My problem was not with AEDU, but with the specific implementation of encounter powers. Because you could use each one once rather than having a pool that you could pick, choose, and reuse from, it discouraged selection of situational powers. Picking and choosing which daily to use is great strategy and leaves plenty of room for situationality, because the odds are much better that a situation will come up at some time today than at some time every encounter; but it was the wrong way to run encounter powers (particularly for martial characters, where it doesn't even make much sense. If, on the other hand, you know 4 encounter powers but can only use 2 of them in any given encounter including using the same one twice, you are encouraged to take at least three situational ones because surely one of those situations will come up every encounter and you certainly only need one fallback choice. Then, because the devs didn't understand nova windows, stacking bonuses, or scaling buff/debuffs, multi-attacks and particularly multi-attacks vs single targets were far beyond the expected power curve and killed whatever hope situational encounter powers ever had of being good choices from a charop standpoint (although your group may have enjoyed their selections more than the charop approved ones).
Also, while I think 4e could have done better, I would never dream of arguing that any prior edition did better. Even though I think maneuvers are a better concept than at-wills, comparing current execution to execution I'll take at-wills any day (and I'll take AEDU over at-will essentials any day, too). My complaint is not that 4e was a step down from some other system or edition or that it headed in the wrong direction. Quite the contrary, it's that 4e was just the first stumblings in a new and interesting direction, but rather than brush ourselves off plunge further towards the light with a little more wisdom and experience, we seem to be turning around and slinking back to dark but familiar passageways we've trodden a thousand times over to lick our wounds. My complaint is that I want a 5e that fixes the many things 4e could have done better, but I seem to be getting a 2.5e that throws away the few things it did right (and before anyone starts up, no amount of citations to poorly implemented nods at 4e mechanics will alter the fundamental conclusion explicitly embraced by the designers themselves that the inaptly named "Next" is in fact purposely striving to return to its roots rather than strike out and explore the new passageways 4e opened up).
I'm happy to admit that maneuvers are a better idea than at-wills thanks to their flexibility. 4e at-wills had damage + trip, or damage + push, but with the same complexity maneuvers give you those options and trip + push and damage + more damage. The problem is execution. With combats being so short and the available effects being so puny (prone no longer takes up your entire move action, grabbing a backup weapon is no action at all, push is a lot less meaningful now that positioning is largely irrelevant most of the time...) the only worthwhile maneuvers are extra damage/attacks in 90% of situations, and a trained monkey could figure out which 90%. And while maneuvers well-executed might be better than at-wills, there's still no resource management involved - at least now that MDD is a /turn resource instead of /round.
I don't think AEDU was that well executed either. Too often the best option was more damage (in the form of extra attacks, because extra attacks were worth so much more damage than the devs seeme to realize), and the best time to use an encounter power was ASAP. It wasn't much of a resource management decision, and it didn't do much to break up the monotony because you still ended up doing the same sequence of 4 things every encounter (better than doing the same 1 thing, but not by much). And then there was the total failure to even attempt to explain why it is you can only do a given encounter power once, but you can still do a different encounter power. It was a good idea, but it wasn't executed as well as it could have been. That's 4e in a nutshell, I guess. The devs try something new, and it's a good idea, but not well executed. They get a lot of grief for the execution, but instead of fixing it, they drop the mechanic altogether "because people didn't like it." The point that I'm trying to make is that "I don't like X" is not, in fact, useful feedback. Neither is "I did like X," actually, although that at least doesn't shut down promising avenues. A lot of people didn't like fighters having 4e encounter powers. But how much of that was because encounter powers are bad for fighters, and how much of that was because 4e's execution of encounter powers was bad for fighters. If you wiped the prejudice and edition rage from people's memories and you showed them an encounter based resource for fighters that wasn't dissociative and that didn't lead to the same sequence of four moves every fight of the entire tier, would they still dislike it? The number of people who liked ToB and who continue to like ToB despite hating 4e encounter powers suggests no. And yet 5e avoids encounter powers like the plague, even for those classes where 4e style encounters would make sense and even in not 4e-style executions (brief flirtation with signature spells aside). I do (not) like X because Y. That's the conversation that needs to happen. And the Y needs to be something other than "it reminds me of 4e/WoW." Especially when the resemblance is purely superficial.
+1. Thanks for giving clear and concise criticism of 4E. Its something all people that dislike 4E needs to do rather than make WoW references.
Now they could easily fix encounter powers and daily powers by putting simple requirements on them. I could see a lot of Fighter encounter powers requiring having 3 enemies adjacent to them, or being bloodied, or even weaponless. Instead of using one encounter power and then not being able to use it again and being able to use other encounter powers they could easily just give you a number of encounter powers you can use per encounter and then you pick which ones you are going to use. Then when you run out you could expend hit dice to use extra and gain the exhausted condition or something until you take a short rest.
There is a lot they could do to fix the problems in 4E. That they are unwilling is a sign that they aren't here to make a game for all play styles...
I think the biggest problem is that D&D is a game. See, games often have viable, mathematically 'better' things to do, that it's better to keep them, as opposed to other maneuvers that might be situationally better, but less viable in the long run. And unlike say, for example, a real combat where being blocked or deflected might require a different approach to end the fight, in a game (and it's not just D&D) that abstracts it to the point where it's nothing but a hit or miss, you're going to choose with the more reliable, more useful maneuver. It has nothing to do with charop but more with player efficiency. Even non-powergamers or character optimizers will figure out the pattern. And that's just it, it WILL be a pattern.
How do we fix things like this (and not just combat)? I honestly have no idea.
I think the biggest problem is that D&D is a game. See, games often have viable, mathematically 'better' things to do, that it's better to keep them, as opposed to other maneuvers that might be situationally better, but less viable in the long run. And unlike say, for example, a real combat where being blocked or deflected might require a different approach to end the fight, in a game (and it's not just D&D) that abstracts it to the point where it's nothing but a hit or miss, you're going to choose with the more reliable, more useful maneuver. It has nothing to do with charop but more with player efficiency. Even non-powergamers or character optimizers will figure out the pattern. And that's just it, it WILL be a pattern.
How do we fix things like this (and not just combat)? I honestly have no idea.
Actually, it's one of two of the biggest problems about D&D and TRPGs in general, the other being the term "role-playing" (and its supposed nemesis, "roll-playing"). Role-playing can and often does happen outside the concepts of "rules" and "game mechanics". In fact, it's such a convenient defense to the "Fighter is NOT boring" argument due to the infinite possible things that can happen during any scenario that it should be a fallacy all on its own, falling within the lines (or is even inclusive of) the Stormwind Fallacy.
Here's my issue with it: any character can be role-played or roll-played -- you can even take a game of Monopoly and role-play the hell out of the engaging chase scene between the various minis where, while managing a multi-billion-dollar real estate economy, a love triangle (or love web) ensues and various characters takes place -- but when it comes to a role-playing game system (that is, exclusive of whatever campaign, houserules, etc. that any person within a gaming group could insert to the system), looking at it from a purely objective standpoint, it still doesn't remove the mechanical issues existing within the system, but merely hides it (probably with the self-gratification of being able to play out the desired character concept, irregardless of rules).
I see no reason -- outside of direct DM intervention (saying "no you can't do that without powers" or whatever) -- why someone who says the Fighter is alright because there aren't any rules shackling him to be able to perform the same actions in any system, D&D or otherwise. It's merely the likelihood of success in executing said action that limits its use, but only because the success rate is part of the conflict resolution function of the system; nothing stops a DM from having any improvised action work automatically... and nothing stops a DM from applying penalties, restrictions, etc. to improvised actions either.
So to keep things simple and objective, we have to restrict our discussions to what the rules present to us, and not what the group can do that lets them heavily alter or ignore the rules for the sake of "fun". And as it stands, while it is acceptable that a certain level of system-level imbalance is existent in games -- I have yet to find a group who complains about magic doing what the mundane can't accomplish -- the questions that have to be asked are:
what imbalances are considered acceptable (or, how much is too much)?
what are the compensations for the imbalances?
are the given compensations actually able to balance the options available, and why/why not?
First and foremost, I'd have to bring this out: being frail, weak and useless at low levels does not balance out with making others frail, weak and useless at high levels. Yes it's a team game, but aside from the fact that team game does not equate to 67% of the game being dedicated to babysitting frail, weak and useless classes, we also have to look at the game from a more objectivist point.
Now that that's out of the way, let's look at the 5E Fighter and compare with, let's say, the 5E Wizard, using the existing (current as of post time) playtest material.
Fighter
No bonus skills
d10 HP
large weapon and armor proficiency assortment
combat expertise
weapon attack bonus
martial damage dice
martial damage bonus
parry
1-5 maneuvers
1-6 martial damage dice
combined with maneuvers and parry that's well over 20 possible options per turn
dead levels at 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18
Wizard
1 bonus skill
d6 HP
limited weapon and no armor proficiency assortment
spellcasting
spellbook
spell preparation
cast spell
rituals
magic attacks
saving throw DCs
Tradition of Wizardry
Scholarly Wizardry
School of Evocation
School of Illusion
6-46 spells
3-4 cantrips
3-4 spells at level 1
1-2 per level above level 1 (total: 19-38)
this does not take into account the spells you can pick up during an adventure
2-20 spell slots
dead levels at 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 20
As it stands, the Fighter has
a very restricted out of session customizability
compare: 5 maneuvers vs. 46 spells, 0 skills vs. 1 skill, 2 non-customizable class features (combat expertise, parry) vs. 1 non-customizable class feature (spellcasting) + 1 customizable class feature (tradition of wizardry)
high complexity with limited depth of meaningful choice
For a class that's supposedly simple, having a minimum of 13 options -- all damage + parry, no damage + all parry, 1-5 maneuvers + damage + parry, 6 maneuvers + parry, 1-5 maneuvers + parry -- per turn at high levels, not even counting Combat Surge, is quite complex
With most of those options having limited applications, the complexity of the class falls flat in the face of depth of meaningful choice*
just as many dead levels as the wizard but the distribution of said dead levels makes the Fighter victim of having a dead level in the more crucial half of the system, the half of the system where most games actually occur.
no out of combat utility, not even in the form of a single skill
is only compensated by two things: durability (Parry, armor selection, high HP) and weapon accessibility
Any way I look at it, it's not a fair trade, and is easily a gateway to boredom due to the above observations.
Suggestions:
Add customizability to Fighters, and not have them be pegged to just Parry as their distinct class feature
Seriously, Monks and Rogues have greater customizability than the Fighter
Simplify the class' per turn choices
Make the martial damage dice / weapon dice rechargable or encounter power if you have to, or better yet tie maneuvers to the skill die first
Adust Fighter progression, remove pre-11 dead level
Better yet, remove dead levels, even if it means making the game occupy 10 levels
Seriously, 4E already went for 30 levels, and I do recall some editions going well past 40 levels, so designing for just 10 levels and then adding modules that let groups go through infinity if they want is a far better proposition than designing for 20 if you ask me
Plus, it'd make far more sense that you get a level 1 spell at level 1, level 2 spell at level 2, etc.; to say the least, that disconnect between spell level and character level always bugged me, and always begged the question, "what the heck was going on in their minds to make a level 3 spell attainable at level 5?!"
Give the Fighter a combat-related skill, something he can use outside of combat, be it Heal, Intimidate or whatever
Bull Rush might have some utility, especially with cliffs and pits and the like
Composed Attack only comes into play when you're at a disadvantage
Defensive Roll is perhaps the first useful maneuver on the list, given the number of DEX-targeting spells
Disarm is only useful against armed foes
Glancing Blow is rendered only situationally useful by Bounded Accuracy
Lunge is only useful when trying to reach enemies you normally couldn't reach with melee
Opportunist is only useful for opportunity attacks, which might only happen 1/battle at best, unless swarms/hordes become an issue
Protect is perhaps the second useful maneuver on the list, especially if you stick to the guys with low AC, but only if you use a shield
Rapid Shot is the third useful maneuver on the list, but only if you're into bows (can't use Protect and Rapid Shot simultaneously with high efficiency)
Shove Away is only more useful than Bull Rush when big enemies are a concern, otherwise it's outright inferior to Bull Rush
Spring Attack is the fourth useful maneuver on the list, giving you at-will mobility at the cost of just one martial damage die
Trip is useful only if you spend three martial damage dice for it, otherwise it's all but useless
Volley is the fifth useful maneuver on the list -- even more useful than Rapid Shot, although on the practical side not many enemies will be within 10 feet of each other... at least, not for long
Whirlwind Attack is the sixth useful maneuver, although just like Volley not many enemies will be within 5 feet of you *unless* you intentionally make yourself a good target
So I guess the only really "good" Fighter builds would have
Whirlwind Attack
Volley
Protect
Spring Attack
With the last possible maneuver being whatever the player wants. Go DEX + CON, wield light armor, a shield, a sling, and a longsword, then you can snipe, maneuver around enemies, protect allies and whack pot shot enemies en masse. If you want more damage and don't want to go a-skulking, go Barbarian instead since they're better at it -- way better at it -- than Fighters.
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.
I think the biggest problem is that D&D is a game. See, games often have viable, mathematically 'better' things to do, that it's better to keep them, as opposed to other maneuvers that might be situationally better, but less viable in the long run. And unlike say, for example, a real combat where being blocked or deflected might require a different approach to end the fight, in a game (and it's not just D&D) that abstracts it to the point where it's nothing but a hit or miss, you're going to choose with the more reliable, more useful maneuver. It has nothing to do with charop but more with player efficiency. Even non-powergamers or character optimizers will figure out the pattern. And that's just it, it WILL be a pattern.
How do we fix things like this (and not just combat)? I honestly have no idea.
You sort of can't. Every one of these games runs into the same issue, unless you have a paper, scissor, rock, dragon, human, tree counter chart built into the game. That's one thing that 4th didn't do to well and that is it didn't have many hard counters. It had a few like swarms and insubstantial, but of course people cried about that.
