Community

I think the skill list in 4e is the best we've had so far
At-will cantrips are a must now 

Hit Dice as healing in next was a nice combo of old school term and 4e surges.
I would prefer to see stances again. Most of the Essentials stuff was a great blend. If some of the unnecessary tactical mechanics could be removed from Essentials it would be a great D&D Next because the map required mechanics could be added back in so easily. 

Mar 7, 2013 -- 4:17PM, SJS70 wrote:

Like many here I like the design approach of DDN but I think that WOTC have a very partial view about the benefits and nature of 4th edition. They seem to have a very atomistic view of 4th ed seeing its as a collection of discrete mechanics, whereas 4th ed fans have a more holistic view of how the system works as a whole. While this is understandable as part of deconstructing the various editions, I wonder if some of the underlying mechnical elements of 4th ed can be brought into DDN.

Now there is no doubt that 4th ed classes, races and most tactical options will be easy to add on to DDN and appear to be coming in one form of the other. But there are other elements which do not seem to be appearing. Can underlying elements of 4th ed like static defenses (and all spells roll to hit), utility powers, encounter powers, action points, healing surges be drawn in?

I am wondering if anyone has attempted to place 4thed mechnical systems into the DDN playtest rules? I know it is not playtesting per se. Is this possible given the terms of the playtest agreement? Would it produce interesting results?

A number of 4th Ed mechanical systems are currently in 5E, including hit dice (healing surges) and maneuvers (powers).  Action points aren't too much of an issue -- you can basically throw them into any system given their design, regardless if you use the 3.5E Eberron version or the 4E version -- and I'm not going to be surprised if you could import skill powers or utility powers no problem.  Encounter powers however change the dynamics of the system dramatically depending on who you're giving it too: spellcasters would likely become even more powerful due to them having daily abilities already, while certain non-casters might need them just to bring them up to par capability-wise.

And that's the thing: it's not really the mechanics themselves that are the issue in 5E, so much as the dynamics that are delivered by those mechanics.  For instance, by having pure at-will classes and daily-heavy classes with a "dial" to alter the frequency of use to fit setting, that would seem to be an unwise decision because turning dailies to encounter powers amplify those powers considerably, while turning at-wills to encounter powers weaken those powers considerably.  By introducing encounter powers to at-will classes, you also bring dynamics that those who are used to at-will classes would find alienating (see: reaction to Tome of Battle, even though the Warblade was as at-will as you could get with those martial maneuvers).  By introducing encounter powers to daily classes, in addition to empowering daily classes (who are already empowered by at-will cantrips/orisons), you also introduce dynamics that would alienate those who are used to the resource management associated with the Vancian system.

While I hope to run 5E eventually, it seems like I'll have to stick to 13th Age for awhile. 

It's hard to evaluate, because we haven't seen anything remotely concrete in terms of system-level modules. That's not surprising, of course; it's reasonable to want to get one system into place before you start trying to juggle several. But without having seen such a module, it's hard to know what they're planning. Their ambitions regarding modularity seem to have contracted slightly from the initial announcement, which is also something perfectly reasonable, but it still seems to be a big part of the system planning.

There is a sense in which the application of modules does have a cost. For example, there's no question in my mind that attacker-rolls, static defenses is a better system than the one that Next is currently using. If it were possible to spray the playtest packet (and the eventual books) with a magic spray that instantly converted all the material to use attacker-rolls, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's a strict upgrade from my perspective. However, while it's a strict upgrade, it's not a huge upgrade. An odd hodgepodge of who's rolling is fine. It works okay. It's not broken in any sense. I played with it for a long time, and still do, in the form of Pathfinder. While it's clear to me that I'd change Next to have an attacker-rolls system if I could, it's not clear to me that it's worth doing an extra subtraction every time something targets something other than AC. I'm sure there are people for whom the subtraction is definitely worth it, but I'm not so sure that I'm one of them. I mean, I could be doing it for PF, but I'm not. One of the benefits of attacker-rolls is that it's so much more intuitive, which helps out new guys. New guys, I suspect, are not helped out by cases where their stuff works differently than it says in the book because DM Lesp decided to shift some numbers and rolling around with a module.

Stuff like action points are classic module fodder. They've been done that way in the past, and I'm sure can be done that way again.

I think the 5th edition skill list is the best we've ever had, was ecstatic to see Knowledge (Science) added, and never want to go back to Athletics and Acrobatics.