I said this elsewhere, but this seems an appropriate place to say it again:
4E's (and every other versions of D&D and most other RPGs in general) focus on combat was quite purposeful. COMBAT is the single most important part of the game to balance mathematically. It is also the single biggest part of the game riddled with houserules, with need for DMs to step in and clarify, accept, or deny suggestions, it was the biggest area of the game for rules lawyers to bog down the game.
Codifying the combat section of the game makes that section of the game flow more smoothly.
This frees up the DMs time to focus on the non-combat aspects of the game, and re-engage in storytelling.
Outside of combat, every character is generally much more able to successfully be on par with one another. The fighters are still looked to for brute force to get through doors, they are still the go-to individuals for other soldiers and city guard and the like to interact with. Rogues are still the street-savvy information gatherers and urban scouts, and contact with the undergroud areas of society. Clerics are still healers and religious comfort and ties to certain parts of the nobility. Wizards are still sages, and contacts with circles of knowledge seekers and gatherers, and other parts of the nobility.
It is COMBAT where the disparity between the classes is most prevalent, so it is COMBAT where that needs to be reigned in and adjudicated by the rules themselves the most.
Thus, a focus on combat for the mechanical side, and specific, constant articles and light rules for out of combat and fluff, where roleplaying is king instead of numbers and math.
That so many old school players never grasped that is really part of the problem, in my opinion. 4E, for me, was so bloody refreshing, because combat was just not so tipped in favor of one type of character (the casters) over the others, such that those classes are utterly dominating the flow of combat, taking the rest along for the ride.
So...in that regard, the complete lack of codified rules for upkeep of property, chart upon chart of NPCs and how they interact, favors and social appearances, and chart upon chart of crafting and professions and on and on and on left all of that to the imagination of the players and the DM. Not in the hands of a rulebook. That, to me, meant a drastic INCREASE in roleplaying over previous editions. The parts that needed to be balanced and codified were, albeit far from perfectly (yet much more so than in previous editions), and the parts that are just story are left as just story, not given intricate rules. Skill challenges in particular, when done correctly, cover SO MUCH of the non-combat rules all by themselves, it was beautiful, once you got the hang of it.
I don't WANT massive amounts of rules for anything BUT combat, save those spells and abilities that have specific rules implications that need rules to look to for adjudicating their usage in-game.
I said this elsewhere, but this seems an appropriate place to say it again:
4E's (and every other versions of D&D and most other RPGs in general) focus on combat was quite purposeful. COMBAT is the single most important part of the game to balance mathematically. It is also the single biggest part of the game riddled with houserules, with need for DMs to step in and clarify, accept, or deny suggestions, it was the biggest area of the game for rules lawyers to bog down the game.
Codifying the combat section of the game makes that section of the game flow more smoothly.
This frees up the DMs time to focus on the non-combat aspects of the game, and re-engage in storytelling.
Outside of combat, every character is generally much more able to successfully be on par with one another. The fighters are still looked to for brute force to get through doors, they are still the go-to individuals for other soldiers and city guard and the like to interact with. Rogues are still the street-savvy information gatherers and urban scouts, and contact with the undergroud areas of society. Clerics are still healers and religious comfort and ties to certain parts of the nobility. Wizards are still sages, and contacts with circles of knowledge seekers and gatherers, and other parts of the nobility.
It is COMBAT where the disparity between the classes is most prevalent, so it is COMBAT where that needs to be reigned in and adjudicated by the rules themselves the most.
Thus, a focus on combat for the mechanical side, and specific, constant articles and light rules for out of combat and fluff, where roleplaying is king instead of numbers and math.
That so many old school players never grasped that is really part of the problem, in my opinion. 4E, for me, was so bloody refreshing, because combat was just not so tipped in favor of one type of character (the casters) over the others, such that those classes are utterly dominating the flow of combat, taking the rest along for the ride.
So...in that regard, the complete lack of codified rules for upkeep of property, chart upon chart of NPCs and how they interact, favors and social appearances, and chart upon chart of crafting and professions and on and on and on left all of that to the imagination of the players and the DM. Not in the hands of a rulebook. That, to me, meant a drastic INCREASE in roleplaying over previous editions. The parts that needed to be balanced and codified were, albeit far from perfectly (yet much more so than in previous editions), and the parts that are just story are left as just story, not given intricate rules. Skill challenges in particular, when done correctly, cover SO MUCH of the non-combat rules all by themselves, it was beautiful, once you got the hang of it.
I don't WANT massive amounts of rules for anything BUT combat, save those spells and abilities that have specific rules implications that need rules to look to for adjudicating their usage in-game.
+1 to this. Because combat is decided primarily with dice rolls, that is where the bulk of the rules need to be concentrated. I know many groups out there role play more than roll play, but do we need pages upon pages of rules covering events outside of combat? That is where the DM (and quite possibility the players) move the events that best fit the story. There were constant cries that 4E was too combat oriented, but that did not stop the DM and players from progressing the plot as they see fit.
I will agree with TomJScott about the faster combat being a good thing. My wife really couldn't handle the longer fights in 4E, though I kinda liked them. I think the area many people have rankled on is the fact that the fighter came in as a very simple, option-less (yet effective), playstyle, while the wizard and clerics came in with significantly more options. If we end up with a more complex Fighter version more like a Warblade, and a simpler wizard (probably Sorceror?) than in the end I suspect these groups will relax.
In either case, if they add something like OA's, I'll be very happy with the current combat system as a foundation for fast fights, and will also look forward to layering on the tactical module for the right situations. I agree that faster fights are a good thing and hope that they continue even with the tactical module (thought probably still longer than using the base rules).
The underlying theme I'm seeing in these forums is a complaint about combat and the abilities or lack thereof of the characters to perform in combat. D&D is not just a game of combat. The fact that the mechanics of combat are being simplified and every class is not balanced perfectly in combat is a good thing in my opinion. Because there is a heck of a lot more to do in D&D than just combat. And characters should all have a chance to shine in different areas of the game.
What I see from 5e is the possibility to actually be able to get the full D&D experience when our group sits down for a session and not just 3-4 hours of grinding combat. I want to be able to engage my players in a plot and story that is interesting. I want them to have fun exploring, finding secret passages, discovering the wonders of the game world, interact with the inhabitants, solve puzzles, and more.
I think that's what was lacking so desperately in 4e. Yes, you could do all those things in 4e, but at the expense of time and the flow of the game. It could become boring and mundane to sit through 1-2 hour combat encounters to get to the next step in the adventure. Combat should be fun and engaging, but not dominate the entire session.
I used to write RPGA tournament modules that took up a 4-hour slot and, if converted to 4e today, would literally take at least 4 of those 4-hour slots to complete. That's just my guess, but there's no doubt that you could do so much more in a 2e adventure in the same amount of time than you can do today in 4e. More combat, more exploration, more role-playing. A much more balanced game. I believe 5e is shaping up to be that kind of game again.
I agree. You see people making that mistake over and over as if DnD is just some kind of combat sim game.
Yes there is often combat in the game but it should never have been allowed to massively balloon out to take hours to resolve.
From what I have seen re: Combat in Next, at least that issue seems to have been successfully resolved.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome
Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012
DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
This is why Next has to focus on adventure design and not encounter design.
With adventure design, you have to think about the 4 fights, 2 traps, 1 puzzle, 2 locks,2 hidden objects, 1 pack of wild animals, and 2 talkative NPCs.
With encounter design, you have to segment everthing so each combat encounter grants everyone has nearly equal time, each exploration encounter grants everyone nearly equal time, that every social enc....
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Just to clarify once again for those who have jumped in this conversation and are saying things like they don't want intricate rules for non-combat things. I never said I wanted that either. I absolutely do not want that. I do not like skill challenges and I hope they never return. Anything beyond combat should be extremely rules light and mostly guidelines. I'm just stating that combat is not the only thing to do in D&D and should therefore not dominate a play session to the exclusion of the other fun elements of D&D. With quick combats we can do much more in a game session, even more combat if that's what you like, but not the same combat for 1-2 hours.
Just to clarify once again for those who have jumped in this conversation and are saying things like they don't want intricate rules for non-combat things. I never said I wanted that either. I absolutely do not want that. I do not like skill challenges and I hope they never return. Anything beyond combat should be extremely rules light and mostly guidelines. I'm just stating that combat is not the only thing to do in D&D and should therefore not dominate a play session to the exclusion of the other fun elements of D&D. With quick combats we can do much more in a game session, even more combat if that's what you like, but not the same combat for 1-2 hours.
The return of Save or Die, OHKO weapon kills, and massive damage vs low hp will all speed up combat. Combat will not based around 6+ round minimums a fight. Classes that can nova can "erase" fights quickly.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
I do like skill challenges, or rather I like the idea of them. They've been evolving over the course of the last couple of years and I think that they are now at a level of sophistication where they could again be retooled and offered up in an advanced module of optional rules. They probably don't belong in the core rules.
The reason that I like them is that they bring a new element to the game, they're not strictly speaking combat and nor are they a roleplaying element per se. But a hybrid that brings a choreographed set of interactions to the game. The reason that this is a useful piece of gaming rules is that skill challenges necessarily bring a certain degree of complexity to a given situation that you wouldn't probably get in an old school 1E through 3E game.
Take for example the situation where a character goes into town to purchase some healing potions. Typically this would be role played off the cuff with perhaps a simple back and forth between the player and DM. With the skill challenge the DM can quickly add some chance to the outcome using a predefined mechanic. Which would in and off itself create a richer more involved session of play.
However, I wouldn't use skill challenges for every situations only those that I wanted to create a little extra dynamic. So I do hope they manage to make their way into the game at some level and in some incarnation.
The cover of the 1st edition Player’s Handbook by artist D.A. Trampier. A motley crew of adventurers, the bloodied bodies of lizard men, the hint of arcane malevolence surrounding the idol, the daring thieves prying the jewels from the statue. This is arguably the most iconic piece of art in all of RPGdom.
