D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

Shadeydm · Sep 4, 2012

Hussar said:
Yup, you get rid of encounter powers and use Essentials characters.

Done.

That's about the same degree of change for both. You've stripped away most of the mechanics of a Next Fighter and an Essentials Fighter has done the same.

Easy peasy.

Essentials? Seriously LOL. So your solution is to cut your total options down to what 6 classes and 9 builds? Oh my how exciting...

Hussar said:
Ummm, no? Why do people keep ignoring Essentials?

Honestly it lacks variety of classes and little or no build options or customization.

pemerton · Sep 4, 2012

Balesir said:
I hear a lot about this "combat grind" aspect of 4e, but I don't actually see it in play. Maybe my players are tactical geniuses, or something, but I see At-Wills used scattered among Encounter and Daily powers used to best advantage (often set up specifically with At-Wills beforehand) finishing most combats in, typically, 4-8 combat rounds.

This is pretty much my experience too.

Balesir said:
You say these are unrelated (again), but I'm seeing the exact same thing.

It's simply not feasible to do multiple things in a combat round. Just how much you might be able to do is a matter of conjecture

<snip>

we estimate what is reasonable on average, and we set a system limit at that level.

By the same token, there are many actions or effects which it is simply impossible to do multiple times in quick succession.

<snip>

How do we represent this in a game system? We say that the "barbarian" may only rage x number of times "per day" - with the exact occasions when s/he does so determined by the player. It's an abstraction, nothing more. You might prefer that the player have no say in when the rages occur, but then you would need to invent some sort of system that does determine when rages occur that is both fun and plausible. The obvious options (die roll to rage and GM fiat) are neither. The abstraction seems to me to be fine with the player "spending the resource" to time the rage as s/he sees fit.

In the game world, there are clear reasons why - we just don't model them all. The alternatives to this are:

1) To model every circumstance and resource that may lead to actions that clearly are not attempted every few seconds not being attempted every few seconds, or

2) Ignore all actions and abilities that are not routinely attempted every few seconds completely (unless we can invent some hokey excuse like "remembering" them, thus neatly restricting such possibilities only to invented, or "magical", effects).

The first of these I defy anyone to achieve in a playable system; the second is intensely unsatisfactory to me.

Excellent post with which I agree. Individuals may have their own approaches to and techniques for immersion, but I don't see how it can be asserted as a general truth that a mechanic which gives the player more choices to make about the expression of his/her PC during the process of action resolution (rather than giving that task to the GM or the dice) is any sort of obstacle to inhabitation of the PC or immersion in the game situation.

Ahnehnois said:
I find this opinion rather bizarre. When you say "spamtastic", I assume you mean that some fighters repeatedly take the same action (attack, trip, etc.). But it doesn't mean the character is doing the same thing each time. A successful attack roll could represent any number of martial techniques. Combining all those techniques into one attack roll is very abstract, but it's very D&D.

For me, this also goes to the matter of "immersion in the game situation". Part of what immerses one in the situation, when playing a D&D spell caster, is having a variety of mechanical options which are sufficiently different in their resolution, and in the impact that that resolution has on the system, to create a decision space that (in a certain metaphorical way) replicates the decision space of the PC.

Giving players of fighters mechanical resources to deploy has a similar effect. The decisions are not identical: the PC is looking for possible openings, wondering which to exploit when, whereas the player is studying the physical representation of the combat via map and tokens, and thinking about how to deploy his/her mechanical resources to affect the sitution. Likewise for the player of a caster: the PC is recollecting words of power, gathering ambient magical energy, and making choices about which conjuration to unleash, whereas the player is thinking about differences in spell resistance and saving throws and damage rolls and the like. But in both cases there is a high degree of correlation which is, I think, and everything else being equal, apt to generate immersion in the fictional situation.

pemerton · Sep 4, 2012

Shadeydm said:
Essentials? Seriously LOL. So your solution is to cut your total options down to what 6 classes and 9 builds?

<snip>

Honestly it lacks variety of classes and little or no build options or customization.

I haven't seen a lot of Essentials stuff in play, but there are 13 classes: barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, assassin, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, vampire; and 20 builds: 2 each of fighter (knight, slayer), paladin (cavalier, blackguard), ranger (hunter, scout), wizard (mage, witch, sha'ir, bladesinger) and warlock (hexblade, binder). The only ones that are obviously same-y are the mage, witch and sha'ir, and the only one of those builds that is really obviously half-baked, I think, is the binder warlock (I think condemnation of this build is pretty universal. There may be other classes or builds that have come in for criticism, but I haven't noticed universal criticism of any of the others.)

I personally wouldn't want to play an Esssentials-only game: my own game has a CHA paladin, a non-elementalist sorcerer, an invoker, a PH tactical fighter, and an archer-ranger/cleric. But I think Essentials gives a pretty playable range of PC types.

Tony Vargas · Sep 4, 2012

pemerton said:
I haven't seen a lot of Essentials stuff in play, but there are 13 classes: barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, assassin, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, vampire; and 20 builds: 2 each of fighter (knight, slayer), paladin (cavalier, blackguard), ranger (hunter, scout), wizard (mage, witch, sha'ir, bladesinger) and warlock (hexblade, binder).

You forgot that Vampire is a class, too.

But, that's not all Essentials. That's Essentials + post-Essentials. Officially, Essentials is a 10-product "Evergreen" (yeah, that worked out) line. The only Essentials classes are in HotFK/FL. HoS, HotFw, & HotEC are not technically Essentials. But, Essentials classes are useable with the rest of 4e. So nothing stopped a DM from replacing the 4e martial classes with the Essentials ones, thus cleanly eliminating any unwanted ~~class balance~~ dissociative mechanics, from their campaigns.

a PH tactical fighter

"tactical?" You usually hear that next to 'Warlord,' not fighter...

pemerton · Sep 4, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
You forgot that Vampire is a class, too.

No, it was in my list.

Tony Vargas said:
But, that's not all Essentials. That's Essentials + post-Essentials.

True, but I didn't count the new druid build or the new monk build, which only work with pre-essentials classes.

Tony Vargas said:
Officially, Essentials is a 10-product "Evergreen" (yeah, that worked out) line.

As I think we've discussed on another thread, the compilation and marketing aspects of Essentials - as in, which stuff goes in which books and how is it all packaged up and preseted - was absurd, with the exception of the Monster Vault which was excellent.

Some rules material is reproduced 4 times, over the two Heroes books, the RC plus the DMG kit. Ludicrous!

Tony Vargas said:
"tactical?" You usually hear that next to 'Warlord,' not fighter...

I meant a fighter who is focused on battlefield control, positioning and forced movement. And relying, as part of this, on all the apparatus of immediate and opportunity actions, encounter powers etc that tend to trigger the "dissociated" button.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Sep 4, 2012

Shadeydm said:
CS dice can be applied every round and can be simplified to adding extra damage (not dissociative imho) and nothing more. Can we change 4E melee encounter powers to work every round? There lies two very big differences...if you can't see the diff I don't think there is much more I can do to help you understand.

You probably could. Essentials did that with Dailies, and you can probably could also do that with Encounters.

It causes imbalances if whatever standard assumptions are not met (e.g. average length of a combat is used to balance the damage bonus gained from Encounter powers, and if the combat is longer, you get a benefit out of it, and if it takes shorter, you lose something), but that is basically the same problem as replacing Dailies with "always-on" features. You could probably restore some of that with more situational at-wills and stances. Which is what Combat Superiority Dice in Next seem to be doing.

Balesir · Sep 4, 2012

Shadeydm said:
Yes I must be making this stuff up it's not as if I play 4E every week, oh hey wait a minute...

Bad and disingenuous counter - read what I actually wrote (and what I wrote it in response to).

1) I did not say or imply that you were "making stuff up" - merely that my experience was different, which was relevant because:

2) You originally claimed that "most" 4e combats ended up with a grind.

Now, it might be that most 4e combats in your experience end up with a grind. If I were to contest that then I would be accusing you of "making stuff up" - but that wasn't what you said. You said "most 4E fights end up with the defender having no choice but to spam an at will round after round". I contest that because the experience of me and several others both here and elsewhere is that "most" 4e fights do not end up this way, so even if most of your 4e fights end up that way, the claim of "most" overall is at best speculative.

Shadeydm · Sep 4, 2012

Balesir said:
Bad and disingenuous counter - read what I actually wrote (and what I wrote it in response to).

1) I did not say or imply that you were "making stuff up" - merely that my experience was different, which was relevant because:

2) You originally claimed that "most" 4e combats ended up with a grind.

Now, it might be that most 4e combats in your experience end up with a grind. If I were to contest that then I would be accusing you of "making stuff up" - but that wasn't what you said. You said "most 4E fights end up with the defender having no choice but to spam an at will round after round". I contest that because the experience of me and several others both here and elsewhere is that "most" 4e fights do not end up this way, so even if most of your 4e fights end up that way, the claim of "most" overall is at best speculative.

Yes of course we must be playing it wrong lol...

Neonchameleon · Sep 4, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
However, the problematic element of Vancian is being able to do something reliably up to X times a day, and then not being able to do it at all afterwards. In that sense, a 4e rogue is somewhat Vancian.

Not the only one. The other problems include that forgetting spells makes wizards have swiss cheese for memories, and that All Magic Is Vancian (pre-3e) or faintly drifted Vancian (3e before Warlock, ToM, and ToB Swordsages) lards the game with unwanted flavour in a way At Will/Signature Move/Limit Break/Utility doesn't.

I find this opinion rather bizarre. When you say "spamtastic", I assume you mean that some fighters repeatedly take the same action (attack, trip, etc.). But it doesn't mean the character is doing the same thing each time.

It means that they are trying to have exactly the same result every time. Rather than the player also taking advantage of changing opportunities. Playing a pre-4e fighter is simply something I find a disassociative snoozefest (and I don't want to inflict my idea of how to play a 3.X or PF caster on a poor unfortunate DM).

I also assume you'd want an injury system, because hit points are equally abstract and it's hard to model the way a fighter behaves without describing physical status in more detail.

Depends what type of game I'm playing. If gritty, yes - but I wouldn't be using D&D at all for grit (I have both GURPS and three editions of WFRP on my shelves). If action movie/swashbuckling, not so much.

Shadeydm said:
The beauty of this statement lies in the fact that most 4E fights end up with the defender having no choice but to spam an at will round after round partially because they drag on so long and partially because so many encounter powers are very situational.

How do you define "so long"? Because I seldom run fights over the 5 round mark. At third level, most modern PCs have three encounter powers (the third being for a theme) - and all my PCs have very distinctive at wills.

So in the end the 4E Fighter ends up in a "spamtastic" battle as you say regardless. 4E must be so very disassociating for you

I'm no fan of the mopping up phase taking too long in any game.

Shadeydm said:
Essentials? Seriously LOL. So your solution is to cut your total options down to what 6 classes and 9 builds? Oh my how exciting...

8 classes. And about 16 builds plus more customisability than any AD&D class that wasn't a caster. Oh wait. You could pick only a few weapons in 2e - I suppose that counted?

Honestly it lacks variety of classes and little or no build options or customization.

It's got some - and things like the rogue tricks are better than they look.

pemerton said:
I haven't seen a lot of Essentials stuff in play, but there are 13 classes: barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, assassin, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, vampire; and 20 builds: 2 each of fighter (knight, slayer), paladin (cavalier, blackguard), ranger (hunter, scout), wizard (mage, witch, sha'ir, bladesinger) and warlock (hexblade, binder). The only ones that are obviously same-y are the mage, witch and sha'ir, and the only one of those builds that is really obviously half-baked, I think, is the binder warlock (I think condemnation of this build is pretty universal. There may be other classes or builds that have come in for criticism, but I haven't noticed universal criticism of any of the others.)

I personally wouldn't want to play an Esssentials-only game: my own game has a CHA paladin, a non-elementalist sorcerer, an invoker, a PH tactical fighter, and an archer-ranger/cleric. But I think Essentials gives a pretty playable range of PC types.

Indeed it does. What it's especially good at is evocative options that are simple in play (the elementalist sorceror works and even the mechanics befuddled can keep up with an elementalist or a slayer).