If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.
This is really the only part of that long post that I read and paid attention to - and I cannot take anything else you say seriously if you honestly think that. Sorry.
Yeah...this, unfortunately. It's one thing to criticize something. It's another thing entirely to jump on the bandwagon and parrot an argument that was wrong when it was first conceived and became even more wrong as 4e progressed.
You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how different the class mechanics were in 4e, which does no service to your credibility in discussing potential class mechanics in Next.
I personally enjoyed going to cons which a new character concept, a cool looking mini that exemplified those traits and the in game skills that back it up.
2e was weak...every melee character had the same feats. 3e got better but you really needed to be higher level and have access to all of the splat books.
I like the adde dice concept...just not sure it's been placed properly.
Just so you are aware. Feats are a contrivance of 3e. They did not exsist in 2nd Edition, nor did everyone have the same ones. Have an nice day.
I used to agree with the first post. I also thought it was because of each class used ADEU. But, it couldn't be that, because there were multiple times I was able to create what I wanted, and those characters felt different despite each using AEDU. So why do I find 4e so tedious when I probably did 5x as much work making 3.5 characters work?
I got a pretty big hint when I read this on the forums. (not exact quote.) "I want a craft skill so I can be a blacksmith." "You don't need mechanics to say you're a blacksmith, just say you're a blacksmith."
I think this is it. 4e mechanics are designed to define your character's combat abilities while pretty much leaving out of combat stuff alone. (There are some things like skills, but they aren't very character defining. Themes are nice though.) It does this with the intention that you can just fluff that stuff. It most likely isn't going to break the game, why not simply give people freedom in that area?
Meanwhile in 3.5 I could be like, "I want to make a blind gunslinger," then come up with a lot of mechanics to make it work. I made it work by multiclassing and class dipping and all that crap. I abused the crap out of 3.5. It (usually) didn't result in me having a broken character though, because I (usually) did it to fulfill other character concepts than combat capabilities. (Like covering my rear because I'm blind.)
That's the catch I hit. 3.5 mechanics are designed to define your character's general capabilities. 4e is designed to define your character's COMBAT capabilities and leave that other stuff up to you. By doing this, it actually creates a lot of variance in people's combat abilities. Yes, it's hidden deep within AEDU so you can't quite tell by just looking at it, but it's there. Still, I prefer 3.5's way.
This is why I think we keep having this debate. The idea 3.5 is limiting in any way feels crazy to me, and yet, some people feel that the idea 4e is limiting is crazy. Neither are actually limiting in the right hands. 4e has a ton of combat variance and expects you to just fluff the rest. So you have a ton of options in one area and total freedom in another. 3.5 tries to touch on everything, and because it's so broken you can get your hands on all of it if you know what you're doing.
Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas. Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old. Nov/02/2012: I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process. Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link. Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link. Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.
I used to agree with the first post. I also thought it was because of each class used ADEU. But, it couldn't be that, because there were multiple times I was able to create what I wanted, and those characters felt different despite each using AEDU. So why do I find 4e so tedious when I probably did 5x as much work making 3.5 characters work?
I got a pretty big hint when I read this on the forums. (not exact quote.) "I want a craft skill so I can be a blacksmith." "You don't need mechanics to say you're a blacksmith, just say you're a blacksmith."
I think this is it. 4e mechanics are designed to define your character's combat abilities while pretty much leaving out of combat stuff alone. (There are some things like skills, but they aren't very character defining. Themes are nice though.) It does this with the intention that you can just fluff that stuff. It most likely isn't going to break the game, why not simply give people freedom in that area?
Meanwhile in 3.5 I could be like, "I want to make a blind gunslinger," then come up with a lot of mechanics to make it work. I made it work by multiclassing and class dipping and all that crap. I abused the crap out of 3.5. It (usually) didn't result in me having a broken character though, because I (usually) did it to fulfill other character concepts than combat capabilities. (Like covering my rear because I'm blind.)
That's the catch I hit. 3.5 mechanics are designed to define your character's general capabilities. 4e is designed to define your character's COMBAT capabilities and leave that other stuff up to you. By doing this, it actually creates a lot of variance in people's combat abilities. Yes, it's hidden deep within AEDU so you can't quite tell by just looking at it, but it's there. Still, I prefer 3.5's way.
This is why I think we keep having this debate. The idea 3.5 is limiting in any way feels crazy to me, and yet, some people feel that the idea 4e is limiting is crazy. Neither are actually limiting in the right hands. 4e has a ton of combat variance and expects you to just fluff the rest. So you have a ton of options in one area and total freedom in another. 3.5 tries to touch on everything, and because it's so broken you can get your hands on all of it if you know what you're doing.
This is one of the concerns I have about having so much modularity in 5e. One, it gets add so late that you end up waiting years to fully create your character. Two, it gets buried in a splat book and you never know its there. In 4e mechanics for a blacksmith didn't get mechanically supported until they released it in a dragon article and subsequently added in martial powers 2. If not for the online tool I probably would not even know it existed at all. I would have just assumed MP2 contained martial class related powers and feats.
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
4e could have done so many things right that it instead did wrong.
So could every edition.
4e could have given all classes 1 additional trained skill automatically (like how clerics get religion for free and wizards get arcana for free, fighters should get athletics for free).
I'd actually prefer not being forced into skills. Just leave them as suggestions.
4e should have had a profession skill. That right there would have pleased a bunch of people.
Strongly Agree.
4e combat should have been more simple (no at-will powers with end of next turn bonuses/penalties, no powers that give +/- X to Y - stick with advantage/disadvantage, reduced number of powers in total, reduced frequency of ongoing and save ends effects, etc). That would have cut most combat time in half.
Very Strongly Disagree.
It made combat feel dynamic and chaotic. Instead of...
1) Roll 2) Is it dead? no) Goto 1.
While it's ok as an option. It should definatly not be the default.
4e should have had reduced numbers bloat. (reduce total scaling by 1/2 level in total. For monsters this means removing the 1/2 level bonus. For PCs it means removing the 1/2 level bonus or removing ability score increases, enhancement bonuses, expertise feats, and item bonuses. Either way a reduced scaling would keep monsters relevant longer.
Agree. It would of made thigns smoother. Though with minions and solo's the range was still covered.
4e probably should have stopped at level 20.
Mildly Disagree.
I liked the 3 tier approch.
Fight Normals Fight Legends Fight Gods
4e also could have gotten away with more flexibility in regards to the power structure. For example, give the wizard no encounter powers but give him 2 Daily powers for each encounter slot. (level 1 has 3 dailies, level 3 has 5 dailies, level 5 has 6 dailies, level 7 has 8 dailies, etc) Another example would be martial characters not having stamina instead of encounter powers. Spend 1 stamina to use any encounter power you know.
Agree. More flexibility would of been nice.
Personally i would of had attack powers the same as utilty powers. Some are daily, some are enounter, a few are at-will.
But 4e was rushed, put out hastily, and did not fix/incorporate many of the changes people wanted before it was released.
True, but it also did alot of what people wanted..
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO. [...] There's people asking for the wizard to switch to a spell points mechanic, god no...that would fit a sorcerer so much better, and it would provide a much more distinct experience between the two classes.
I'm going to disagree with this.
For a long time, the only spellcasting was Vancian, but a cleric still played differently than a wizard. The wizard had mechanics to hurt large groups of people - which nobody else could do; while the cleric had mechanics to heal people - which nobody else could do. Complaining that they're the same thing because they're both Vancian, or because they're both AEDU, or whatever is like complaining that every check involves rolling a d20. You might as well complain that every class is the same because they all gain feats.
Whether all classes use AEDU, or all spellcasters use spell points, it's what you do with those powers which are the different mechanics.
At this point, people expect Warlocks to have pacts and at-wills, Sorcerers to have innate power, and Wizards gaining power through education.
I expect Warlocks to have innate power and Binders to have Pacts. Sorcerers having innate power is a common but odd misconception. The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.
