4e is out of ideas
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
4e is out of ideas
So I was at my local game store today, and I took a quick skim through the Heroes of the Feywild book. I was noticing that quite a few of the wizard powers were cribbed from Dragon Magazine (Hi, Winged Horde) and Arcane Power (Visions of Wrath says hello). This seems to be a theme with essentials reprinting the PHB powers and making meaningless changes. Are they even trying any more?
Not to be overly snarky, but the 4e PHB, MM, and DMG is ample proof that there weren't a lot of ideas to start with.
I mean, once I figured out that I could write a script to generate powers (and power names) in under ten minutes, I knew that the system was designed by some profoundly uncreative people.
I mean, once I figured out that I could write a script to generate powers (and power names) in under ten minutes, I knew that the system was designed by some profoundly uncreative people.
Last edited by K on Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
While I agree with you, CapnThePirateG, it might be less running out of ideas and more of a complete lack of coordination between their errata, online offerings, and book formats.
Winged Horde and Visions of Wrath are very popular Wizard powers. However, they weren't in any book. Also, winged Horde received errata, too. Even if 4E D&D did have its act together in the rules department, the fact is that there are like four separate 4E D&D fans:
[*] People who use offline rulebooks and offline rulebooks alone.
[*] People who have the Rules Compendium but no online errata.
[*] People who use the online character builder almost exclusively.
[*] People who have the offline character builder, which stopped being updated on October 2010.
And when you throw a Dungeon/Dragon subscription into the mix, especially one that's intermittent, things get really ugly. The current state of affairs is a mess. I'm not surprised at all that they would blatantly reprint some powers, because a lot of them just don't reach the intended target audience.
If I was in charge of 5th Edition D&D, here's exactly what I'd fucking do to keep my fanbase on the same page more-or-less:
[*] Minimize the use of errata. Seriously. If it doesn't cause the game to immediately implode, such as Orb of Imposition or Armor of Shared Valor, just ignore it.
[*] Make back issues of Dragon and Dungeon free. Any issue that's older than six months you offer for free. This is to minimize the gap between plugged-in Internet junkies and people who are totally off-line.
[*] Have a frickin' SRD. Pepper the SRD with select expansion options from the rulebooks now and then. You don't have to give them the whole enchilda (more like 10% of it) but you should keep the idea of having it being a living document so that people are aware that things are happening to D&D and if they like certain material they should give it a go.
[*] You can't have an offline and an online character builder. By the time 5E D&D comes out almost everyone will be able to access to an Internet connection so you can fully go online if you don't want to come across as needlessly miserly. Of course you will still end up dropping some of your customers like little Trevor and military guys who are overseas but it's the price you pay.
Winged Horde and Visions of Wrath are very popular Wizard powers. However, they weren't in any book. Also, winged Horde received errata, too. Even if 4E D&D did have its act together in the rules department, the fact is that there are like four separate 4E D&D fans:
[*] People who use offline rulebooks and offline rulebooks alone.
[*] People who have the Rules Compendium but no online errata.
[*] People who use the online character builder almost exclusively.
[*] People who have the offline character builder, which stopped being updated on October 2010.
And when you throw a Dungeon/Dragon subscription into the mix, especially one that's intermittent, things get really ugly. The current state of affairs is a mess. I'm not surprised at all that they would blatantly reprint some powers, because a lot of them just don't reach the intended target audience.
If I was in charge of 5th Edition D&D, here's exactly what I'd fucking do to keep my fanbase on the same page more-or-less:
[*] Minimize the use of errata. Seriously. If it doesn't cause the game to immediately implode, such as Orb of Imposition or Armor of Shared Valor, just ignore it.
[*] Make back issues of Dragon and Dungeon free. Any issue that's older than six months you offer for free. This is to minimize the gap between plugged-in Internet junkies and people who are totally off-line.
[*] Have a frickin' SRD. Pepper the SRD with select expansion options from the rulebooks now and then. You don't have to give them the whole enchilda (more like 10% of it) but you should keep the idea of having it being a living document so that people are aware that things are happening to D&D and if they like certain material they should give it a go.
[*] You can't have an offline and an online character builder. By the time 5E D&D comes out almost everyone will be able to access to an Internet connection so you can fully go online if you don't want to come across as needlessly miserly. Of course you will still end up dropping some of your customers like little Trevor and military guys who are overseas but it's the price you pay.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Well, the Monte Cook hiring, the complete freezing of future 4e D&D supplements, and the Cook's articles that sound a lot like testing ideas for an Alpha version of a new D&D edition are really strong indicators that a new edition is on the works.
Thought that "4e was out of ideas" was obvious after they announced a book with a Vampire class as it's main selling point.
Thought that "4e was out of ideas" was obvious after they announced a book with a Vampire class as it's main selling point.
-
- 1st Level
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:21 am
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
God, the barbarian.
It shouldn't be just a 'merely' above-average striker, it really shouldn't. The class has great feats, great magical support, excellent class features, encounter powers that are just slightly weaker than a ranger's, and some pretty solid paragon paths.
The problem is their daily powers. The rages aren't bad, but oftentimes they're just straight-up worse than encounter powers. To make them significantly worse if you try to crunch them (either by switching to a new one or using rage strike) you're even worse off. It works just fine for an extended workday but for a compressed one not being able to spam daily powers really, really hurts the class.
It shouldn't be just a 'merely' above-average striker, it really shouldn't. The class has great feats, great magical support, excellent class features, encounter powers that are just slightly weaker than a ranger's, and some pretty solid paragon paths.
The problem is their daily powers. The rages aren't bad, but oftentimes they're just straight-up worse than encounter powers. To make them significantly worse if you try to crunch them (either by switching to a new one or using rage strike) you're even worse off. It works just fine for an extended workday but for a compressed one not being able to spam daily powers really, really hurts the class.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
-
- 1st Level
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:21 am
Well yes. I think the Berserker is better than the original Barbarian because it's looks more fun to play, not more powerful; deciding when to switch from defender to striker adds a little more tactical complexity to the class and you alter your play based on situations.Lago PARANOIA wrote:God, the barbarian.
It shouldn't be just a 'merely' above-average striker, it really shouldn't. The class has great feats, great magical support, excellent class features, encounter powers that are just slightly weaker than a ranger's, and some pretty solid paragon paths.
The problem is their daily powers. The rages aren't bad, but oftentimes they're just straight-up worse than encounter powers. To make them significantly worse if you try to crunch them (either by switching to a new one or using rage strike) you're even worse off. It works just fine for an extended workday but for a compressed one not being able to spam daily powers really, really hurts the class.
But yes the original Barbarian is underated, especially the Thaneborn, because so many of its riders add to allies riders and damage. Put one in a melee heavy party and you have a striker with high burst damage who is almost effectively a second Warlord. (The problem is they become boring fast as all you do is spam the same powers every combat with little need or ability to respond to different situations.)
Coolest thing I recall in that book, was the whole Pixie, being a playable race. Albeit some cool stuff they can do is restricted in 4th edition fashion, but it's otherwise..different.
As for ideas, they seemed pretty dead the moment they decided to churn out essentials, abandoning their prior line of 4th edition, and hoping to basically start anew. Expecting old fans to pay for that crap, or losing them to buying their products (save maybe the monster vault, or magic item book for what magical items should've been to begin with).
As for ideas, they seemed pretty dead the moment they decided to churn out essentials, abandoning their prior line of 4th edition, and hoping to basically start anew. Expecting old fans to pay for that crap, or losing them to buying their products (save maybe the monster vault, or magic item book for what magical items should've been to begin with).
What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
"the thing about being Mister Cavern [DM], you don't blame players for how they play. That's like blaming the weather. Weather just is. You adapt to it. -Ancient History
Not only that, but you could take that output and feed it straight into a video game, and it would work, and the computer could run your character for you. At least to me, it has the same kind of mechanical feel as a bad jrpg.K wrote:I mean, once I figured out that I could write a script to generate powers (and power names) in under ten minutes, I knew that the system was designed by some profoundly uncreative people.
DSMatticus wrote:There are two things you can learn from the Gaming Den:
1) Good design practices.
2) How to be a zookeeper for hyper-intelligent shit-flinging apes.
"in the works" is really broad. Obviously they're doing preliminary research for the next edition, but development could still take years.CapnTthePirateG wrote:Wait, did they straight up say "they're a 5e in the works" or is this just based off the Mearls columns?hogarth wrote:They've more or less said they're working on 5E now.
You both realize that the same holds true for 3.X, right? Template scripts aren't a great indicator of a system's worth. It'd be easy to write one for 3E, or a great number of systems. That doesn't make the system bad; it means you can write a script. Good for you?Vebyast wrote:Not only that, but you could take that output and feed it straight into a video game, and it would work, and the computer could run your character for you. At least to me, it has the same kind of mechanical feel as a bad jrpg.K wrote:I mean, once I figured out that I could write a script to generate powers (and power names) in under ten minutes, I knew that the system was designed by some profoundly uncreative people.
That is absolutely and unquestionably false. The vast majority of effects in 4e, enough that you wouldn't notice if the rest went away, can be expressed roughly like this: "ranged 10, constitution vs. reflex, damage 1d10+con and vulnerability to fire". Compare that to the spells in the 3.5 players' handbook, or the things that feats can do; adding anything to a 3.x video game is a nontrivial exercise in game engine scripting and requires the ability to hook into nearly any event in the engine. 4e powers, by comparison, are assembled from a completely standardized - and thus boring and easily automated - set of bins.Yep wrote:You both realize that the same holds true for 3.X, right? Template scripts aren't a great indicator of a system's worth. It'd be easy to write one for 3E, or a great number of systems. That doesn't make the system bad; it means you can write a script. Good for you?
DSMatticus wrote:There are two things you can learn from the Gaming Den:
1) Good design practices.
2) How to be a zookeeper for hyper-intelligent shit-flinging apes.
I anticipate the day when video games can allow you to go, "I put a gold piece on the cargodrop hatch of my airship, cast Major Creation to turn it into multiple cubic feet of gold, then throw the lever to drop this multi-ton object which has less volume than some adult humans, onto the building below, breaking open the roof and the first three floors, at least."
Or even, "Dimension Door." or "Plane shift!"
Or even, "Dimension Door." or "Plane shift!"
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
That's largely true of 3.5 actually. Granted there's a few things added solely for the sake of complexity, like scaling spell range, but Finger of Death, Destruction, Holy smite, Blindness, Stinking cloud, Fireball or sleep aren't fundamentally different from 4E powers in terms of format. The only real difference is that the 3E versions inflict much more severe status effects that generally last the entire battle.Vebyast wrote:That is absolutely and unquestionably false. The vast majority of effects in 4e, enough that you wouldn't notice if the rest went away, can be expressed roughly like this: "ranged 10, constitution vs. reflex, damage 1d10+con and vulnerability to fire". Compare that to the spells in the 3.5 players' handbook
The 3E spells that do get really complicated, like polymorph or planar binding are generally the broken ones anyway.
The rest of the 3E spells are generally taken up with either specific rules that should be best handled by a general universal mechanic (like growing to fill an area too big for you with righteous might) or pointless filler like fireball telling you that fire burns stuff.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 am
Re: Swordslinger's kind of dumb argument: Basically all figments and all enchantments are too complex for a simple script, as are most summoning spells.
Why are we arguing about this? The points were that 4e combat doesn't require much in the way of situational variation and that the powers are super boring. Are those in dispute?
Why are we arguing about this? The points were that 4e combat doesn't require much in the way of situational variation and that the powers are super boring. Are those in dispute?
I wish in the past I had tried more things 'cause now I know that being in trouble is a fake idea
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
Not really. Charmed and dominated can just be status conditions and those spells give you that status condition. Figments can largely be defined by keyword and the actual spell text can just be "creates a single figment of large size with visual components only."A Man In Black wrote:Re: Swordslinger's kind of dumb argument: Basically all figments and all enchantments are too complex for a simple script, as are most summoning spells.
Summoning is just generally telling someone to go look up some crap in the monster manual. In fact 4E summoning was a lot more involved since most of the summons had their own unique stat block for some reason where 3E just told you to look up a dire rat in the MM.
The point is to say that having simple scripts isn't what made 4E powers boring. It was just the fact that the scripts themselves weren't very interesting.Why are we arguing about this? The points were that 4e combat doesn't require much in the way of situational variation and that the powers are super boring. Are those in dispute?
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 am
But the script can't usefully command those charmed or dominated creatures or create situationally useful figments, so that's a useless script.Swordslinger wrote:Not really. Charmed and dominated can just be status conditions and those spells give you that status condition. Figments can largely be defined by keyword and the actual spell text can just be "creates a single figment of large size with visual components only."
Since 3e summons aren't necessarily player-controlled (and may indeed be intelligent and reacting to the situation on their own), then no, you can't build a script around them.Summoning is just generally telling someone to go look up some crap in the monster manual. In fact 4E summoning was a lot more involved since most of the summons had their own unique stat block for some reason where 3E just told you to look up a dire rat in the MM.
Okay then.The point is to say that having simple scripts isn't what made 4E powers boring. It was just the fact that the scripts themselves weren't very interesting.
I wish in the past I had tried more things 'cause now I know that being in trouble is a fake idea
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by script then. I assumed you meant just a very short 1-2 sentence description, of which charm or dominate could be: "Int vs Will, Hit: target gains the Charmed status condition for X amount of time"A Man In Black wrote: But the script can't usefully command those charmed or dominated creatures or create situationally useful figments, so that's a useless script.
Commanding the creatures goes in the description of those status conditions, similar to how you look up what dazed means somewhere else.
For figments, honestly most of that is up to the DM anyway. The only predictably useful figment I've seen in 3E is the illusionary wall, because you can set it up where your friends can see through it and the enemy can't until it moves up to it, so it amounts to a poor man's invisibility. But as far as how the enemies will react to your illusory black pudding or hill giant, the rules don't dictate it, nor have any illusion rules I know ever dictated it.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:33 am
So you're saying that the script forks for every single possible set of enemy abilities? Well then.Swordslinger wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by script then. I assumed you meant just a very short 1-2 sentence description, of which charm or dominate could be: "Int vs Will, Hit: target gains the Charmed status condition for X amount of time"
Commanding the creatures goes in the description of those status conditions, similar to how you look up what dazed means somewhere else.
So you're saying it's too complex and arbitrary to script? Well then.For figments, honestly most of that is up to the DM anyway. The only predictably useful figment I've seen in 3E is the illusionary wall, because you can set it up where your friends can see through it and the enemy can't until it moves up to it, so it amounts to a poor man's invisibility. But as far as how the enemies will react to your illusory black pudding or hill giant, the rules don't dictate it, nor have any illusion rules I know ever dictated it.
I wish in the past I had tried more things 'cause now I know that being in trouble is a fake idea
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
Huh?A Man In Black wrote: So you're saying that the script forks for every single possible set of enemy abilities? Well then.
Now you're making up nonsense. That's like saying there can't be a script for fireball because the player has to make a choice for where to place it. It's just part of the PC's action where he chooses what the monster does when he dominates it. 4E in fact has that status condition where another controller just chooses what you do, and that's pretty much it.
I don't see why that requires a long description just to say that.
Not really, I'm saying that it's arbitrary to really rely on mechanics at all for it, no matter how long they are. You can write a 5 page description of what figments do or a 5 sentence description and you're still going to be left with the fact that they're as strong as the DM allows them to be. This is because aside from illusory barriers to block sight, figments don't actually do anything mechanically.So you're saying it's too complex and arbitrary to script? Well then.
In 3E and 4E, no less. Doesn't stop people from creating a generic make-a-power/spell/ability script.MGuy wrote:We shouldn't be arguing about this at all. Cantrips and Orisons alone [Things like Create Water and Prestidigitation] already can't be scripted. The premise that it can fails before we even get away from the basic stuff.