tenser's Transformation or Wild Shape to superpowerful monster is a bad way to do it, but for a player who reads the books and isn't playing on your table, it could be a simple "mistake" as just finding that option appealing, without realizing that it makes them poor players (either by rendering them useless for the most part in combat-heavy or non-combat campaigns, or by making them better warriors than the PC warriors who took so much effort to make their characters what they are at a given point).
As a politician in the Philippines once said, it is not enough that you have good politicians; you must have rules that force politicians to be good. In a similar light, it is not enough that you have spellcasters that limit themselves via gentleman's agreement, there should be rules that force spellcasters to be limited. It's the very basis of Vancian magic, it's the very reason why magic was so dangerous pre-3E, and it's the very reason why 4E magic had the combat and non-combat spells separated (and the combat spells heavily restricted).
In short, we can have your #3 as the norm, but magic should not give casters of any type reason to be able to do stuff better than non-casters. Perhaps improve what the non-casters are already trained at, but not better than non-casters "because magic". * Knock could give Wizards access to unlocking and give them +3 for it, but add the ability to cast it on allies as a buff so that the party Rogue could auto-succeed (or get a high enough bonus to succeed) in lockpicking * Tenser's Transformation -> out * save-or-die spells -> allowable, but with restrictions so that the party gets to contribute in the matter
Seriously the only thing they had to do with Charm Person in the first playtest was to change the relevant text to:
Effect: You enchant a living humanoid creature within 50 feet of you. The target is charmed. If the target has taken damage from you or your allies before you cast this spell however, it can overcome the enchantment with a successful Wisdom saving throw....
HP thresholds, just like the AEDU system, was brilliant in concept, but problematic in execution. Apparently Mike Mearls -- the guy who could be blamed for all 4E classes following the AEDU structure, even though he kinda tried to rectify that via Essentials -- still insisted on "one system to rule them all" when it came to balancing the stuff, at least at the time.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
