The tragedy of 4E is not just that the developers unnecessarily changed some of the game’s fundamental MECHANICS, but that they abandoned so many of the core CONCEPTS that had long been established in D&D.
Most people would probably agree that there were some mechanical issues with 3.5E that could have used improvement. Thus, it is understandable that during the development of 4E the devs made some changes in that regard, but what remains a complete mystery is why they changed so many of the fundamental concepts upon which the previous editions were based. These drastic conceptual changes turned many people away from the game right from the start, regardless of whether those people agreed with the mechanical changes or not. I will touch on some of the mechanical issues of 4E, but in particular I will highlight 4E's annihilation of many of the core concepts that made D&D what it once was…
Problems with 4E:
- no Bards, Druids, or Monks in the core rulebook. This angered a lot of players and GMs from the very moment they opened the book, as many of us have been playing for decades and have always had those classes in our campaigns. By removing these classes, the devs made not only conversion impossible in many cases, but they violated the very canon of the universe in which some of us have been playing since the 80's and early 90's (like those of us that bought EVERYTHING that D&D released for years… until 4E came out). In short, this move made no logical sense whatsoever, and if 4E's game system is so drastically altered so as not to support the iconic classes we've known and loved for decades, then why in the world would we want to play it? Perhaps these problems were fixed with a later rulebook addition, but by then it was obviously too little, too late, especially considering 4E's many other problems.
- no multiclassing, despite many of the established characters in the D&D world always having been multiclassed. This also sparked a tremendous amount of anger from the players right from the get-go, as we instantly had a plethora of specialty priests and whatnot that could simply no longer be built (as well as many other types of characters). Couldn't the devs have instead found a way to better balance multiclassing, instead of eliminating it?
- a complete sea-change to these new, cheesy archetypes (striker, defender, leader, etc.) that made absolutely no sense in the context of the D&D world. What the heck was that silliness all about? I have no idea, and I hope I never hear a word of it again.
- the total homogenization of the class powers, such that all the classes in 4E end up feeling about the same, just with different names for things. This is an unforgivable blunder, as it truly makes the game seem like an extremely dumbed-down version of its former self. If I want to play a card game, or a video game, then I will just go do that. A pen-and-paper game NEEDS to offer a lot more unique detail with respect to class abilities and powers, as that's what makes a pen-and-paper game a different kind of experience from a card game or a video game (and a more rewarding experience for many of us).
- the destruction of the alignment system, despite there being no need whatsoever to destroy it. In the previous editions, there were a host of clearly-established individuals that followed each of the nine alignments, and each of the nine alignments made sense. Following a particular deity, for example, one might need to adhere to a particular moral or ethical path, and if one strayed too far from that path, their particular deity would abandon them (i.e. stop granting them powers). That made perfect sense, and there was no need whatsoever to change it. But then 4E came along and just chucked all of that out the window, overly-simplifying and therefore cheapening the moral/ethical aspect of the game. Again, there was simply no need to do this. If a given player or GM chooses to ignore alignment (like for a merc who just doesn’t give a hoot about moral or ethical matters), then they can do so, but why take such a fundamental aspect of the game away from the rest of us?
- the destruction of Forgotten Realms by moving it way too far into the future and killing off two of the most popular deities. This was completely insane. Could the devs not have foreseen the disappointment that this would create, especially considering that FR had always been their most popular setting?
The bottom line is that the transition from the early editions through 3.5E was always consistent CONCEPTUALLY. Sure, the devs made mechanical changes along the way, but the core concepts of the D&D world always remained intact. 4E, on the other hand, simply abandoned many of those concepts for no logical reason whatsoever. It’s basically the corporate philosophy of "if-it-ain't-broke-then-fix-it-anyway", a philosophy that only serves to alienate the game's long-time fans, exactly as 4E has done.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
So, what can be done with 5E that can resurrect D&D?
1. For starters, we do NOT need an overly-complicated combat system. Things like attacks of opportunity, for example, just slow down gameplay and only take away from the role-playing and story-telling elements of the game. My players would much rather have that extra attention to detail focused on the characters themselves and their abilities, allowing them to select from a myriad of unique abilities/talents/powers during encounters. And for those who prefer just sticking with the basics in terms of character creation/development, there should be sufficient material in the core rulebook to do so easily, but without being overly generic like it is in 4E. In other words, the base classes should all be clearly distinct from one another, and there should be various abilities/talents/powers that are unique to each class. This forms the foundation upon which the players can create their own custom characters, both conceptually AND mechanically. That's the key to any good RPG – diversity of choice when it comes to concepts and mechanics.
2. Use the talent/feat system just as it is in Star Wars SAGA d20. This allows for a HUGE amount of individual customization for any given character, and it completely eliminates "dead" levels for the character classes. Also, with each subsequent sourcebook there should be additional talents and feats to choose from, providing even more custom options for the players/GMs who desire to invest in these materials. This extra material shouldn't be necessary, however, allowing players to make truly unique character builds with just the core rulebook (exactly like SAGA).
3. The ability to multiclass is absolutely necessary. Not only does it provide a ton of potential customization for a given character, but it is essential in order to represent the iconic types of figures that have long existed in the D&D world. For example, my Nightcloak in Forgotten Realms has always been a Cleric/Rogue and will always be a Cleric/Rogue… this is a well-established aspect of the Forgotten Realms universe, and preventing multiclassing simply destroys the experience.
4. Provide prestige classes for those players/GMs who wish to use them (just like in SAGA). Simply put, they allow characters to access exclusive talents/abilities by investing in levels of a specific prestige class. So using my previous example, only Nightcloaks can have the True Lies ability – a unique ability granted by Shar to her most loyal followers – and thus it should obviously be a talent in the Nightcloak talent tree (a higher-level talent, requiring several levels of the Nightcloak PrC before it can be accessed). This kind of prestige class/talent tree system is the only way to truly achieve this kind of specialized mechanic, and it has the added benefit of retaining every bit of the conceptual flavor and nuance of classic D&D. It's simple, and it provides the needed customization for whatever kind of character a player wants to make. The only limit is in the number of prestige classes made available by the devs, but with some simple mechanical guidelines, GMs should be able to create their own unique prestige classes for their campaigns.
5. Make spellcasting a SEPARATE mechanic from other types of abilities/talents/powers – just like Force Powers are handled in SAGA – and make Magic a type of skill. This makes so much sense that I would be shocked if WotC didn't do it. You would simply get a number of spells on your list based on how many Magic Training feats you've taken, and you can only use a spell on your list once per encounter (unless you've selected the same spell for more than one slot on your list). In order to re-use a spell at a later time, you have to rest first. This mirrors the classic spells/day concept fairly closely, yet it doesn't make you have to wait an entire day before resuming your activities. And this kind of system also ensures that spells are indeed a separate mechanic from other types of character abilities/talents/etc., just as they always were in classic D&D. Furthermore, the "magnitude" of a given spell could simply be based on your relative Magic skill score + your d20 roll, and you could "re-train" a spell in a given slot on your list by taking the necessary time to study Tomes of Magic (similar to holocrons in Star Wars).
6. The skill system should follow the SAGA model for the most part, except perhaps with a modification of the mathematical progression that it uses (that's one of SAGA's only real flaws, although it is primarily only an issue during the earlier levels).
7. The defenses should be Fort, Ref, and Will, and all attacks/powers/spells should target one of those three defenses. Having a separate "Armor Class" is not necessary. Again, this is the SAGA model. It works perfectly, and if it ain't broke…
8. Do NOT move the campaign settings hundreds of years into the future, and do NOT kill off some of the most popular deities within those settings. You see, it's kinda hard to make some of our favorite specialty priests if their respective gods are dead and no longer granting spells/powers. That's a problem.
9. Retain the classic six ability scores, and the ways in which the classes draw from them with respect to their abilities. This is an absolute must(!). The classic six-score system has become so iconic that even many video games have adopted it, and for good reasons: it is not only extremely elegant, but it makes perfect sense. And quite honestly the idea of D&D abandoning the classic ability score system would be about the stupidest thing I can possibly imagine. At that point, D&D would officially be destroyed for good.
10. Retain the classic nine alignments, and the classes/specialty priests/deities/etc. that correspond with those alignments. Just like with the classic ability score system, the classic alignment system is not only easy to work with, but it is sufficiently elegant to provide a great deal of character diversity to the player and GM. And just like with the classic ability scores, the game simply isn't the same without the various alignments.
11. Retain all of the classic races… humans, orcs, dwarves, gnomes, the various types of elves, half-elves, etc. Again, there was never any problem with the classic plethora of races available, and they are all well-ingrained in the D&D universe, so eliminating any of those options is basically nonsensical.
--------------------
In other words, do NOT get rid of any of the conceptual features of 3E/3.5E, and instead just make the necessary mechanical changes to facilitate better gameplay.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Most people would probably agree that there were some mechanical issues with 3.5E that could have used improvement. Thus, it is understandable that during the development of 4E the devs made some changes in that regard, but what remains a complete mystery is why they changed so many of the fundamental concepts upon which the previous editions were based. These drastic conceptual changes turned many people away from the game right from the start, regardless of whether those people agreed with the mechanical changes or not. I will touch on some of the mechanical issues of 4E, but in particular I will highlight 4E's annihilation of many of the core concepts that made D&D what it once was…
Speaking as a 3.5-o-phile, there are many issues in previous editions that 4.0 really did try to fix. Magic is horrifically broken in all earlier versions of D&D. As much as us old-timers love "the old ways", memorization has always been a clumsy hack of a mechanic and spells run ramshod over all other elements of the game. Magic absolutely must be fixed in 5e, again, but differently if they want any older players back.
- no multiclassing, despite many of the established characters in the D&D world always having been multiclassed. This also sparked a tremendous amount of anger from the players right from the get-go, as we instantly had a plethora of specialty priests and whatnot that could simply no longer be built (as well as many other types of characters). Couldn't the devs have instead found a way to better balance multiclassing, instead of eliminating it?
Amen brother! Preach it! Multiclassing = win. Games like D20 Modern and Saga gain extensive and consistent class difference with just a few core classes. Magic again broke multiclassing in 3.5, but there are better ways to fix this than 4e, IMHO. (how about a Base Caster Level, which determines spells you can cast? Every class level adds either +1 or +0, just like BAB)
- a complete sea-change to these new, cheesy archetypes (striker, defender, leader, etc.) that made absolutely no sense in the context of the D&D world. What the heck was that silliness all about? I have no idea, and I hope I never hear a word of it again.
Again, not a 4e fan, but categorizing the roles is a win, not a fail. We've always had strikers/defenders/leader, etc, we just didn't know how to discuss it. I agree the names are somewhat cheesy, but gaining a vocabulary to discuss game elements is a good thing.
- the total homogenization of the class powers, such that all the classes in 4E end up feeling about the ...
- the destruction of the alignment system, despite there being no need whatsoever to destroy it. In aspect of the game. Again, there was simply no need to do this. If a given player or GM chooses to ignore alignment (like for a merc who just doesn’t give a hoot about moral or ethical matters), then
they can do so, but why take such a fundamental aspect of the game away from the rest of us?
While I agree with the homogenization of the classes, Kudos to the D&D team for finally trying to fix magic. I know it's a sacred cow, but it needs fixing in 3.5. I feel bad not liking magic in 4e, but I don't.
Alignment has always been house-ruley anyway, so I don't really care what D&D says about it. There will always be 9 ALs for me, though we will continue to argue what they mean until the end of time.
The bottom line is that the transition from the early editions through 3.5E was always consistent CONCEPTUALLY. Sure, the devs made mechanical changes along the way, but the core concepts of the D&D world always remained intact. 4E, on the other hand, simply abandoned many of those concepts for no logical reason whatsoever. It’s basically the corporate philosophy of "if-it-ain't-broke-then-fix-it-anyway", a philosophy that only serves to alienate the game's long-time fans, exactly as 4E has done.
Again, some things have to be fixed in 1-3rd ed. I'm glad Wizards tried, but let's try something new. There will always be previous editions for us holdouts.
Amen brother! Preach it! Multiclassing = win. Games like D20 Modern and Saga gain extensive and consistent class difference with just a few core classes. Magic again broke multiclassing in 3.5, but there are better ways to fix this than 4e, IMHO. (how about a Base Caster Level, which determines spells you can cast? Every class level adds either +1 or +0, just like BAB)
Again, not a 4e fan, but categorizing the roles is a win, not a fail. We've always had strikers/defenders/leader, etc, we just didn't know how to discuss it. I agree the names are somewhat cheesy, but gaining a vocabulary to discuss game elements is a good thing.
Firstly, we already had warriors, spellcasters, healers, rogue-types, etc., so why on earth do we need a separate way to categorize the classes? We never needed it before, and we don't need it now.
Secondly, it's just weird to force the archetypes of striker, leader, defender, etc. onto the existing classes. My fighter is NOT a "defender", nor is my cleric a "leader". They just sound like goofy names from writers who couldn't come up with any decent ideas.
Leadership and class choice should have NOTHING to do with each other, EVER.
Conflating the two is simply horrendous game design.
Speaking as a 3.5-o-phile, there are many issues in previous editions that 4.0 really did try to fix. Magic is horrifically broken in all earlier versions of D&D. As much as us old-timers love "the old ways", memorization has always been a clumsy hack of a mechanic and spells run ramshod over all other elements of the game. Magic absolutely must be fixed in 5e, again, but differently if they want any older players back.
In this respect the thing that 3rd absolutely broke was removing all negative aspects of spells. The concept of risk reward of a spellcaster dealing with powerful arcana suddenly went when the risk was removed.
And OP, like SAGA much? tbh I agree with you, it's one of the best D20 systems I've seen. Not overly complex, not overly dumbed down. Simply a very good system, I was actually surprised that they didn't follow up on it more closely with 4th ed.
Firstly, we already had warriors, spellcasters, healers, rogue-types, etc., so why on earth do we need a separate way to categorize the classes? We never needed it before, and we don't need it now.
Secondly, it's just weird to force the archetypes of striker, leader, defender, etc. onto the existing classes. My fighter is NOT a "defender", nor is my cleric a "leader". They just sound like goofy names from writers who couldn't come up with any decent ideas.
The reason for roles is that classes are archetypes of powers, not roles in a party. As a (3.x, Pathfinder) fighter, I could be a striker, defender or controller (especially with some of the new Pathfinder feats). Class is closely tied to role in 4e, but that is a design choice. In other editions the mage can satisfy most of the roles within the one class.
In this respect the thing that 3rd absolutely broke was removing all negative aspects of spells. The concept of risk reward of a spellcaster dealing with powerful arcana suddenly went when the risk was removed.
And OP, like SAGA much? tbh I agree with you, it's one of the best D20 systems I've seen. Not overly complex, not overly dumbed down. Simply a very good system, I was actually surprised that they didn't follow up on it more closely with 4th ed.
Really? What were the negative aspects of spells in 1-2e? In 3e, they introduced a detailed mechanic (weak as it is) spell disruption and xp cost for wish and similar spells. But I don't remember anything in any earlier edition of D&D where there was a consequence to casting magic other than components.
If you want to see negative consequences for spellcasting, look up the D20 games for Wheel of Time (overchanneling!) and Call of Chthulu (san loss!). D&D softballs the mage.
Speaking from someone who plays a lot of 4E and really enjoys it:
First off, you should probably talk about 4E as it is now, instead of as it was released. Saying "THERE'S NO BARDS!!!!11!" is uh, now incorrect. Very, very incorrect. Like, for years now. Should they have been more clear about when Bards were going to arrive? Yes, definitely. Wizards of the Coast definitely needs to work on its customer communication, service and support. But this idea that they totally forgot about it when it came out in PHB2 isn't really valid. It's obvious they wanted to give it its full due without going bankrupt in the process. Again, they didn't make this clear, and that's on them.
Skills in 4E, contrary to what some of you may believe, work almost exactly like the SAGA skills. The difference is that SAGA still had those retarded "knowledge" skills that, in practice, were useless the majority of the time and they changed it so that your knowledge of any given subject was the same as your proficiency in that subject. Which, to me, is a good enough abstraction of skills/knowledge that they should definitely keep it.
As for multiclassing, my feelings are mixed. I'm pretty sure you can multiclass in 4E at first level, if you pick that as your first level feat. Also, there are hybrid classes. Is this the best way to do it? There's some argument here for needing multiclassing to do more, but the notion that it doesn't exist isn't really valid. It definitely needs work though, as it's not very robust at the moment. Also, it probably shouldn't be done through feats, since feats are so rare. The Hybrid classes ... I think you kind of have to plan those out from the beginning, so they're a lot less spontaneous (I don't think you can switch to a hybrid class at level X, for instance.)
But as for the general argument ... look, the thing that turned me off from paper and pencil RPGs for years was game imbalance. Whenever I would try to get into this style of games, it was always "Well this is basically the best thing" or "this class is better than the rest" or "If you aren't a giant robot you won't do any damage" ... Okay so that last one was for RIFTS, but my point is, Wizards very purposefully tried to create a system where class balance was possible. And this is great because it allows you to create the character you want, without feeling useless.
To this end, they needed to create limits, and they needed to create a design language.
If you think either of these things are bad that simply means, I'm sorry, that you're not very good at designing games. You need these things. Your fighter is a "defender" if his ability to abosrb damage is better than his ability to put out damage. Maybe you don't think that's the case for this specific character, and that's fine. The "role" is a metagame attribute ANYWAY. It's not meant to be a title you append to your character's name. These words are made so that gamers can know what role they are expected to fill. Sure, make your fighter stay as far back as possible and only attack with range. I guess you could do that. But you can know from its role that your powers probably won't support that. And you can know that there is no reason for you to pick "Fighter" as a class except that you like the name. But that's not how you design a game. If you want to be someone who stays back and attacks at range, maybe you should make a Ranger instead, because there needed to be a class that was good at doing that, and that became the Ranger.
Only by clearly delineating what each class does, what its role is, what the expectations are, and what its limits are can you make a well designed, well balanced game.
You guys are decrying that 4E put limits on the classes - that's the thing that I like the MOST about 4E, and I think the thing that Wizards is least likely to change.
Should there be better options for people who don't know what they want? Maybe. But I think if you're coming to the table and saying, "I want to create a guy, I have no idea what I want to be doing at level 5" then ... that's something you and your DM should work out. Because it's almost impossible to design a game that will work for that, and still be fun for the other people.
In this respect the thing that 3rd absolutely broke was removing all negative aspects of spells. The concept of risk reward of a spellcaster dealing with powerful arcana suddenly went when the risk was removed.
And OP, like SAGA much? tbh I agree with you, it's one of the best D20 systems I've seen. Not overly complex, not overly dumbed down. Simply a very good system, I was actually surprised that they didn't follow up on it more closely with 4th ed.
Really? What were the negative aspects of spells in 1-2e? In 3e, they introduced a detailed mechanic (weak as it is) spell disruption and xp cost for wish and similar spells. But I don't remember anything in any earlier edition of D&D where there was a consequence to casting magic other than components.
If you want to see negative consequences for spellcasting, look up the D20 games for Wheel of Time (overchanneling!) and Call of Chthulu (san loss!). D&D softballs the mage.
Haste = age your character 1 year Wish = loose a level or (some such) in XP. raise dead = loose 1 con
Are a few of the top of my head
In addition to some spells having very expensive consumed components made it so wizards were more restricted from the epic power spiral they enjoyed in 3rd and 3.5 because all negative effects just got removed.
I think it (restrictions and negative effects) works for a Conan style swords in sorc game, but the flavour of D&D has changed and evolved since then.
