[Not 4e] What will we see from 5e?

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't really see Hasbro ever selling it off, giving to some design team besides WotC maybe, but not selling it. It's too valuable as a property to dump even if the actual game sales are in the toilet. It's like Warner Bros. who'll keep DC Comics afloat no matter what, just because Superman/Batman are too valuable a property not to keep around.

Honestly, I just don't see D&D as being too valuable to dump. It really doesn't bring in much money, and it's not something that can be merchandised. Batman and Superman are valuable because people make movies, action figures and shit like that based on them, which makes them cash cows. Even if you've never read a single issue of DC comics, you've probably gone to see The Dark Knight and Batman Begins.

The thing with D&D is it never goes beyond actual D&D players. It's the most recognized RPG name, but that isn't saying much. There were a couple of D&D movies, one was direct to DVD, and they both sucked and didn't make much money.

They tried D&D miniatures as a subgame, but I don't think that's doing very well either (at least not from the information I've seen).

Really, the only value in having the D&D brand is being able to put out 5th edition. Frankly, I can't see why they'd want to keep it, especially after 4E and D&DI was a disaster.

D&D is actually the kind of franchise you want to get in and get out. Buy it, produce a new edition and some splats and then dump it. Because that's where the money is at, when the first core books of an edition come out. After that, it's just about diminishing returns.

[Josh_Kablack]

I don't really see Hasbro ever selling it off,

As much as I would agree with that from current information, and Hasbro's track record, the history of the hobby cautions me not to be certain about anything:

In 1987, neither WotC nor White Wolf even existed and nobody forsaw the total bankruptcy of TSR.

In 1997, WotC and White Wolf were the two biggest companies in gaming and all of TSRs assets were in a fire sale.

By 2007, both WotC and White Wolf had themselves been bought out by companies from related industries and TSR is just a Crossword Puzzle answer

So by the 2017 or so when we see a 5th edition, I really would not rule out major and shocking changes to the status quo.

[Hotpants Joe]

I might be one of those "4rries" you guys are talking about. Here I go to play a little devil's advocate (and address the original question of this thread).

Following quoted by PsychicRobot
--Monsters made out of arbitrarium. Stats exist to do...well, skill checks, I guess.

I suppose? They gave most creature types the basic "role templates" - artillery, brute, solo, skirmisher etc. But I imagine that's to give the DM some out-of-the box options for presenting fights. 4e also makes it pretty easy to make up your own monsters if you aren't satisfied with what's in there already.

--Abilities that work "just because," with little explanation of how they work or fluff describing them.

This is the part that I actually find interesting about 4th Edition. You get to come up with your own fluff, which is fun. You don't even have to make it over the top.

--Abilities that make no sense whatsoever (these are worse than the above).

Can you give a few examples? I haven't seen that many that make little sense. I suppose one or two have stuck out in my mind from the martial classes but overall they look okay to me.

--Healing surges.
--Static HP per level.

I don't see these as bad things, but you didn't necessarily say they were either.

--New, retarded saving throw mechanic.

How is this bad? Just like in previous editions, there are ways to gain bonuses to those saving throws. The only reason it has been simplified to a sliding scale of 1-10/11-20 with minor bonuses is part of the whole streamlining process because it's easier to balance.

--Absolutely ridiculous economic system.

Can you expand on this?

--No nonlethal damage.

You actually have the option of deciding whether or not your "killing blow" was lethal or not. Everything up until that point can be non-lethal damage, too, since hit points are abstract.

--Non-magical classes and magical classes use the exact same system for their abilities.

That's true. And I did kind of like 3rd edition for having classes work differently. But even in that case, you had casters and non-casters. Aside from the spells themselves, that's not more variation than what's present in 4th. At least in 4e's case, non-caster classes can do more than full attack every round or use one of their feats.

--Almost everything is measured and defined by the battle board.

The combat-related stuff is, yes.

--Introduction of nonstandard races as Core material.

I don't mind this one at all. The Tolkien standard is overused, so something fresh is nice.

--Classes defined not by their flavor but by their combat roles.

Yes, classes have roles, but sometimes those lines are blurred a bit. And kind of like I was saying with the ability fluff, it's up to the player to give a character flavor, just like in any roleplaying game really.

I'm sure there are more, but they are eluding me. With those changes in mind, what do you expect 5e to change from 4e?

I'm expecting newer and better software, including possibly even a fully fledged online play package released by WotC. I really hate using this 4e hate buzzword, but I'm expecting it to become more "MMORPG-like". It's just how the market tends to evolve. I still don't consider 4th Ed to be an MMO, but that's a whole other can of worms and I'm sure some of you have beaten that topic to death at some point.

That's probably not going to happen because 4e has been a relative financial failure.

PHB II was on the WSJ top seller list...

http://www.thecoremechanic.com/2009/04/ ... -best.html

I'm not sure what you mean by "relative" financial failure, but judging by its recent success (barring WotC's really bad choice of removing online sales), the D&D franchise has nothing to be worried about.

[Psychic Robot]

I suppose? They gave most creature types the basic "role templates" - artillery, brute, solo, skirmisher etc. But I imagine that's to give the DM some out-of-the box options for presenting fights. 4e also makes it pretty easy to make up your own monsters if you aren't satisfied with what's in there already.

That doesn't actually address what I wrote at all. Stats have no effect on monsters in 4e. That 24 Dex doesn't really do anything, aside from helping the monster sneak around. His ability to stab/shoot the players is based solely on his role, not on what the monster's stats indicate that it should be able to do. (As in, if you give a low Dex monster a bow, it should be difficult for the monster to hit someone with a ranged attack even if it's a striker or artillery or whatever.)

This is the part that I actually find interesting about 4th Edition. You get to come up with your own fluff, which is fun. You don't even have to make it over the top.

This is typical 4e apologetics, and it makes me want to vomit. The system lacking any type of internal consistency is not a feature. It is a critical flaw.

Can you give a few examples? I haven't seen that many that make little sense. I suppose one or two have stuck out in my mind from the martial classes but overall they look okay to me.

Telekinetic warlords, Bloody Path, Come and Get It, and so on. There's a whole list of stuff that doesn't make sense (inb4 "you just want casters to be overpowered!1!!!1!").

I don't see these as bad things, but you didn't necessarily say they were either.

I think healing surges are bad; I think static HP are good.

How is this bad? Just like in previous editions, there are ways to gain bonuses to those saving throws. The only reason it has been simplified to a sliding scale of 1-10/11-20 with minor bonuses is part of the whole streamlining process because it's easier to balance.

It's bad because it's retarded. The entire concept is stupid--the devs clearly feared the backlash of "holy shit, we killed saving throws!" so they kept in this clunktarded mechanic as a sort of half-bone thrown to fans of saving throws.

It's idiotic. Instead of rolling saving throws, the attacker should simply repeat his attack against the target's appropriate defense score. It's simply an extraneous piece of crap, and, furthermore, it's moronic that a commoner has the same chance of shrugging off an epic-level poison that a barbarian does.

Can you expand on this?

Nobody buys mundane equipment. Characters get "what-what in the butt" when selling their magical items (worse than 3e, ugh).

You actually have the option of deciding whether or not your "killing blow" was lethal or not. Everything up until that point can be non-lethal damage, too, since hit points are abstract.

This is more of the 4e apologetics crap that drives me up the wall. (Yes, nerd rage, and all that.) If the rogue is stabbing the BBEG in the kidneys, the damage done does not magically become nonlethal when the fighter knocks him unconscious. While nonlethal vs. lethal damage was a somewhat irritating subsystem in 3e, it was a useful subsystem for approximating something that would realistically occur in combat.

And while the 4e system certainly streamlines the damage system, it also is stupid that all damage in 4e is nonlethal, up until the killing blow. "Hey, guys, I got knocked down to 0 HP, but now I've rested for 6 hours and am back up to full. That fight with the ogre sure wore me out!"

That's true. And I did kind of like 3rd edition for having classes work differently. But even in that case, you had casters and non-casters. Aside from the spells themselves, that's not more variation than what's present in 4th. At least in 4e's case, non-caster classes can do more than full attack every round or use one of their feats.

What you say is accurate. I dislike fighters and wizards using the same system, and I don't care if it's easier for new players to learn. Magic should use a different system to differentiate castin' from stabbin'.

I don't mind this one at all. The Tolkien standard is overused, so something fresh is nice.

I would mind less if they didn't toss out the gnome and half-orc. (Actually, I would just make half-orcs and half-elves choose one side of their heritage to take racial characteristics from, but that's just me.) And anyone who says that the new tiefling isn't a draenei is a gotdang liar. And eladrin are blood elves, and while I like dragonborn for allowing players to play a draconic race right from the get-go--I love dragons, though I don't have a hard-on for them--I dislike it on principle for excluding the gnome/half-orc.

Yes, classes have roles, but sometimes those lines are blurred a bit. And kind of like I was saying with the ability fluff, it's up to the player to give a character flavor, just like in any roleplaying game really.

Sigh. Yes, indeed, this is true. However, when I play a paladin, I want to be able to do smitan. I shouldn't have to be a defender because the game tells me that's my role. If I want to nuke evil, that should be accessible to me from the base class.

I'm expecting newer and better software, including possibly even a fully fledged online play package released by WotC. I really hate using this 4e hate buzzword, but I'm expecting it to become more "MMORPG-like". It's just how the market tends to evolve. I still don't consider 4th Ed to be an MMO, but that's a whole other can of worms and I'm sure some of you have beaten that topic to death at some point.

4e has been heavily influenced by MMOs, and that's a fact. It's also not all bad, and we aren't saying "LOL WOW with dice," much as you might wish to think.

[Hotpants Joe]

That doesn't actually address what I wrote at all. Stats have no effect on monsters in 4e. That 24 Dex doesn't really do anything, aside from helping the monster sneak around. His ability to stab/shoot the players is based solely on his role, not on what the monster's stats indicate that it should be able to do. (As in, if you give a low Dex monster a bow, it should be difficult for the monster to hit someone with a ranged attack even if it's a striker or artillery or whatever.)

If you, as a DM, have an artillery unit in a fight that is, say, an animated ballista with a high hit-rating (i.e. high dex), but has a poor reflex save despite this (because it's a ballista), then shouldn't you be happy that you had a unit that did its job in an encounter? It just sounds like you're complaining about inconsequential things.

And like I said before, if you aren't satisfied with what's put in the book for you to use right out of the gate, you can make your own enemies. Yes, I know this means more work for a DM, but a DM has to do work to produce a quality game as it is.

This is typical 4e apologetics, and it makes me want to vomit. The system lacking any type of internal consistency is not a feature. It is a critical flaw.

I don't see how it's a flaw at all. It's part of narrative control - I roll high on my dice, I score a hit with my melee attack that deals damage and slides an opponent X number of squares, so I get to describe how I pull it off. It's actually fun. It beats the hell out of "I attack the monster. I backstab it for 32 damage". Abilities with fill-in-the-blanks fluff encourages creativity.

If you're somebody who loves high powered Exalted-style wankery, you can describe it in a totally over-the-top fashion. If you like it to be more realistic, there are probably a dozen ways you could describe pulling this maneuver off without it sounding retarded.

I think healing surges are bad; I think static HP are good.

Any particular reason? Healing surges are a good endurance benchmark, despite the awkward name. It's at least a huge improvement over 3rd Edition, where all healing could be trivialized by purchasing a few wands. At least with HS, there's the threat of not having enough fight in you to continue on. Since you've been talking about realism with powers, I thought you would've appreciated this.

It's bad because it's retarded. The entire concept is stupid--the devs clearly feared the backlash of "holy shit, we killed saving throws!" so they kept in this clunktarded mechanic as a sort of half-bone thrown to fans of saving throws.

It's idiotic. Instead of rolling saving throws, the attacker should simply repeat his attack against the target's appropriate defense score. It's simply an extraneous piece of crap, and, furthermore, it's moronic that a commoner has the same chance of shrugging off an epic-level poison that a barbarian does.

No, it's actually easier to explain the presence of saving throws when you consider it as part of the game's balance. Clearly the devs wanted to have certain guaranteed effects go off that could be ended by the end of the recipient's turn. If you think about it, it actually removes some of the wacky randomness that you had in previous editions.

And why would commoners matter in a D&D game? Seriously, if it bothers you that much that a commoner that amounts to a minion that is likely to be inconsequential in any given situation has a fighting chance, just have them autofail it.

Again, griping over unimportant things from where I'm sitting.

Nobody buys mundane equipment. Characters get "what-what in the butt" when selling their magical items (worse than 3e, ugh).

It's a far cry from how 3rd Ed works, but I'm not seeing how this is actually bad. You may have to elaborate here because this has never been called into questions in the games I've played in.

This is more of the 4e apologetics crap that drives me up the wall. (Yes, nerd rage, and all that.) If the rogue is stabbing the BBEG in the kidneys, the damage done does not magically become nonlethal when the fighter knocks him unconscious. While nonlethal vs. lethal damage was a somewhat irritating subsystem in 3e, it was a useful subsystem for approximating something that would realistically occur in combat.

Why can't you deal what amounts to mostly lethal blows up until the point where you have the choice of finishing them off, and instead decide to knock them unconscious and keep them alive? It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing deal. Even in 3rd Edition, I considered hit points to be abstract enough.

And while the 4e system certainly streamlines the damage system, it also is stupid that all damage in 4e is nonlethal, up until the killing blow. "Hey, guys, I got knocked down to 0 HP, but now I've rested for 6 hours and am back up to full. That fight with the ogre sure wore me out!"

That's one of the only ways that it's feasible that somebody can lose all of their hit points but get back into the action via healing surges. When people are at full energy in a fight, they tend to devote it to making sure they don't get hit, so a successful "hit" roll represents a case where you have to expend energy to avoid the blow. Hit point loss doesn't have to represent getting stabbed in the face. You're right - it's completely stupid to assume that you got sliced up all over your body, only to get up and magically heal it all by sheer will and determination.

You could also think of the first set of hit point losses as real wounds, and then your use of healing surges are the ability to fight on with endurance despite your wounds. But once you run out of those healing surges, you no longer have the stamina to hold your ground in a fight and a few more good strikes will take you down for good.

What you say is accurate. I dislike fighters and wizards using the same system, and I don't care if it's easier for new players to learn. Magic should use a different system to differentiate castin' from stabbin'.

Difference of opinion. Honestly I'm just glad martial classes have more options than being sword jocks while spellcasters get all of the truly tactical options in combat and often overshadow their martial comrades.

I would mind less if they didn't toss out the gnome and half-orc. (Actually, I would just make half-orcs and half-elves choose one side of their heritage to take racial characteristics from, but that's just me.) And anyone who says that the new tiefling isn't a draenei is a gotdang liar. And eladrin are blood elves, and while I like dragonborn for allowing players to play a draconic race right from the get-go--I love dragons, though I don't have a hard-on for them--I dislike it on principle for excluding the gnome/half-orc.

What...? Gnomes and Half-Orcs are in PHB2. Tiefling = Draenei? I don't know what to say here. Draenei are self-righteous holy beings who happen to look devilish. Tieflings have been in D&D since what? 2nd edition? They're half fiends.

Sorry, this doesn't sound like a worthwhile complaint to me. You come off as nitpicking.

Sigh. Yes, indeed, this is true. However, when I play a paladin, I want to be able to do smitan. I shouldn't have to be a defender because the game tells me that's my role. If I want to nuke evil, that should be accessible to me from the base class.

Oh, but you definitely can be one hell of a smiter as a paladin. You kidding me? Go avenging paladin and hit up high strength and wis. They wreck shit, dude. They just also happen to have high defenses.

How much 4th Edition have you played, by the way? I ask because a lot of these issues you bring up are total non-issues in the many games I've played in and run. It's an honest question. And please, don't respond with more "4e apologia makes me want to vomit" type responses. It insults both of us. I could throw "you're full of grognard 4e hatred bullshit" right back at you, but I don't, because it's insulting when all I'm doing is trying to debate point by point. Ad Hominems can stay out of this one. Agreed?

4e has been heavily influenced by MMOs, and that's a fact. It's also not all bad, and we aren't saying "LOL WOW with dice," much as you might wish to think.

I wasn't pointing fingers there. But the "LOL WoW with dice" gets thrown around a lot in other places. Just sayin'.

[Psychic Robot]

If you, as a DM, have an artillery unit in a fight that is, say, an animated ballista with a high hit-rating (i.e. high dex), but has a poor reflex save despite this (because it's a ballista), then shouldn't you be happy that you had a unit that did its job in an encounter? It just sounds like you're complaining about inconsequential things.

And like I said before, if you aren't satisfied with what's put in the book for you to use right out of the gate, you can make your own enemies. Yes, I know this means more work for a DM, but a DM has to do work to produce a quality game as it is.

Internal consistency. If a monster has 24 Dex, it should act like it has 24 Dex. And I'm not redoing the entire goddamn system.

I don't see how it's a flaw at all. It's part of narrative control - I roll high on my dice, I score a hit with my melee attack that deals damage and slides an opponent X number of squares, so I get to describe how I pull it off. It's actually fun. It beats the hell out of "I attack the monster. I backstab it for 32 damage". Abilities with fill-in-the-blanks fluff encourages creativity.

If you're somebody who loves high powered Exalted-style wankery, you can describe it in a totally over-the-top fashion. If you like it to be more realistic, there are probably a dozen ways you could describe pulling this maneuver off without it sounding retarded.

It's a flaw. The halfling can punch the tarrasque just as far as the ogre can. That's retarded.

If the fluff is "smite evil," then the mechanics should be "smite evil." If the fluff is "hit 'em so hard they go flying," then the mechanics should be "hit 'em so hard they go flying." If the fluff is "shoots a fireball," then the mechanics should be "shoots a fireball."

Any particular reason? Healing surges are a good endurance benchmark, despite the awkward name. It's at least a huge improvement over 3rd Edition, where all healing could be trivialized by purchasing a few wands. At least with HS, there's the threat of not having enough fight in you to continue on. Since you've been talking about realism with powers, I thought you would've appreciated this.

4e HP in general take a total shit on immersion, hence my hatred. Furthermore, they lock the DM in the "four encounters per day" gameplay.

No, it's actually easier to explain the presence of saving throws when you consider it as part of the game's balance. Clearly the devs wanted to have certain guaranteed effects go off that could be ended by the end of the recipient's turn. If you think about it, it actually removes some of the wacky randomness that you had in previous editions.

I don't give Mearls and his band of extra chromosomites that much credit. "Whacky randomness" could have been fixed by staying on the RNG.

And why would commoners matter in a D&D game? Seriously, if it bothers you that much that a commoner that amounts to a minion that is likely to be inconsequential in any given situation has a fighting chance, just have them autofail it.

Again, griping over unimportant things from where I'm sitting.

Because commoners are part of an immersive setting. It matters in a game where you want things to have internal consistency, which is something that 4e doesn't have. It also doesn't seem to bother you, which means you're 4e's target audience.

It's a far cry from how 3rd Ed works, but I'm not seeing how this is actually bad. You may have to elaborate here because this has never been called into questions in the games I've played in.

Because it's retarded, that's why.

Why can't you deal what amounts to mostly lethal blows up until the point where you have the choice of finishing them off, and instead decide to knock them unconscious and keep them alive? It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing deal. Even in 3rd Edition, I considered hit points to be abstract enough.

You can. Getting cut by a knife takes longer to heal than getting punched, though. Punch to the gut = gone in an hour or two. Stabbed in the gut = lolwut.

That's one of the only ways that it's feasible that somebody can lose all of their hit points but get back into the action via healing surges. When people are at full energy in a fight, they tend to devote it to making sure they don't get hit, so a successful "hit" roll represents a case where you have to expend energy to avoid the blow. Hit point loss doesn't have to represent getting stabbed in the face. You're right - it's completely stupid to assume that you got sliced up all over your body, only to get up and magically heal it all by sheer will and determination.

You could also think of the first set of hit point losses as real wounds, and then your use of healing surges are the ability to fight on with endurance despite your wounds. But once you run out of those healing surges, you no longer have the stamina to hold your ground in a fight and a few more good strikes will take you down for good.

That's precisely my complaint.

What...? Gnomes and Half-Orcs are in PHB2. Tiefling = Draenei? I don't know what to say here. Draenei are self-righteous holy beings who happen to look devilish. Tieflings have been in D&D since what? 2nd edition? They're half fiends.

Sorry, this doesn't sound like a worthwhile complaint to me. You come off as nitpicking.

Fuck you. You know exactly what I'm talking about, and you're feigning ignorance. Tieflings look like draenei in 4e. They didn't in 3e.

Oh, but you definitely can be one hell of a smiter as a paladin. You kidding me? Go avenging paladin and hit up high strength and wis. They wreck shit, dude. They just also happen to have high defenses.

Then why are they defenders? The game either fails because the paladin isn't a defender, or it fails because the paladin can't smite evil.

How much 4th Edition have you played, by the way? I ask because a lot of these issues you bring up are total non-issues in the many games I've played in and run. It's an honest question. And please, don't respond with more "4e apologia makes me want to vomit" type responses. It insults both of us. I could throw "you're full of grognard 4e hatred bullshit" right back at you, but I don't, because it's insulting when all I'm doing is trying to debate point by point. Ad Hominems can stay out of this one. Agreed?

Me saying "4e apologetics" isn't an ad hominem attack.

I haven't played any 4e. Would I give the system a try? Maybe. Now that there are a decent number of splatbooks to choose from now, and now that dual-classing exists--maybe. However, you can't pull some bullshit about how I can't judge the game if I haven't played it. I've played 3e and never run into the problems with fighter vs. caster imbalance, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Hotpants Joe]

Internal consistency. If a monster has 24 Dex, it should act like it has 24 Dex. And I'm not redoing the entire goddamn system.

How about thinking about the game differently for a change? Should a skirmisher act like a skirmisher? Should artillery act like artillery? Good, because that's how that type of monster does tend to act. How would treating a ballista as an attacker that has a solid attack bonus but is slow at avoiding attacks inconsistent? If anything, it would be less realistic to treat it fully as a 24 Dex creature. But I suppose instead of running encounters with what's laid out for you, in an incredibly easy fashion, you could just complain about your immersion. What's more, you haven't even fucking played the game.

It's a flaw. The halfling can punch the tarrasque just as far as the ogre can. That's retarded.

At the point where you're pushing a tarrasque around at all, things get a bit ridiculous. What about all the other fight scenarios where a halfling pushing an enemy around (or feinting to push them off-balance if you're against the idea of a little person being strong) does make sense?

If the fluff is "smite evil," then the mechanics should be "smite evil." If the fluff is "hit 'em so hard they go flying," then the mechanics should be "hit 'em so hard they go flying." If the fluff is "shoots a fireball," then the mechanics should be "shoots a fireball."

The powers do have "default" fluff attached to them and most are pretty straightforward. There are powers (fireball, smiting, magic missile) that read like you've described. But that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't flavor them (paladin's smite may look different depending on their deity, mage's magic missile might look different depending on who their mentor was, etc).

The rogue ability I used in my example that allows the forced movement of an enemy is called positioning strike. The fluff is, "A false stumble and a shove place the enemy exactly where you want him." You could flavor this maneuver in more than one way as well. The idea is still that you're re-positioning an enemy.

I just don't see how you can make a fuss about your immersive environment being ruined, but then turn around and say you want your fluff completely handed to you.

4e HP in general take a total shit on immersion, hence my hatred. Furthermore, they lock the DM in the "four encounters per day" gameplay.

You can. Getting cut by a knife takes longer to heal than getting punched, though. Punch to the gut = gone in an hour or two. Stabbed in the gut = lolwut.

You're doing it wrong.

I don't give Mearls and his band of extra chromosomites that much credit.

That's fine, but you are wrong.

Because commoners are part of an immersive setting. It matters in a game where you want things to have internal consistency, which is something that 4e doesn't have. It also doesn't seem to bother you, which means you're 4e's target audience.

Commoners can be part of an immersive setting. What I mean is, why are the minute details of how they work in combat important? Hint: they aren't. You can simplify how they contribute to a combat scenario (which should be a minor contribution unless you're staging a massive 1000-commoner riot or something) without getting all worked up over how saving throws work.

Because it's retarded, that's why.

Thank you for this well thought out, constructively made point.

That's precisely my complaint.

Too bad it's not a valid one.

Fuck you. You know exactly what I'm talking about, and you're feigning ignorance. Tieflings look like draenei in 4e. They didn't in 3e.

Yeah, you're right. It's totally ridiculous that a race with fiendish qualities would be made to look more devilish than in previous editions. No, seriously. One is a race of space paladins and the other are the descendants of a fallen corrupt empire. They're both designed based on devils/demons but at least tieflings have a legitimate reason to be. I don't recall any draenei lore involving fiendish ancestry. I'm surprised you didn't go for the more obvious callout: Hellboy. Let's compare them all.

vs

vs

Then why are they defenders? The game either fails because the paladin isn't a defender, or it fails because the paladin can't smite evil.

Your original complaint was that you couldn't be an evil smiter as a paladin because the game's role system is too restrictive. I just pointed out you can. Now you're complaining that Paladins aren't "defender niche" enough for you. Try being consistent. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on its importance.

I haven't played any 4e. Would I give the system a try? Maybe.

Lol. Nice, you haven't even played the game and you're ranting about the most inconsequential "problems" with the system. Maybe you should try to play the game and have fun instead of crying about immersion or draenei or whatever.

[Cynic]

proof and legal brief snippety snip

hey, previn, that is good news. but would you happen to know what state or jurisdiction this was filed in? or would you have a copy of the docs. I like reading such documents :-D.

[Cynic]

FUCKING hell.... either resize your pic... okay you can't do that.... put it inside a spoiler you.... just joined for a day, FVCKER. Oh, welcome to the Den. I hope you enjoy your stay. If you would like to participate in other discussions aside from this one, and you really could and should, please do.

[Fuchs]

The problem 4E has with its HP rules is that this can lead to very immersion-breaking situations.

Say a PC is dropped into negatives. Now, if he makes one of his three saves then a healing surge can bring him up into positive hp, and apparently all the damage was stun - or he'd not be able to fight again. If he fails his saves and dies, then the hit was obviously lethal.

But until either happens no one can know or tell what is the case - not even the enemy standing right there.

[Fuchs]

Another problem with 4E:

You can fight the same enemy 10 times for 6 seconds each time and as long as you rest 5 minutes between each "fight" you can use the same martial encounter power each time. He'll "fall" for it every single time.

But you can't use the same move even two times in a fight that lasts 10 minutes. Not even if the one you used it for the first time died and no one else even saw the strike happen. Not even if you're fighting mindless undead.

That simply makes no sense.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

That's one of the only ways that it's feasible that somebody can lose all of their hit points but get back into the action via healing surges. When people are at full energy in a fight, they tend to devote it to making sure they don't get hit, so a successful "hit" roll represents a case where you have to expend energy to avoid the blow. Hit point loss doesn't have to represent getting stabbed in the face. You're right - it's completely stupid to assume that you got sliced up all over your body, only to get up and magically heal it all by sheer will and determination.

You could also think of the first set of hit point losses as real wounds, and then your use of healing surges are the ability to fight on with endurance despite your wounds. But once you run out of those healing surges, you no longer have the stamina to hold your ground in a fight and a few more good strikes will take you down for good.

That's precisely my complaint.

I find it interesting that nobody's brought up the really funny thing about the "nonlethal killing blow" rule. If you strike a normal "killing blow" and the target has a healing surge left, there is a chance, however small, of the target getting back up again. However, if you knock them unconscious, they'll be down for at least 5 minutes if not healed. In fact, they may be down indefinitely, depending on whether NPCs and monsters get to take short rests. Yes, in certain situations, knocking someone out is a surer way to take them out of the fight than "killing" them.

[Just another user]

This is typical 4e apologetics, and it makes me want to vomit. The system lacking any type of internal consistency is not a feature. It is a critical flaw.

I don't see how it's a flaw at all. It's part of narrative control - I roll high on my dice, I score a hit with my melee attack that deals damage and slides an opponent X number of squares, so I get to describe how I pull it off. It's actually fun. It beats the hell out of "I attack the monster. I backstab it for 32 damage". Abilities with fill-in-the-blanks fluff encourages creativity.

it can be fun the first time or the second, but by the fifth time I must come up with some more or less sensible (i.e. 'that make sense') fluff about how my powers work I'd be just sick of it and just go with
'I use blinding barrage on the iron golem'
'how that is supposed to work?'
'who fucking care, I just do it'

Beside what stopped you from making up fluff in previous editions? I tell you what, that if changing the fluff make no mechanical difference then it quickly become a chore and with all other things being equal you rather go with the standard 'I attack' than wasting time with a cool description, and 4e is not really so different.

[Grek]

Holy table breakage, Batman!

[MartinHarper]

The Arbalester (a 4e animated ballista) had a high Reflex defence the last time I played it. Higher than the rest of its defences, in fact. Maybe that was changed when it was published in Monster Manual 2?

[Roy]

Ugh. More hurk durk apologetics. And they broke the thread. Do I have to go a smiting again?

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Hotpants Joe,

I apologize for PRs attitude and remarks to you. I think he's spent too much time here and thinks that ad hominems are replacements for sound arguments.

1. Regarding PRs opinion of 4E despite not playing it. Just because he has not played it does not make his points wrong. However, I would encourage him to play it some at least.

If it makes any difference I have played 4E and more or less agree with his points.

2. I'll share with you some of my grievances about the edition. I'll try to bold parts which I consider the top grievances and overall game enjoyment breakers for me.

2a. All powers are the same.

Yes, there's some variety, but for the most part every power is Attack+this effect happens. There are some differences between classes, but effectively I don't care.

2b. Lack of interesting powers

This is related to 2a. I like illusions, I like charming people for days at a time, I like summoning clouds of fog, and summoning several monsters to a fight. I like raising undead and flying without magical items for more than 5 minutes. I like making pacts with demons or angels and getting a mechanical feeling that I gain more than simply more +s as I level.

There are several fun things that a tabletop RPG can do that a computer game cannot. I play tabletop RPGs because I want to do the above, and if I can't do the above easily in a game, it's not serving its purpose for me. Yes, I can add homebrew stuff and homebrew rules, but I buy a game system so that I can have fun with it and do what I want out of the box without going into massive revisions.

2c. Lack of interesting combat options

In 4th edition it is abundantly clear that the most effective tactics are focused fire and kiting, every single freaking time. This means that powers that stun or paralyze or sleep are chosen everytime and classes that do not have stunning capability do not pull their weight.

Maybe one day, I can convince a group of players to all play Mongols to an unsuspecting DM simply to prove that a lack of ranged attacks in a majority of the Monster Manual is not ok.

2d. Lack of synergy between melee and ranged

Warlords can't help Rangers shoot their bows. Icy Ray slows an enemy, but the Fighter still wants to fight toe to toe which eliminates any benefit of slow, Etc. etc. Parties are better off all ranged or all melee (preferably all ranged because that allows kiting vs. almost all the monsters)

2e. Immersion breaking powers

There are a number of powers which let you move around an enemy, let you trick enemies into hitting each other, hitting themselves etc. I'm sorry, but I don't think that I can trick Orcus into hitting himself or attacking his Demon Buddy. I mean if I took the precedents of these powers for making new powers, I could make a power which caused monsters to grab each other's private parts for a round.

Seriously!

2f. Epic isn't Epic

People really don't gain anything that interesting in the epic tier. yeah, demigods can gain back their encounter powers, and if you get the right combination you can do an infinite damage combo. Yeah, there's one choice that lets you auto-ressurect once a day.

But really, that's not what epic is about. How about some rules for making a kingdom, running a castle, getting servants, creating a new plane, creating a powerful new artifact or spell, inventing a brand new fighting style, transforming a landscape into blissful pastures or hellish terrain. You know, flavorful, powerful, and fun stuff.

More +s and more same-old powers is not the way.

2g. Rituals that mean something

I'm not going to spend a ridiculous ton of gold and wait 10 minutes just to open a lock. Rituals cost way to much and most of them are complete crap. If you don't want people to do this stuff, then just freaking don't include rituals.

2h. Feats are crap

+1 Damage for Fire and Electric spells, 5 extra hp, etc. etc. Yes, you gave characters more feats than 3rd edition did. And now most feats are totally useless. Many feats should just be combined into 1 feat.

Paragon and Epic feats would be fine for Heroic. Seriously, they're fine.

2i. Boring Fights.

Long fights always end up with people using their At-Wills because it's almost always advantageous to blow all your dailys and encounters at the beginning. And then you just chip away at the Big Bags of HP until they die.

2j. Minion design is lazy and stupid (imho)

The idea behind minions is that eventually your character is so powerful that you can kill monsters in one hit that used to be trouble for you. Rather than just design a system that has effective scaling damage so that a 20th level fighter could down a level 6 Ogre in One hit, it just assigns that new 20th level Ogre Minion 1 hp

If you want low level easily killable creatures to pose a threat to higher level creatures (i.e. being able to hit) you could simply reduce the attack bonuses gained by leveling (for instance gain 1 to all attacks and defenses for gaining a level on a d100 rather than gain 1 to all attacks and defenses for gaining a level on a d20.

2k. Designers fix problems by saying "Don't Do that"

The Game encourages bag of rats in some situations and the DMG just says "It doesn't work because we say so" A player is encouraged to keep pet squirrels in their pockets to throw rocks at minions to kill them, the DMG just says "Don't do that"

2l. Designers did not Fix the 5 Minute Workday. They encouraged it more!

Now, since every party member has daily powers and an Action Point upon Waking up from a long rest, now everyone has the incentive to plow into a battle, blow all their dailys and then go to sleep.

2m. Adventures of the 5 minute resting Ninja!

Related to 2l, you only get your encounter powers back after a 5 minute rest. Ninjas/Rogues/Assassins/Whatever try to kill people in a few hits so that they can't cry out for help. The best way to kill people is to use an Encounter or Daily on them followed by another Encounter or Daily.

You only get these powers back after resting for 5 minutes. So any invader, has to go to one room, kill 1 person, rest 5 minutes in the room, go to the next room kill one person and wait 5 minutes, etc.

This really breaks immersion for me, and and the rule about 5 minute resting strikes me as very unnecessary.

[Lich-Loved]

My personal hatreds:

The skill challenge system is a mathematical failure. It smacks of there being no serious mathematical analysis of the game's underpinnings.

"Mobs" have "loot tables" that specifically do not include the equipment the creature was wearing or using. This is ... inexcusable, an insult, an abomination, a complete rejection of the verisimilitude that PNP gaming is supposed to provide over video games. It hurts me in my soul.

[Roy]

Actually, it's because the sound arguments are almost always rejected by the apologetics. They either get it on the first try or they never do. So anyone bothering to try is going to get frustrated quickly and basically do what PR is doing.

[MartinHarper]

How about some rules for making a kingdom, running a castle, getting servants, creating a new plane, creating a powerful new artifact or spell, inventing a brand new fighting style, transforming a landscape into blissful pastures or hellish terrain. You know, flavorful, powerful, and fun stuff.

In the 4e vernacular, I think we need Paragon Backgrounds and Epic Backgrounds. "Son of a blacksmith" is a fine background for a heroic character, but at Paragon you should trade that out for "is the grand old Duke of York" with the associated benefit of "have ten thousand men".

[Hotpants Joe]

Edited previous post with spoiler tags. It was late when I posted originally, and I did so on a very high-resolution monitor so it didn't "break the thread" for me.

The Arbalester (a 4e animated ballista) had a high Reflex defence the last time I played it. Higher than the rest of its defences, in fact. Maybe that was changed when it was published in Monster Manual 2?

You're right, it does. I was just using a hypothetical example because I could see a case being made for an animated ballista that has a bad reflex save.

Roy: Sounds like you have something constructive to add. Go ahead and "smite" me.

BB:II - Thanks for not being hostile.

1. Not all of his points are completely wrong, but a lot of them are inconsequential. I just don't buy that somebody would have their immersion ruined because a monster has 2 lower of a fortitude defense than it should based on its Str/Con, or something. The point about commoners being able to shake off poison as easily as a barbarian is kind of moot, too, because the barbarian has party members that can potentially help him shake off the save effect easier. And a commoner is probably going to be a minion that is taken out of the fight from the guaranteed ongoing poison damage they will take at the beginning of their turn. I won't expand much more on these points because I already covered them in previous posts.

2a. Yes and no. What makes it interesting to me are the tactical implications of using certain abilities over others. Do you blow your combat wad and use an encounter power + an action point + a daily to take out someone early? Do you slide an enemy into a flank with your sticky defender to keep them pinned down? Etc etc.

I know you can't do as many ground-breaking things as a caster like you could in 3rd. But let's face it. The caster versus martial class rift in previous editions was like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw.

2b. As for out of combat stuff: yes, there do appear to be fewer options than in 3rd, but there are rituals and there is alchemy.

2c. Can you elaborate a bit here? I've played mostly levels 1-11 so far and we've never hit a brick wall because we don't have stuns/paralyzes/focused fire kiting. Fights aren't always super straightforward to the point that you could focus fire kite anyway. I was just in a combat the other day where there were only two immediate threats to start out with. As the combat progressed, a collection of wizards disguised as commoners in the area revealed themselves and began sniping us.

2d. Warlords are the martial leader class, meant to synergize best with martial melee classes. Clerics can definitely help ranged classes, though, with things like blade barrier. Bards can help ranged classes slide around when an enemy misses them, which can help them regain distance.

Having a mixed ranged/melee party can be tricky, but it can also be incredibly useful, and it's certainly viable. If you're in a fight where melee is pinned down hard enough to make it impossible to reach that pesky enemy caster in the back, you've got your ranged to take them down. There's more synergy than you'd think.

2e. And again, I'm going to reiterate the same point I did in my earlier post. The slide effects get a little bit silly when you're fighting something as epic as Orcus, but what about the myriad of other combats where it could easily make sense?

And at the point where you're high enough of a level to take on Orcus (he's 33 so you'd have to have a party of 30s most likely to stand a chance), who knows what kind of epic-level mojo you can pull out?

2f. Owning a castle/fortress: that would be interesting and I don't see why a DM couldn't wing this if it's what the players want. Before anyone jumps at me with, "But a system lacking these rules is flawed!!" -- it may very well be released in later material. IIRC, those rules didn't exist for 3rd Ed for a while until some supplemental material was released. Not sure about 2nd or 1st, as I only played 2nd for about a year or two.

2g. I disagree with you here. There are rituals and alchemical formulas that are hardly useless.

2h. Some feats are gimmick feats, but a lot of them are solid choices. The reason they don't appear to have much significant impact is that +1 bonuses to hit are meant to be a big deal. Can you give examples though?

2i. I apologize in advance if you aren't a 3e fan, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you still play it. 3rd Edition fights were incredibly boring a majority of the time. Fighters full attack every round (or single attack against enemies that spring attack them) while casters get to have all of the tactical fun with their reality-altering powers. Sorry, but I find a system where more than just the casters get to have their fun and make a significant impact to be much more fun than the former.

I don't see minions as a bad thing. In 3rd ed you had minion-grade enemies that were killable in single shots from the fighter. If he had cleave/great cleave, then your fighter was effectively a minion clearer like wizards and other AoEers are in 4th.

2k. If you really want to do stuff like that, a DM who wants to make a long term, good campaign will hopefully opt to work something out with you. It's okay to say yes even if the system says no.

Oh, and as an aside: if you played Keep on the Shadowfell as your intro to 4e, then I feel bad for you. I did too, and I'm pretty sure the hype for 4e was all that kept me interested. Combat was fun at times but the adventure I felt was piss poorly done.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Actually, it's because the sound arguments are almost always rejected by the apologetics. They either get it on the first try or they never do. So anyone bothering to try is going to get frustrated quickly and basically do what PR is doing.

That's an assumption, not a fact. Yes, there are some people who will not be convinced of something even if you give them all the evidence the world. There are also some people who will change their mind if presented evidence in the right spirit.

Automatically assuming that a person is the former rather than the latter is simply rude and unacceptable. And throwing around insults at people is going to convince very few people of the truth of your words!

A part of the problem with 4th is that we repeat ourselves a lot. We should just have a wiki that lists point by point, the problems with 4th edition.

[Hotpants Joe]

The skill challenge system is a mathematical failure. It smacks of there being no serious mathematical analysis of the game's underpinnings.

Not the errata'd version of the skill challenge system. It allows players to improve and allows a GM to break down a scene into parts. It really helps tell a story. I have both used it and have seen it used to great effect on multiple occasions. I promise you.

"Mobs" have "loot tables" that specifically do not include the equipment the creature was wearing or using. This is ... inexcusable, an insult, an abomination, a complete rejection of the verisimilitude that PNP gaming is supposed to provide over video games. It hurts me in my soul.

I agree with this one, actually. It's one of the few things that bother me about 4e.

[violence in the media]

2i. I apologize in advance if you aren't a 3e fan, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you still play it. 3rd Edition fights were incredibly boring a majority of the time. Fighters full attack every round (or single attack against enemies that spring attack them) while casters get to have all of the tactical fun with their reality-altering powers. Sorry, but I find a system where more than just the casters get to have their fun and make a significant impact to be much more fun than the former.

This is just a tangent, but was I the only person to play in a 3e game that almost explicitly became Ars Magica? I played in one campaign for a few months where the DM disallowed anything that wasn't a full caster. If we wanted fighters and rogues for something, we hired them out of the DMG tables.

[Roy]

Actually, it's because the sound arguments are almost always rejected by the apologetics. They either get it on the first try or they never do. So anyone bothering to try is going to get frustrated quickly and basically do what PR is doing.

That's an assumption, not a fact. Yes, there are some people who will not be convinced of something even if you give them all the evidence the world. There are also some people who will change their mind if presented evidence in the right spirit.

Automatically assuming that a person is the former rather than the latter is simply rude and unacceptable. And throwing around insults at people is going to convince very few people of the truth of your words!

A part of the problem with 4th is that we repeat ourselves a lot. We should just have a wiki that lists point by point, the problems with 4th edition.

Either way. They either get it the first time or they never do. And the repeating one's self is where the frustration comes in. So I thank you for filling in the assumed gaps but... what was the point of that again?

Joe: Skill challenges post errata are 'you succeed'. Except you have to spam a bunch of dice instead of just one. So aside from making more pointless rolls it hasn't done anything for the stuff you'd auto pass anyways... and for everything else the chance of failure is gone. Well, unless you use pre errata rules, then skill challenges are 'you fail'.

Also, thank you for exposing the fact you aren't as new here as you claim to be. I haven't used the word 'smite' in this thread, or anywhere on these boards in a while. So who's hiding behind the alt mask? That you PR? Or maybe one of the 4.0s that got smited before by me or someone else.

Until I'm convinced you aren't just a troll, I'm going to throw bombs on only a few points.

Building castles and whatever in 3.x meant Wall of Stone, Fabricate etc. It didn't require making up entire rule subsystems. Though they did release one eventually, it ended up terrible as it seems to think you'd willingly take a massive hit out of your shiny magic item fund to... build a house. Even if the way you're building it doesn't cost a damn thing. Apparently you need to melt down 75k gold for the foundation or something. I dunno.

Saying 'I full attack' over and over is functionally no different than saying 'I Tide of Iron' over and over. Sure, there's a little novelty in spamming a different line, but you're still spamming the same moves, and what's more encounters are such grindfests you will say 'I Tide of Iron' as many or more times than you would say 'I full attack' anyways so even though you are occasionally using some other move it doesn't fucking matter because even by that standard you admit 4.Fail is more repetitive, and not less.

As for the casters, they had real options in 3.x, and 2.0, and 1.0. They don't in 4.Fail. They're stuck doing the 'I attack.' spam as well. This is not an improvement, it is a downgrade. Full stop.

Sorry, but I find a system where more than just the casters get to have their fun and make a significant impact to be much more fun than the former.

So it's nice you think that, too bad that the closest D&D comes to it is 3.5 + ToB.

You're doing my job for me. And even these basic things will almost certainly stone wall you, as you have no counter. So I don't even need to write a fucking chapter or two on why 4.Fail deserves that name.