Yep, I'll be testing 'HP Half/Normal/Double' in my next few games.
Great idea. Let us know if it changes player tactics when they know the monsters might be more difficult to kill.
It is not my DMing style to explain, describe, or otherwise signify monsters in different ways based upon their HP totals. It's an abstract, and therefore describing them as beefier, meaner, or whathaveyou does nothing aside from offer a gamist insight that nurtures metagamey thought processes.
They're just orcs.
Oh, he didn't go down all that quick, huh? Better rethink that 'hit first, hit hard' strategy and be a bit more tactical in your approach because here comes a few of his friends.
I think we ae on a very similar page Tony. I'm not opposed to the 4th ed concepts but as you said page after page of near duplicate powers and varients is what I want to avoid. I thinkthe D&DN fighter is trying to get this right and so far its the best core fighter I have seen but I'll see where it ends up.
I iked the 3.5 fighter concept alot as well but it would have bee improved alot with things that 4th ed brought in like scaling feats or encounter powers via feats.
I'm not surprised you find 5e and 3.5 fighter good designs. They're actually very similar designs. Both are simple (I'd describe the 3.5 fighter as 'elegant'), get their effectiveness from a simple progression (BAB in 3.5, ED in 5e), and can be customized (via bonus feats in 3.5, maneuvers in 5e). The 3.5 fighter's only misfortune was being in 3.5, with CoDzilla &c. The 5e fighter's luck isn't looking a lot better.
I hope you get the idea as I am not very good at explaining things at times.
I wanted 3.5 to be steamlined, the casters hit with the nerf bat and more skills for most classes along with condensed skill lists. And we got 4th ed which at least is good mechanically (it works and its can be fun) but it wasn't really my cup of tea for various reasons. Soe of the 4th ed posters a re a bit thin skinned so IDK how open they would be to a streamlined 4th ed style module or class varients baked into core.
Yeah, I'm not quite following you, there. A "4e stye module" is something of a contradiction in terms, since the defining things about 4e were core design assumptions, not play styles. You can't put class balance or common structures or tight definitions (skills, keywords, conditions, etc) or action economy into a module to be tacked onto the relative chaos that we currently have in the playtest. I question whether 4e even has a peculiar 'style' the way 3e did can classic D&D tended towards. The D&D Encounters program has something of a style, for instance, but it's not the only (or even best) way to play 4e. To the extent that 4e succeeded in being balanced (certainly not perfectly) it avoided encouraging one style over another. I think when a lot of folks go on about not being "able" to play in their style or their style not being "supported," they really mean that their style isn't being over-rewarded or forced upon others. A true core system for a "D&D for everyone" would have to be scrupulously balanced, supporting all 'play styles,' favoring none.
Yeah the 3.5 fighter is elegnat. If it had say 4 skill points a level, scaling feats and something like encounter powers it could buy with those feats it would be a great design assuming it wasn't competing with Codzilla ( I use houserules for something like this, you have to multiclass into Cleric/Druid/Wizard)
Other things from 4th ed like clean core rules, better monster and balance design are not really edition exclusive as such.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
Other things from 4th ed like clean core rules, better monster and balance design are not really edition exclusive as such.
Balance might be exclusive in the empirical sense of being present only in 4e - pre-Essentials 4e, at that - and so far absent from 5e. But, certainly all those things and more might be delivered by some future edition (even 5e) if those things are made design priorities.
There is a distinct problem-corner that the devs have backed themselves into. They want to:
A) Unite the fanbase B) Make DDN so that it "captures the feel" of previous editions C) Make a new game that new players will pick up
It sounds good and all that, except:
A) Not possible. No matter what kind of game they come out with, they cannot ever unite the entire fanbase. B) Likely not possible, either. Making a game that captures the "feel" of BECMI and 4E at the same time is a task I would never want imposed on me, let alone one I would willingly taking up on my own initiative. C) If DDN should for some reason succeed at A, it doesn't affect C because new players don't have anything to compare it to. If it succeeds at B, it also doesn't really affect C for the same reason. However, I find it difficult to believe that they can successfully accomplish C without alienating groups A and B.
People want a new game with new rules. They claim that if the new game too closely resembles editions X or Y, they'll simply continue to play editions X or Y and give DDN a miss. Others claim to want specific parts from editions X and Y in DDN or it's a deal-breaker. Some (a minority, naturally) simply want an updated version of their favorite edition or it's a deal-breaker. To take on the task of uniting all of these folks would be a madman's nightmare. Who do you cater to? You can't please them all. Do the digruntled 4E fans warrant enough attention to cater more to them than others? Do the lapsed D&D players who went to Pathfinder warrant it? Do you say screw 'em both and strictly go after new players? All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not a WotC employee right now. How many times can you reinvent the lightbulb before you either run out of ideas on how to improve it, or realize that if it was going to be the best one made, it would've probably been done already?
It seems to me that the people who hate 4e are completely misunderstanding the arguments of those who liked 4e and feel 5e is a step backwards. I hear two responses all the time that just don't make any sense unless you completely misunderstand what we're saying. The first is that we should just keep playing 4e and leave your edition alone. The second is that it's just a playtest, so stop complaining that they haven't gotten it right yet. Neither of these arguments in any way address our points, much less solve anything.
We don't want Next to be a 4e clone. "Why don't you just keep playing 4e" is not a valid response. I haven't seen a single person say they want healing surges back (though plenty of people, myself included, have said that they want something that accomplished what surges did, none of them are demanding the precise mechanical implementation of surges. Which, by the way, is pretty much what we have, just fewer of them, and worse, and given a retro name). I haven't seen a single person say they insist that AEDU comes back in its 4e implementation (though plenty of people have said that they want at-will, encounter, and daily resources, there are many other ways of doing that than 4e's AEDU). I haven't seen a single person say they want all classes to have the same power structure, or rigid class roles, or all monsters of a level to have the same AC and attack bonus, or to go back to assumed magical enhancement bonuses (although I've repeatedly seen requests for very different things being misinterpreted as requests for these things).
The truth is, 4e was a deeply flawed system. It was my favorite D&D so far, and I think other systems were even more deeply flawed, but it was flawed. I can and have gone on for pages about everything that's wrong with 4e: an utter disregard for in-game explanations for its mechanics, encounter sameness, a knife-edged balance between encounters that are too easy and those that are TPKs, an inability to have short encounters that don't feel like a waste of time, a system that encourages players to look to their character sheets before their imaginations, so many out of turn actions that combat drags, math patched with feats instead of just fixed... I could go on and I could explain to you what about the system is creating each of these problems and even give you some good ideas about how to fix most of them.
So believe me when I say I don't want a 4e clone. What I want is a system that supports my playstyle. This does not mean giving me specific mechanics that I liked from 4e. It isn't even a request for more 4e influence on the game. I could care less if not one single 4e mechanic made it into Next; what I want is for it to realize some of the goals that those mechanics were trying (and often failing) to implement. What I want is for the core to be built in such a way that mechanics that allow it to support my playstyle can be tacked on without rewriting the entire rulebook. And I don't think it's an unreasonable request for an edition who's stated goal is to "unite the fanbase." This does not mean foisting my playstyle on anyone else. I'm not going to say the designers are stupid or purposefully trying to deceive us. But so far I've seen no indication that they even understand what I and others like me want, and without understanding it I don't see much hope that we're going to get it. I'm not asking for more 4e influences on Next. I'll freely admit that they've borrowed a lot from 4e. They've just borrowed mechanics from without understanding what goals they were accomplishing, and so they aren't accomplishing the goals that are the only part I care about. They borrowed surges from 4e, but thought the point was to reduce the importance of clerics and failed to understand that the real effect of surges (albeit one not perfectly realized) was to make HP an encounter resource, and so HD don't achieve that end much less fix the problems with surges (experiment 2, RAW, does achieve that end, but I rather doubt it means what RAW says and even if it does it doesn't fix the problems with surges). They borrowed at-wills from 4e, but they failed to understand that the real point of at-wills was to provide meaningful choices every round, so maneuvers fail to do that. Taking damage? Parry is the only non-trap option. Big guy in front of you? Deadly strike is the only non-trap option. Surrounded by mooks? WWA is the only non-trap option. Almost every round of a given combat, the smart fighter does exactly the same thing, and that thing is an automatic response to one or two common stimuli rather than an organic exercise in strategy. I fully expect that if and when this "tactical module" comes out, they will continue to misunderstand what it was about 4e that made it tactical and try to placate us with rules for a grid and flanking (as if we needed their help for that), and so they will fail to achieve the goal of truly tactical combat. It's this failure to understand my position that is making me feel alienated, not the fact that there was this one more pet mechanic of mine that I really wish they'd add.
Which is why the second argument makes even less sense. Yes, it's just a playtest. Yes, there is a possibility that when the game finally comes out, our concerns will be addressed. But those are in fact good reasons for us to keep voicing our concerns, not good reasons for us to shut up. It does not change the fact that the forums are a legitimate place to make arguments that the things they are doing now are not working as well as other people think. I believe one well reasoned post is worth a thousand "I enjoyed playing anyway, so it must not be a problem." This does not mean anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, it does not mean I think they are stupid, and it does not mean that even if the dev's fix my concern I will ignore their new edition because I've already given up on it. Honestly, it is because it's only a playtest that I even bother. What it means is, "I know the rules are still in flux, I know this one might not make it into the final draft, and I'm casting my vote that it shouldn't make it in and here's why." I post because there's some slim chance that someone will read it, realize that there's a way to make the game better, and do so while there's still a chance. Blind faith that the devs will get it right in the end because a group of playtesters who couldn't agree on what to order for lunch will lead them true will kill Next far more certainly than forum rage.
This post summed up my current feelings on the current iteration of 5E better than anything I could have posted to these forums. Bravo.
I do not want a perfect 4E clone from Next. It had a lot of faults. I would like to see some kind of indication that the designers are trying to include at least some part of my favored playstyle into this edition.
Things that 5E needs to do: -Make the use of battlemaps/miniatures the default. -Make healing fun, magical AND non-magical needs to be an option. Long live the Warlord! -Make magic items feel magic/mythical. I don't want a dagger +1, I want STING.
Yeah, I don't get this comment. How can anyone find powers that give you ideas of what your character is capable of 'boring'. On top of that you can still do the basic attacks of previous editions. You can even improvise and do whatever you can imagine and the game stays balanced because of page 42. So here's how I see it:
3.5E and Before
Basic Attack
Improvisation
A few special powers usually via feats or class features
4E
Basic Attack
Improvisation
A few special powers usually via feats or class features
Codified powers to give you great ideas on the capabilities of your character
BALANCE
Mostly I think these people thought they had to change their play style up and didn't realize they could continue to play the way they always did with little or no problems...
You get it, you just don't agree. Polka may have the best rythym for dancing, doesn;t mean everyone enjoys it.
I didn't disagree with this when I started with 4e. But while we we're playing with it, the AED system broke OUR players immersion. I believe you guys when you say it doesn't for you. I'm not saying anything bad about your style. My players felt differently, and you can't change that. My players dont; want codified ideas about what there chracters can do, they use their imagination to create all kinds of abilities, these abilities change every combat.
Also a system CAN be balanced without AED, AED is just the easy way to do it.
But again, so what? Someone likes something that someone else doesn't. I think it would BE great if there we're some AED classes in the core rules, I just know I won;t be playing if all classes have it, because no in my groups will play it.
In the same way that if you dont; get things you like, you won't play it.
That's fine. Vancian causing a Wizard to become a commoner with a crossbow when they run out of useful spells or when they pick the wrong spells is just as much immersion breaking to me.
The major part you don't seem to understand is you could create your own powers every round in 4E just like previous editions, except 4E even went so far as to explain how to adjudicate it. Basically have the player roll a skill check and deal a max of X damage by level denoted on a table. It allowed what you say was missing, but kept it balanced. They could have gone further and added in expected DCs for status effects, but it was a giant leap in the right direction.
I mean if you play 4E like its a board game, don't be surprised when it doesn't feel like D&D...
So its less a matter of player opinion and more a matter of not understanding the game and giving up without reading the rules...
There is a distinct problem-corner that the devs have backed themselves into. They want to:
A) Unite the fanbase B) Make DDN so that it "captures the feel" of previous editions C) Make a new game that new players will pick up
I quibble a bit with (C). I haven't noticed Mearls or anyone else going on about targeting new players with 5e. What I have noticed is things along the lines of "when I was new to D&D, I liked _____ ("simplicity" or some such rose-colored-glasses twaddle) about the game, we should have that for new players, today." It's just (B) from a different angle. Everyone was a new player once, and a lot of folks' favorite ed is that one they started with, so they see making 5e like their memories of D&D as being "good for new players," when it's really just rationalizing nostalgia.
4e overtly tried to be new and appeal to new players, and it's the 'failure' that 5e is pendulum swinging so violently away from.
To a lesser extent, maybe (A) & (B) are likewise sides of the same coin. Uniting the fanbase means bringing /back/ old players, who presumably what that "feel" of previous editions. Assume that 4e fans are either sheep who'll buy anything with D&D on the front, or edition-warriors who won't ever touch another edition (and nothing in between), and it's safe to ignore what they might want, entirely.
A) Not possible. No matter what kind of game they come out with, they cannot ever unite the entire fanbase.
I have to agree. Edition warring and its petulant differences are almost cosmetic compared to the deep rift between old-school DM-centric 0/AD&D, and modern, player-centric 3/4eD&D. It'd take more than a couple of modules to accommodate both.
B) Likely not possible, either. Making a game that captures the "feel" of BECMI and 4E at the same time is a task I would never want imposed on me, let alone one I would willingly taking up on my own initiative.
"Feel" is really more for the old-schoolers. I'm quite aware of the 'feel' D&D used to have, and get a little nostalgic thrill when something tickles it. Not enough to make me /play/ 1e instead of 4e, but enough that the references to it in later editions are endearing. You could get a lot of "feel" without aping the poor mechanics of past editions.
To take on the task of uniting all of these folks would be a madman's nightmare. Who do you cater to?
You cater to 3.5/Pathfinder holdouts and one-time D&Ders from the 80s. The former are a proven market, the latter are too big a potential market to ignore.
Current fans, long-time fans of D&D who have bought multiple editions, a lot of them anyway, can be counted on to buy 5e no matter what it is (afterall, that's been their pattern), so there's - ironically - no need to cater to your most loyal audience, enough of them are "in the bag," already.
Pathfinder is currently selling very well. Clearly, these are people who spend money. They're spending money on a 2nd re-boot of 3e, even after screaming bloody murder over 3.5 (but still buying it). They're demands are pretty clear, give them 3e again and again and again and they'll keep buying it. A proven market, easy to cater to. All you have to do is throw 4e under the bus, shoot it in the head to make sure its dead, desecrate its corpse, bury it in unhallowed ground (3.5 Unhallow, mind you), and then pretend it never existed, and they're yours.
Do you say screw 'em both and strictly go after new players?
4e tried to strike out and appeal to newer players and "failed," so that option's out.
Then there's the old, lapsed players. D&D was a fad in the 80s, legions of 14yo boys made it a fad, and those kids are now in their mid-40s. Mid-life crisis time, peak-earning years. If you own a property that was a fad 20 or 30 years ago, and you're /not/ raking in money on a "come back," you're doing something very wrong. The problem is the audience isn't 40-somethings like me - crazy nerds who have been gaming all this time - it's everyone /else/ who bought D&D in the 80s, then never thought of it again. These are normal people with normal interests, not an audience that's going to be attracted by 5e 'buzz' or an 'old school feel' or anything else that only finds the notice of active gamers. It'd take some sort of concerted, main-stream campaign to get their attention. Of course, you wouldn't have to sell them a new edition, you could just sell them re-prints....
If any or all of this makes it into the core: the better. If it doesn't these are things I want in the "tactical module": -Hit points, damage, accuracy etc so that combats normally take 3-5 rounds. That is, how to convert the monsters and PCs to make it work. -Some kind of rules/suggestions of how positioning should affect advantage etc -Different actions. I really like how the Essentials subclasses of the fighter use stances to modify the at-will, and I think it could be a good way of having a core but then saying "I add this". -Some ability to stand up an extra round without depending on others. If the cleric heals the rouge, the fighter should still be able to use some kind of second wind and stand fighting. Could be done like in 4e, could be some kind of total defence + temporary hitpoits (think Boromir fighting on a few seconds longer after getting hit with arrows) or could be some kind of totally other mechanic. This should be combined with healing as a resource. -More than one death saving throw. Give the allies some chance to help and thus make some gambles viable without getting the character killed instantly.
So I'm all for slightly shorter combats than non-optimized 4e, but not down to 2 rounds.
Also: I would like to get not "D&DN: the tactical module" but rather "D&DN: the handbook of advanced combat" including rules or suggestions for large battles, siege etc. This could of course include some extra backgrounds, themes, items and similar tailor made for this kind of gameplay.
The death save thing can be easily fixed by having you lose your hit dice roll when you fail a save, so on average you will survive a number of rounds equal to your level...
