Community

Mar 17, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Emerikol wrote:

It's not that bad.  Parts of all the editions will get some representation....

They (the Wizards marketing folks & D&D Next Web Crew) haven't given us any concrete information. They continue to promise everything to everyone but haven't locked anything down. So far there has been little or no representation from any edition other than generic iconic ideas. Some of the stuff they previewed already is continuing to be questioned even by the Web Crew in the polls. Either they do know what they are going to do and this polling thing is a farce or they don't know and nothing is true represented yet.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 7:58AM, Emerikol wrote:

So I've been trying to zero in on the real problem people have with AEDU.  Now I can't speak for everyone but I'm starting to think that it is not AEDU at all.  It is the way AEDU is used in 4e that is throwing a lot of people from earlier editions.

In 4e, each classes powers were strictly that classes powers.   In some ways this made life simple since you only had to look at what your class could do.  On the other hand, it also reduced the overall choices and choices are fun.   Now I will agree that mathematically, many of the powers were very similar but flavor wise I feel there was still a disconnect.

...

I am hoping in 5e that the number of class specific powers is greatly reduced.  Maybe not to zero as a few powers per class can add distinctiveness.  (e.g. laying on of hands for Paladins).   Instead I'd rather the powers be grouped by power source (yea I hate that martial is a "power" source but I don't have a better name for the whole group that includes martial).    Then let the classes focus to differing degrees on the power sources.

...

Anyway, I see the lack of crossover as one of the things about AEDU that people dislike.  Does anyone else feel this way?

Well, this is an interesting subject. One that's conflicting even among the 4E crowd exclusively.

Let me start by saying I agree with you. "Different powers for different people" was not even a half-decent manner to contrast classes.

But that's only part of the problem. The other part was the designers' initial assumption that gaining AEDU powers was an interesting enough replacement to gaining new class features on level-up on it's own merits; it wasn't. I'm sure the not totally backwards or needlessly constrained essentials classes and themes were patched in the Edition for this reason. Your mileage may vary whether this was all too little too late.

Mar 17, 2012 -- 4:21PM, upho wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals.

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...

While i understand the idea of just making it work by explaining it via story....it just makes reality simply bend to anything to fit the power. But is that what we want....evrything so simplified that everything can then be knocked prone? Do we say that the word prone is simply a genericized word representing a "state" of being? What else are we allowed to genericize simply to make it fit? This becomes a translation nightmare for a DM (not l=to mention leading to rules lawyering/mongering), who is a literalist versus a realist vs a mechnically-inclined DM. The problem is not that we have different DMs who would need to intepret things differently......the problem is that we all need to be speaking the same language or else the words can be shaped/bent to fit any meaning we want them to.  So once the meaning is established and defined concretely.....you are not to allow any variance or else every variance is allowed (then nobody is justified that theirs is the true concept) and the game loses integrity in the process. If the powers are to work properly, then there must be entries on the monsters to manage what they're immune to and also examples of what cannot be affected with a certain power. Examples are great as this clarifies intent of meaning (Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was reknown for this clarification process).

Mar 17, 2012 -- 7:03PM, Kalnaur wrote:

My understanding is that Prone is being used as the in-game term for a collection of effects.  In and of itself, the word Prone being used for this collection of effects is because those effects most easily represented by the word "prone".  When that word doesn't make sense to be used to define those effects, the word should be ignored, but the effects stay.  After all, the Prone word, or word for any condition is simply a shorthand within the game for a specific set of effects.  If the word doesn't fit for all circumstances, it can be ignored for the sake of the mechanical implementation.

Bingo!

Mar 17, 2012 -- 6:32PM, Facet wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 4:21PM, upho wrote:

Mar 17, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Kalnaur wrote:

I do wonder if they had made "Prone" and then "Unsettled" or something for oozes with exactly the same effects if we would have seen the same outcry.  I am guessing that instead the outcry would be to just simplify the game and make one condition.  I'm also guessing it would come from more mechanically minded individuals.

Exactly. 

Though we might run into some problems explaining how you "taunt" a mindless giant dessert with an appetite for adventurers...

While i understand the idea of just making it work by explaining it via story....it just makes reality simply bend to anything to fit the power. But is that what we want....evrything so simplified that everything can then be knocked prone? Do we say that the word prone is simply a genericized word representing a "state" of being? What else are we allowed to genericize simply to make it fit? This becomes a translation nightmare for a DM (not l=to mention leading to rules lawyering/mongering), who is a literalist versus a realist vs a mechnically-inclined DM. The problem is not that we have different DMs who would need to intepret things differently......the problem is that we all need to be speaking the same language or else the words can be shaped/bent to fit any meaning we want them to.  So once the meaning is established and defined concretely.....you are not to allow any variance or else every variance is allowed (then nobody is justified that theirs is the true concept) and the game loses integrity in the process. If the powers are to work properly, then there must be entries on the monsters to manage what they're immune to and also examples of what cannot be affected with a certain power. Examples are great as this clarifies intent of meaning (Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was reknown for this clarification process).

Well, this was sort of my point. In 4e, the idea is that the mechanics are always the same - prone is a game term with exact mechanics that resemble the real consequences of a proned creature (provided said creature is usually upright) - regardless of the narrative. In the narrative, if a power prones an orc, it might unsettle a black pudding. The mechanics themselves are the language, so to speak: in 4e, the game term prone doesn't necessarily mean prone in the narrative, it just means the same package of mechanics is applied to the prone orc as well as to the unsettled pudding in the narrative. This only becomes gamey if the players/DM view it as such (or somehow lack the small amount of imagination required to make the narrative believeable). I think this strict separation of the narrative, in-game, definition and the mechanical definition is one of the greatest strengths of 4e, allowing the players/DMs to pick and choose their mechanics to suit the narrative, without having to disrupt neither "gamability" (balance, complexity etc) or verisimilitude.

The problem, IMO, is that if you apply a very strict adherence to the flavor, the narrative and the mechanics can become too separated, thus disrupting the narrative itself. It could become "narratively challenging" when a verbally talented fighter uses his taunt power/ability/trick on said black pudding - just how can the verbal taunt mechanics affect a pudding, a "thing" which can barely be called alive? Unless the fighter has some very intimate knowledge of pudding behavior, some people would say it won't work because it'll disrupt either A) the PC concept of a verbally talented fighter or B) the pudding concept of a giant mindless ameoba-ish creature. In other words, the problem lies primarily in how flexible you view the flavor and narrative to be, not in the mechanics themselves. And this is a problem every edition of DnD has (and arguably every RPG with a rules system ever created).

Anyhow, these cases are extremely rare IMO (and I wouldn't have any problems narrating "the taunting of the pudding" in 4e).

And this is rather OT, sorry.