D&D 4th Edition Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition - Page 12


What's on your mind?

  1. #111
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    736
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Sadras
    Quote Originally Posted by Raith5 View Post
    My feeling is that WOTC just have not thought hard enough about the real problems of 4th ed and are caught up by the perceived problems of 4th ed, hence the desire to obscure 4th ed mechanics in DDN (such as healing surges with new names hit dice, etc).

    That said I do think a game which rewards a broader range of play styles is a valuable goal - I just dont think 4th is a bad foundation for this.
    I think you have raised some interesting points here, however, I think if WotC was going to keep the foundation of 4E and fix the peripherals - that would not necessarily draw the crowds of the older editions and pathfinder to the table.

 

  • #112
    Registered User
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)

    Tallifer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pusan, Korea
    Posts
    731
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Tallifer
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Mhoram View Post
    Comparing 4E and 3rd (not ed war here) - If you are in a solid group with each role covered and an extra - 4E is the strongest tactical edition. But the further you get away from that expectation - the less it works. If the party has 3 people, with a gap of 2 or 3 levels between them - that will be a huge problem (especially if you are using published adventures). Some houserules might conteract some of it, but it is virtually impossible to play a solo character in published adventures in 4E - I know I tried for about a year. I think if I played in a 4E Group, I would love the game (I liked everything but how it couldn't handle solo play). But I am/was not in a position to do that.
    1. You should never have characters of different levels in the Fourth Edition. The rules assume that everyone increases their level at the same time, and that new players enter at the same level as the rest of the party.

    2. One player and one main character is done simply. First reduce the encounter level/numbers (the transparent monster blocks are extremely easy to level down); second give the player one or two henchmen/servants/hirelings/eternal companions/butlers/squires/squaddies. The hybrid and multiclass rules are quite efficient for covering all the roles required. This actually allows you to roleplay situations which run counter to the normal group[ dynamic. In most groups everyone is an individual. the mediaeval concept of honourable service as a loyal squire or manservant would not fly in most groups of players.
    Member of Grognards for 4th Edition.

  • #113
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,571
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Herschel
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Holy Bovine View Post
    I simply refuse to believe that an unbalanced game is instantly non-fun. I just don't buy it.
    Here's the thing, it is instantly not fun unless someone goes about balancing it, which means the DM has a lot more to do and the story can't just go where it wants. I want the system to be built well enough not to tack on that extra stuff for the DM to do.

  • #114
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Balesir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,881
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    O.G.R.E.KickstarterGM's DayGygax Memorial FundEN PublishingZEITGEISTWotBSD&D

    ° Ignore Balesir
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Herschel View Post
    Here's the thing, it is instantly not fun unless someone goes about balancing it, which means the DM has a lot more to do and the story can't just go where it wants. I want the system to be built well enough not to tack on that extra stuff for the DM to do.
    Again - not true if one or more players want and expect to be only passive participants and are happy to sit and kibitz, chat and watch, making the occasional (no-brainer) "decision".

    Or, actually, now that I think about it, if the written rules don't really represent the game mechanisms in use. If the written rules really only represent a fallback set of guidelines for an area of the game that the group is really not that invested or interested in, and the GM or the group is adopting or making up mechanisms (improv acting rules, social dominance game rules - all manner of things are possible) to handle the parts they actually are interested and invested in, then the composition of the written "rules" really isn't that important, other than that they should be simple and unobtrusive, and they should be easy to manipulate to suit the needs of the group (being, for instance, much better if they use "rulings" rather than "rules").

    Maybe some of the OSR "swell" is caused by the desire for, and absence of, such a "ruleset". I can't help thinking that, if it is, then it would be more productive to focus more on the other mechanisms - improv rules or whatever - that are desired and include them in the bdoy of the game. Maybe part of the allure is based on some sort of "mystery" or deliberate ignorance and/or non-questioning of what it is that is actually being used as a "system"? I don't know; there seems to be a very strong swell of emotion about it, but I have never seen it clearly expressed just what it is that many "old school" gamers really want.
    Balesir
    "Eschew obfuscation!"

  • #115
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    736
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Sadras
    Quote Originally Posted by Herschel View Post
    Here's the thing, it is instantly not fun unless someone goes about balancing it, which means the DM has a lot more to do and the story can't just go where it wants. I want the system to be built well enough not to tack on that extra stuff for the DM to do.
    Respecting both view points or playstyles:
    That is why I posted (some time ago), that the core basic system MUST NOT be "balanced".
    The simple core system would please the old schoolers as their imbalance style of play would be preserved while further add-on tactics/power modules would balance the classes out pleasing the Fourthers.
    It is also easier to start from an imbalanced system.

    It appears no one has been reading my posts!

  • #116
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    2,570
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Minigiant
    To me the only way this edition would work is:

    The core is organic and no effort is made to ensure balances or decent characters. Then a module in each book fixes balance and makes the game DM Neutral.

    OR.

    The core is DM Neutral and balanced at the start. Then a module adds organic and unbalancing elements.
    My beard is hairy.

  • #117
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,502
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    Cortex+ZEITGEISTWotBSI Defended The Walls!

    ° Ignore Neonchameleon
    My communities:

    Originally Posted by Bedrockgames To accomodate 4e I really think they are going to have to focus on those modules. I mean as it is now their is almost too much 4e material in the playtest document for my taste. Anymore and I probably wont have much interest in Next. I think There was some large bones in there for the 4e crowd already (HD, one day heals, themes, daily powers for fighters).

    Daily powers for fighters is not a bone for the 4e crowd as implemented. The daily power for fighters is just Hit Moar. And go back to your 3.5 rulebooks and look at the Barbarian. If Fighter Surge was meant to be a bone for 4e players then it is worse than useless - it demonstrates that whoever thought of it doesn't get 4e in the slightest. And themes are if anything a 2e thing - they are kits reborn rather than the 4e themes. That said I'm considering introducing them into 4e as having a feat collection rather than having to pick and choose feats as you level saves casual players a lot of time. It's a genuine improvement from both 3.X and 4e.

    As for one day heals, these I will grant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Mhoram View Post
    Not that Teamwork is a negative but the exclusive focus on balance for teamwork makes playing other types of approach difficult.

    It isn't really, just that the focus of the game being so strong on combat (which I find less in earlier editions - taste) makes it seem more unsupported in the game materials. But you have a point.
    ...
    the assumption of 4E (5 character all roles filled, level balanced)
    That's three myths. The first myth is that all classes are about teamwork - see e.g. the Rageblood Barbarian for details. The second is that 4e has any less non-combat suppor than other editions. For every non-casting class it has more. More generally competent characters, and more out of combat utility options. The third myth is that 4e needs to centre around that. I'd say 1 in 2 parties I've seen lack a controller. I've DM'd for an almost all striker party (the exception being a Hunter Ranger - which is as much striker as it is controller). It worked well. Too many defenders, leaders, or controllers are going to be annoying for different reasons - but strikers are normally as individualistic as they ever used to be.

    Okay - but say you are playing in the module - with a solo character. How do you have that fight (with no change to what is written in the module, jsut house rules for the character) - without making the solo character so high a level that his hit bonus and AC is so high that the combat is boring.
    So your problem is that you want one big PC to have the damage output and resilience of four or five - phrase it like that and the answer starts to beome obvious. (That said, most published 4e modules suck).

    Quote Originally Posted by DogBackward View Post
    That's one of the things I like most about what I'm seeing with Next. With flat math, a 14 in Charisma gives you a suave Fighter, even if you don't take a social Background. A not-horrible Dexterity and a Background that grants Stealth gives you a very sneaky Fighter. It's so much easier to have a character that can do things outside of their "schtick", even if the schtickers are better at it.
    You know why you like the 5e skill system?

    It's a very slightly modified version of the 4e one with the half level bonus removed from all parts of the game and the trained bonus dropped from +5 to +3 and a couple of non-adventuring skills added. Except that at present it appears easier to get an extra skill in 4e.

    Oh, and the packages all appear to give at least three skills with one social and one exploration. In 4e you could easily decide not to pick a social skill or not to pick an exploration skill.

    But yes, the 4e skill system does work well. And I'm glad they didn't tinker with it much for D&D Next

  • #118
    Registered User
    The Great Druid (Lvl 17)



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,502
    Reviews
    Read 2 Reviews
    Cortex+ZEITGEISTWotBSI Defended The Walls!

    ° Ignore Neonchameleon
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    Respecting both view points or playstyles:
    That is why I posted (some time ago), that the core basic system MUST NOT be "balanced".
    The simple core system would please the old schoolers as their imbalance style of play would be preserved while further add-on tactics/power modules would balance the classes out pleasing the Fourthers.
    It is also easier to start from an imbalanced system.

    It appears no one has been reading my posts!
    The problem with your idea is that it is trivial to imbalance a balanced system and very very difficult to balance an imbalanced system.

    So what you need to do to get the effects you want is to make the core system balanced and then give add-on spells to imbalance the classes, pleasing the oldschool players. That way is easy, the other way is almost impossible.

  • #119
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    612
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore DogBackward
    Quote Originally Posted by Neonchameleon View Post
    You know why you like the 5e skill system?

    It's a very slightly modified version of the 4e one with the half level bonus removed from all parts of the game and the trained bonus dropped from +5 to +3 and a couple of non-adventuring skills added. Except that at present it appears easier to get an extra skill in 4e.

    But yes, the 4e skill system does work well.
    "The reason you like Thing X is because it's just like Thing Y, only with everything you don't like changed."
    Well... duh.

    You're right, though... after you get rid of that half-level bonus, too-high training bonus, and set-in-stone skill list, it does work well. Which is why I like the Next skill system, but not the 4e system.

  • #120
    Registered User
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Belfast, Northern Ireland, U.K.
    Posts
    9,567
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews

    ° Ignore Upper_Krust
    My communities:

    Hey Bedrockgames!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedrockgames
    but uniting the fanbase around one edition means bringing in the pre 4e crowd as well and they have some serious issues with the way 4e does stuff. So if bringing in the 4e elements drives away the non-4e players (which I think it will) they won't meet their design goal. To accomodate 4e I really think they are going to have to focus on those modules. I mean as it is now their is almost too much 4e material in the playtest document for my taste. Anymore and I probably wont have much interest in Next. I think There was some large bones in there for the 4e crowd already (HD, one day heals, themes, daily powers for fighters).
    I think you have hit the nail on the head.

    Its a virtually impossible task to unite the fanbase because ultimately they'll end up alienating fans of either 3rd or 4th Edition.

    You could argue that alienating fans of 4th Edition would be worse (for WotC) because the 3rd Edition fans have all jumped ship for Pathfinder.

    The only option open to WotC is to make 5th Edition CLEARLY superior to either 3rd or 4th. At the moment I don't think we have seen enough of it to make such a judgement.

    Beyond the following flaws and a few minor rules tweaks I think 4th Edition is pretty much perfect:

    1. The original GSL (now sorted albeit too late)
    2. Rules Bloat from Classes (Class design needs condensed)
    3. Higher Tiers basically the same with more math
    4. Less focus on Tactical Combat in the books, particularly adventures
    5. New ideas for books (instead of retreads and splatbooks)

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 12 of 93 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314151617181920212262 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 47
      Last Post: Sunday, 12th July, 2009, 05:42 AM
    2. Replies: 965
      Last Post: Wednesday, 13th May, 2009, 01:59 PM
    3. 6 players, 5 hours, 4th edition
      By Rodrigo Istalindir in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 182
      Last Post: Wednesday, 5th March, 2008, 01:49 PM
    4. Replies: 110
      Last Post: Saturday, 16th February, 2008, 01:57 AM
    5. Any AD&D 1st Edition players here?
      By Ermanaric in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 46
      Last Post: Monday, 30th September, 2002, 04:10 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •