You are not alone. The 4ed is not perfect, but some adjustment canbring it backinto fashion, even if those changes would mean a 4.5 edition. DDN implements some of those changes (aka: backgrounds and themes and the skill sistem), but the price paid seems too high in terms system coherence andcombat dynamics
You are not alone. The 4ed is not perfect, but some adjustment canbring it backinto fashion, even if those changes would mean a 4.5 edition. DDN implements some of those changes (aka: backgrounds and themes and the skill sistem), but the price paid seems too high in terms system coherence andcombat dynamics
The problem is the people they are trying to win back are just not looking for 4.5. For us 4E was the wrong direction. So anything they do has to account for that, yet bring in enough 4E stuff that they can retain people who liked it. That isn't to say people want to dial the hobby back to 1978, just that we wished WOTC had taken another path at the 2008 fork in the road. For me that means toning down a lot of the 3E excesses, but not completely restructuring the game or removing core components like vancian spells. I want something that plays and feels like classic D&D but has more updated and workable mechanics. Something where you can chart a clear, even line of progress, but not a reboot in 4E fashion (and if they must do a reboot, not the gamey approach 4E took).
Unfortunately they can't please everyone. WOTC has to get a broad audience on Next. 4E was too narrow in my opinion. Finding the right range of mechanics will be no easy feat.
Maybe I'm not alone? I've been reminiscing about 3.5 since I heard about these upcoming playtests and since getting the platest rules and remembering all the things I don't like about 4e I'm really starting to appreciate 4e again.
I do plan to fire up a playtest and contribute my feedback but I think I truly appreciate what they did with 4e a lot more now and understand how hard it must have been as well as how hard it must be hearing people make claims such as not being able to roleplay in 4e (which is just plain silly since the roleplay is always player and DM driven not combat rulesets)... maybe I'm not alone?
In many ways this system fixes all of the problems that 4e had and gives power back to the old guard. The old guard, along with the new players this will bring in, will fuel the future of D&D. Pathfinder systems will be tough to market against if they don't go towards what players want. This will bring a lot of the pathfinder players back to D&D and help to build a positive future for the system.
Things this system fixed 1. Characters don't have a million powers 2. Wizards are wizards again. 3. Fixed nearly infinate healing with surges and massive self heals 4. Simplified AC and made saves back like the old days. (Extra Defenses were in someway against the spirit of the gain) 5. Weapons and armor are vitually the same (except from a few differences and the great new finesse weapons) 6. Backgrounds, Themes, Feats (this is a great way to seperate the powers. You can create whole templates that are easily applied and advanced through this system. It will be easy for players to advance, and easy for them to pick out what they want. A win win in my opinion. 7. Spells are simplified. Over complexation of spells was chocking previous editions. Setting spells to standard casting times and moving most spells so they didn't scale as much makes being a higher level caster more challenging and more fun to play. 8. Minor spells are a win. Spells like Magic Missile needed to be cantrips for a long time. The scaling for damage is fair under the new system, (maxing a 4d4+4 at 9th level) The spell auto hits with no chance of crit and is very similar to the spell we know and love. 9. While some would say the fighter and rogue playtest characters seem blah, I saw we haven't seen the whole of all the options yet, the other backgrounds and themes, powers and abilities, and the other feats. Consider that this is a playtest and in playtests not everything will be there. 10. As a whole, I am very happy with the work that has been done so far on D&D 5th. Mike and the crew have done a great job, and I have to admit that I might have been too harsh in the past on Mearls and crew. Lets move forward and make this edition something to be proud of!
I agree with all your points here.
I'm also impressed with how much the playtest rules refer to DM fiat, "Ask your DM", "your DM tells you if that action is possible". etc. The fact that 'Improvise' is listed a core option in combat says alot about the focus of 5e.
Maybe I'm not alone? I've been reminiscing about 3.5 since I heard about these upcoming playtests and since getting the platest rules and remembering all the things I don't like about 4e I'm really starting to appreciate 4e again.
I do plan to fire up a playtest and contribute my feedback but I think I truly appreciate what they did with 4e a lot more now and understand how hard it must have been as well as how hard it must be hearing people make claims such as not being able to roleplay in 4e (which is just plain silly since the roleplay is always player and DM driven not combat rulesets)... maybe I'm not alone?
In many ways this system fixes all of the problems that 4e had and gives power back to the old guard. The old guard, along with the new players this will bring in, will fuel the future of D&D. Pathfinder systems will be tough to market against if they don't go towards what players want. This will bring a lot of the pathfinder players back to D&D and help to build a positive future for the system.
Things this system fixed 1. Characters don't have a million powers 2. Wizards are wizards again. 3. Fixed nearly infinate healing with surges and massive self heals 4. Simplified AC and made saves back like the old days. (Extra Defenses were in someway against the spirit of the gain) 5. Weapons and armor are vitually the same (except from a few differences and the great new finesse weapons) 6. Backgrounds, Themes, Feats (this is a great way to seperate the powers. You can create whole templates that are easily applied and advanced through this system. It will be easy for players to advance, and easy for them to pick out what they want. A win win in my opinion. 7. Spells are simplified. Over complexation of spells was chocking previous editions. Setting spells to standard casting times and moving most spells so they didn't scale as much makes being a higher level caster more challenging and more fun to play. 8. Minor spells are a win. Spells like Magic Missile needed to be cantrips for a long time. The scaling for damage is fair under the new system, (maxing a 4d4+4 at 9th level) The spell auto hits with no chance of crit and is very similar to the spell we know and love. 9. While some would say the fighter and rogue playtest characters seem blah, I saw we haven't seen the whole of all the options yet, the other backgrounds and themes, powers and abilities, and the other feats. Consider that this is a playtest and in playtests not everything will be there. 10. As a whole, I am very happy with the work that has been done so far on D&D 5th. Mike and the crew have done a great job, and I have to admit that I might have been too harsh in the past on Mearls and crew. Lets move forward and make this edition something to be proud of!
Can you explain what the problem is with "a million powers"? Can you explain how to get to infinite healing and massive self-healing in 4E? Backgrounds, themes, and feats are from 4E. Spells were simplified in 4E, you didn't have to read through a block of text to figure out what they did. Magic Missile was effectively a "cantrip" in 4E.
I'm assuming by Wizards are Wizards again you mean that you like playing the Elminster "I am better at everything than the Rogue or Fighter" type Wizard? How is that a fix?
It's super weird to read people commenting about power and old guards, etc. but I guess I'm not as invested in this as some people, I don't see it as a power struggle or my game winning/losing
Sure, I'll go through the list for you.
1. Fighters had tons of powers. At will 1 at will 2 tons of encounter powers tons of dailys. They turned them into wizards. This shouldn't be. There should be classes for people who want to hack and slash without having to figure out and micro manage each power and there should be classes for people who want lots of spells. Fighter is not a (I want lots of spells) class
2. Healing surges + increased healing potential + Cleric healing + Spell healing + regen + damage reduction + (- damage inflicted on you with buffs) + (no real sense of death due to poor death save rules) = near impossible to kill players.
One player throws an ability that reduces incoming damage a player recieves, another throws one that reduces the damage a creature deals, another throws a regeneration spell on the character, another character uses a burst heal to heal that player, the charater self heals, and all of it is increased because of the aura of another class that increases all healing in its radius.
This is just ridiculous. There are 2 types of fights in a 4e game, the one you always win because its too easy even though its +4 CR higher than you are or less, and the one that DM's have to throw which is 5 CR+ or higher that kills you straight out without a chance.
The introduction of minions was a mistake, saving throws for death at 10+ auto stablize you was a mistake, and allowing all thse other abilities, spells, powers, and self healing to stack created players that were invincible.
There must be danager in a D&D game without throwing something that is just silly just to kill players.
I played 4e a lot so, I have a lot of examples but here's one
a 7th level party consiting of 2 clerics, an avenger, a warlord, and a warden decide they want to fight the CR 14 dragon who's ment to be the final boss after several adventures.
They buf buff buff buff, the dragon's attack are reduced by x amount of damage, he recieves x amount more from all damage, the players gain x amount more each time they are healed, the party all gains regen, and stuns the dragon each round with dailies, and the warden stands there and solos the dragon, twice his CR, while continually driving the dragon into the ground with fighter powers and feats that assume he will never leave or be able to reposition himself.
The party, within the rules, destroys the solo mob in 4 rounds. The dragon didn't even get to take an action.
All legitimately within the rules.
Now, you tell me how fun it is for both sides if they can auto slay a monster that they should never face in a million years for there level, and for the DM who can do nothing to counter it?
5e puts the balance back into the game. Spells are cast the way they should be, adding weaknesses are gone, self healing is only during short rests (the hitdice heal), fighter don't have a million powers to stop everything from leaving their side. This is truly a great upgrade to the pervious edition.
You are not alone. The 4ed is not perfect, but some adjustment canbring it backinto fashion, even if those changes would mean a 4.5 edition. DDN implements some of those changes (aka: backgrounds and themes and the skill sistem), but the price paid seems too high in terms system coherence andcombat dynamics
This: whatever quibbles I have with 4th edition can be modified and fixed, something that these changes don't seem to even attempt to do.
I wanted 5th to be build on a solid bedrock of 4th edition, because mechanistically I consider it the best and most fun edition. Instead it looks like we're going back to 3rd, with the tantalizing whisper that "there will be more 4th elements...soon."
It's like reinventing the wheel by making it square, but promising that, if we give enough feedback, they may make it an octagon.
I'm also impressed with how much the playtest rules refer to DM fiat, "Ask your DM", "your DM tells you if that action is possible". etc. The fact that 'Improvise' is listed a core option in combat says alot about the focus of 5e.
The "DM fiat" (well put) is something I find utterly unacceptable. It represents a return to vague, tedious and time intensive decision making that shifts not just power back to the DM, but agency.
I appreciate that there's a place for more and less complex classes, but the fighter as presented seems too simple, even as a simple class. I understand that this is only a playtest and that not all the options are in, but we are supposed to be testing out the core of the mechanics here, and it seems the core of the game says "magic is hasslesome and complicated, mundane is dumb and repetitive". We may see some more options for fighters later, but since they apparently aren't part of the 'core' of the fighter, will they just be cosmetic options stapled on, that interact poorly with the class as a whole? And will we see options for simpler spellcasters at all?
I like having complex classes for when I'm feeling fidgety and simple classes for when I'm feeling more laid back, or for when I'm introducing new players to the game. But I don't want the choice of "simple vs. complex" to be married to my character archetype. What if I want to play a warrior type character, but I'm the kind of player who enjoys fidgety characters with lots of options? What if my kid brother is interested in trying D&D and wants to play a "cool magic elf", but I don't want to bog him down with spellbooks and spell preparation and picking form a half dozen different abilities every round of combat?
[edit - god i don't half waffle on - sorry for the massive post folks]
Have to put my thoughts forward here. OP you are certainly not alone, however, I'm not one who stands with you. I'm not out to wind anyone up with this wall o text (tm), and I'm not Trolling, but I think there's points to be made.
I have to confess that sadly 4e bored the tits off me (I truly was saddened by that as before release it felt like it had so much potential - i was getting a bit bored of 3.5's powergaming style of metagaming and hoping that the more actiony feel of 4e would cure my D&D fatigue). But every class felt the same, the AEDU setup made it a case of same stuff different gear as far as classes and powers were concerned. It felt like WOTC had tried to distill WoW into a tabletop game. And after my initial rush of enthusiasm, I tired of it really quickly. That said however, I am glad some of it's classes and concepts are coming to 5e - as the concept of the Warlord is easily my favourite thing in D&D ever, and i kind of like the potential the surges mechanic showed - if not it's actual implementation.
Anyone who was expecting this vast brave new world in 5e - obviously wasn't listening to WOTC when they explained their aims and goals for 5e. It was intended to be an attempt to pull together the best aspects (as they see it) of all past editions - yes there is a form of vancian casting - but it's more flexible than it was, and it's greatly reduced compared to past editions, casters all get cool at will spells to play with too, the combination actually works very well, and it's not all that dissimilar to the way 4e worked. Vancian casting has been a part of every edition of D&D, Hit points have been a part of every edition of D&D, armour class, saving throws (in one form or another) all part of D&D - and they all worked, but you have to buy into the reasoning for them to work. If you can't buy into that, if you can't put your mind into that zone - I have to wonder why you play D&D at all - because for me Vancian is such an integral part of the character of D&D. Likewise with Hit points - a very neat abstraction of toughness, skill at avoiding blows, blind luck, divine favour or whatever you want to call it. It's that abstraction that can allow non magical - morale based 'healing' (maybe inspiration, revitalisation, encouragement are more accurate terms, but healing fits just as well)
I started playing D&D with AD&D 2nd edition, played a lot of 3rd and 3.5 (playing a 4.5 campaign at the moment) (playing many other RPG's inbetween too including WFRP 1st 2nd and 3rd edition, 7th Sea, Legend of the Five Rings (best RPG dice system ever imo), Ironclaw, Mechwarrior, Star Wars (d6 system and d20), Rifts, and many of the World of Darkness games too - so I've experienced the good the bad and the ugly of game design). I found 4e's standardisation, reliance on battle maps etc dull. So far I'm reading these playtest materials and i can see some real potential here. The basics are very good, solid and reliable - and simple enough that they can be easily adapted by players and dm's. That is important - it shows that WOTC are taking expansion into account from the beginning. The classes are also already showing early signs of actually feeling a bit distinct from each other - which i also like. Looking forward to seeing that develop, and seeing the other classes too.
I look at these basic rules and am happy - i've not felt this way since i started playing WFRP 1st edition. A simple core system that will respond well to player and dm interaction and adaptation. This is a ruleset that credits it's players with some intelligence and trusts them to play the game sensibly and creatively - without having to spend 4 bloody pages telling you how to trip someone up in combat (an exaggeration maybe, but i'm sure you get my point) .
It's almost the antithesis of all the bad things from 3e and 4e for me. 3e was overcomplex and powergamey, 4e was over defined and spoon fed everything to you, with little room for flexibility, both editions felt like they were more about the metagame of character optimisation than they were about the actual game of D&D. This feels good - it's early days yet but there is potential there. It's a good mix of description and mechanics, to give you idea's and inspiration. Not encyclopedic definitions of exactly every single situation in which you can do this that or the other. Just how a good RPG (or at least, what my group and I would call a good RPG - this is opinion, not fact) should be.
And with more complex character and game customisation to come, more in depth mechanics still in the works, that more importantly won't unbalance the game, just give options for greater customisation to players who want it. I'm optimistic about the edition.
All you 4e players who aren't happy - be patient, don't make a snap judgement based on this very early 1st playtest document. See how it ends up, and if you don't like it, do what I did when 4e turned out to be a disappointment for me, and what all the other edition warriors before have done. Keep playing the game you love (in my case it was Legend of the Five rings and WFRP but hey). Me - I'll be playing 5e quite a bit I think. Could be just the thing my group needs.
Well, I'm a big fan of 4e and I don't see a reason to switch, since Next doesn't seem to cater to my playstyle at all. (My playstyle is a LOT of complex tactical skirmishes wrapped up in a great story). My biggest concern now is that they will cut the support for 4e just like they did with 3.5. I can't afford to lose CB.
I was a bit resistant to convert to 4e at first and even now there are things about it that irritate me. However, it was truly a new edition, a leap forward. Even mechanics that I didn't exactly warm up to immediately, like healing surges, were at least an attempt to do something new and different. This reads to me like a retroclone with some house rules thrown in. If I'm going to buy a new edition, then it needs to be something new, not just a retread of the past.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
