This topic stems a great deal from Rich Baker's post about it in a pre-Christmas Rule of Three column, found here. wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/... . " 'AEDU' stands for the basic types powers a character can have—At-will, Encounter, Daily, and Utility."
To summarize, in pre-4.0 editions, you had a set of progressions in most classes that caused you to gain "stuff" at every odd level. The "stuff" you gained was mostly dependent on your class. In some cases, that "stuff" was integrated into a system that you already had; the best examples are a wizard's spell book or extra feats for fighters. In other cases, the "stuff" was just an added ability piled on top of your other abilities. You gained something specific from being a member of a specific class at a specific level. You and everyone else who was that specific class at that specific level gained the same thing.
In 4.0, non-essentials version, WoTC took a step away from automatic "stuff". You gain a bunch of abilities from your class at 1st level, but after that, nothing is standardized. Everything you get after level 1 is chosen by you from a group of options. Additionally, there are very few class powers that are persistent (in the sense of being "always on"). Most things with persistent effects are sustained through minor actions.
Then, essentials came along, as a version that either tries to play with that theme, or correct that flaw, depending on your perspective. Some classes were incredibly straight-forward about it; for example, all essentials clerics get Raise Dead at level 8. Other classes had attempts at "always on" effects, particularly in fighter stances and defender auras. This brought about questions from players about persistent effects. The mechanics were still married to the AEUD formula and ended up as At-Will Minor actions. Reasonable people were asking "Why can't I start combat in my stance?" Often (in my experience) DMs let them. It didn't make intuitive sense for a fighter to react to a combat situation, mechanically represented by rolling initiative, but not assume a prepared stance to fight. It would be like a boxer walking out into the ring the same way he walks down the street, with his hands at his side. Trained fighters just don't do that.
My hope is that the next edition of D&D will take what they've learned about the AEUD formula and apply it. Specifically, I hope that the realize that they can not use AEUD for everything. Mechanically, there's no reason why AEUD has to be used to everything. There's also no reason to scrap it, because AEUD does provide solid advantages over previous editions. It's ok to get persistent effects at level 2+. It's also ok to have powers that you can't use more than once.
However, I realize that this is just my opinion. I do want to hear other people's thoughts about this. What do you think about the AEUD formula? Do you want to see it included in the game going forward? To what extend?
I like At-Wills, but I don't like Encounter and Daily powers the way they work currently-- I want a deeper pool of Encounter and Daily Powers that are powered by a point-based system, so a character knows so many E and D powers but can use them multiple times in an encounter or day, limited by his supply of E or D power points.
I'd like to see AEDU entirely removed from the core system.
I think it's worthy of an entire book of its own - have a thousand powers in that book, each power having its full coding - implement, damage, etc - but no fluff.
In this AEDU book introduce the idea of combat roles. Mark each of your thousand powers with which role it's appropriate for. Controller, Striker, Defender, Leader.
The thousand powers should include at least 250 powers for each role, of course. These should be separated into: Feat-based powers, item-based powers, class-based powers (with appropriate level codes), racial abilities, and class special abilities.
Have pre-built classes for fighter, wizard, cleric, thief included - use these if someone drops in for a session with a core character, and your campaign is AEDU.
Otherwise, the AEDU book is a full set of instructions for building classes, races, items, monsters, and powers using the system, along with 1000 or more generic powers taken from 4E, with the fluff pulled off.
Basically, have the AEDU book be the '4E emulator'.
I happen to horribly dislike the AEDU system. It is the main reason I dislike 4th ed.
That being said. At-Will can stay, and Daily can stay but needs help. Utility can stay if it is reworked. Encouter needs to die.
At-Will works fine and has been around for a long time in D&D. Power attack, the feat, is a great example. It existed for a long time in D&D and you could use it an unlimited number of times per day. But, until 4th ed it was never called an at will power, it was just something that you could do. So I can see how calling it an at will power can help new players.
Daily is basically Vancian spell casting but re-worked. Now the Wizard has Daily powers instead of daily spells. Well that works, but I need to be able to choose these every day, not just have the same 3 every day. Take the wizard, make most/all of his power from dailies and let him choose which he is using that day, problem solved. For other things this works great. Monsters have long had abilities that they can only use once per day. Call them Daily powers, meh. Tomato tomato.
Utility Basically these are just non-combat things. You can classify them as Utility but I don't know why, calling every non-combat thing a utility seems like a waist of ink, there are a lot of them (or their should be). If the player can't figure out shape stone is not good in combat, but is great for other things, then they are not smart enough to play D&D.
Encounter. If this exists in D&D 5th, then I will NEVER play D&D 5th. It is that simple. To replace this I would say this. Keep the short/quick rest that exists in 4th. Make all of the "encounter" powers refresh after a short rest, like normal. But, you must NOT restrict when I can use these abilites. If I want to shoot a fireball at a tree, then I beter be able to do it. Whether or not I'm in combat does not matter. Basically make a bunch of abilites that gives you ability fatigued after using them, and make the short rest recover ability fatigue. Ability fatigue does not apply negatives to the character, they just can't use that ability again until they rest. Hell then you could even give a number of uses/charges to an ability that says how many times they can use it before ability fatigue sets in.
Do this and you will go a long way to repairing the relationship with old players.
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system.
You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you.
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below. Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple. The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily. The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral. The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil. It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
I like the AEDU system and look forward to its return. I've played 3.x and 4.x, and I don't see why supernatural and extraordinary abilities cannot be assimilated into the AEDU system. It's colorful and easy to understand.
I don't know if anyone has noticed but 3.x began going this route. The classes began recieving new options but on a small scale. You had to comb through many book in order to find options you wanted. And if a class didn't have your prefered option then you found it though multiclassing. This suggest to me that players are looking for more options and are willing to go outside of there class to do so.
The AEDU system is a great way to supply multiple options to classes.
I happen to horribly dislike the AEDU system. It is the main reason I dislike 4th ed.
That being said. At-Will can stay, and Daily can stay but needs help. Utility can stay if it is reworked. Encouter needs to die.
At-Will works fine and has been around for a long time in D&D. Power attack, the feat, is a great example. It existed for a long time in D&D and you could use it an unlimited number of times per day. But, until 4th ed it was never called an at will power, it was just something that you could do. So I can see how calling it an at will power can help new players.
Daily is basically Vancian spell casting but re-worked. Now the Wizard has Daily powers instead of daily spells. Well that works, but I need to be able to choose these every day, not just have the same 3 every day. Take the wizard, make most/all of his power from dailies and let him choose which he is using that day, problem solved. For other things this works great. Monsters have long had abilities that they can only use once per day. Call them Daily powers, meh. Tomato tomato.
Utility Basically these are just non-combat things. You can classify them as Utility but I don't know why, calling every non-combat thing a utility seems like a waist of ink, there are a lot of them (or their should be). If the player can't figure out shape stone is not good in combat, but is great for other things, then they are not smart enough to play D&D.
Encounter. If this exists in D&D 5th, then I will NEVER play D&D 5th. It is that simple. To replace this I would say this. Keep the short/quick rest that exists in 4th. Make all of the "encounter" powers refresh after a short rest, like normal. But, you must NOT restrict when I can use these abilites. If I want to shoot a fireball at a tree, then I beter be able to do it. Whether or not I'm in combat does not matter. Basically make a bunch of abilites that gives you ability fatigued after using them, and make the short rest recover ability fatigue. Ability fatigue does not apply negatives to the character, they just can't use that ability again until they rest. Hell then you could even give a number of uses/charges to an ability that says how many times they can use it before ability fatigue sets in.
Do this and you will go a long way to repairing the relationship with old players.
I'm siding with Master Drow on this one. AEDU system turned the wizard into a archer, in my opinion. The only exception, MD, is that I disagree with you on which spells are used for combat, and which are utility. StoneShape, is very effective in combat, in the right situation. Or the stone to mud, for the Druids. Bam! Instant hole in the castle wall. Now the siegers can get into the castle/keep/city/whatever easy as pie. point is, Utility powers are simply unique ways of dealing with the problems at hand. I vote Backstab to be a utility power in the AEDU system. An At-Will Utility power. Just requires you to be behind the enemy. That's it.
AEDU, in my opinion, along with replacing feet with squares, makes the game too much like a board game. It's like taking Mordheim, (skirmish level Wargame by Games workshop) and mixing it with Strategy or Stratego, or whatever that boardgame is called.
Alignments are Fluid, meaning that they are based off of your actions, not your actions being based of the alignment.
Utility Basically these are just non-combat things. You can classify them as Utility but I don't know why, calling every non-combat thing a utility seems like a waist of ink, there are a lot of them (or their should be). If the player can't figure out shape stone is not good in combat, but is great for other things, then they are not smart enough to play D&D.
Encounter. If this exists in D&D 5th, then I will NEVER play D&D 5th. It is that simple. To replace this I would say this. Keep the short/quick rest that exists in 4th. Make all of the "encounter" powers refresh after a short rest, like normal. But, you must NOT restrict when I can use these abilites. If I want to shoot a fireball at a tree, then I beter be able to do it. Whether or not I'm in combat does not matter.
I agree with this completely. I also hate that attack powers were bound to combat and utilities were (for the most part) restricted to non-combat encounters. I've run into enough situations where a player wanted to use something for the effect rather than the attack, and couldn't, because of the stupid, arbitrary division between the two things.
I had a skill challenge which was austensibly "The bridge is out / figure out how to cross the river." The Wizard wanted to use Icy Terrain to freeze the river temporarily and walk across. I also had a challenge where players were trying to retrieve an object from atop a ledge. The Druid wanted to use Thorn Whip to pull it down. They should be able to do those things.
As players of a game, these types of stories are really enjoyable. I want to play a game that rewards creativity, problem-solving and good ideas. The mechanics shouldn't punish people for getting too far into character, or for doing something unexpected. Experiencing the unexpected is why we're playing a living game instead of a computer game.
Take Kaldric's book of powers. I think it could stay in the core book, but every class does not need its own unique powers. Earlier editions had spell lists available to the class, and many spells were available to many casting classes (Read magic, Light, Teleport, Dispell Magic, etc.). The same idea could be applied to all classes. Several melee classes could have access to Cleave as an At-Will (or basic attack or whatever its going to be called). Several caster-ish classes could have access to Magic Missle or various summoning spells. I could go on with a dozen more examples if needed.
I agree with Master Drows thoughts on encounters and dailies. I don't know if the solution is through more frequent retraining or a point sytem or something else, but while the powers were intended to give more flavor to combat, things still get old after 100+ battles.
