This Week in D&D

pemerton · Oct 16, 2012

VinylTap said:
4th was a tactical miniatures game rewarding tactical thinking. the system became tight and conflict resolution became quantitative.

<snip>

there's also something to be said about solving your problem without ever drawing you sword. Yeah, you could do this 4th... but the system didn't really promote it, its was outside of the system.

Stormonu said:
I'd also ask the converse: what should be proffered to appeal directly to 4Eers?

I want a system that recognises what it is that 4e players - or, at least, many of those who post on this forum - do with their game. Which looks nothing like VinylTap's characterisation of it.

Some distintive features of 4e inlcude:

* Silo-ing non-combat abilities (many utility and skill powers, rituals, most of the skill system, etc;

* A robust non-combat conflict resolution system (skill challenges);

* Clear rules for awarding XP for non-combat encounters and challenges, and for quests, and for time spent in free roleplay, which - together with the combat XP rules - reflect a clear sense of what XP are for (ie progression at the rate of around 1 level per 12 or so hours of dedicated play);

* Solid rules for adjudicating improvisation, with clear DC guidelines set out by reference to metagame consequences for pacing, flow etc, and supporting crossover between combat and non-combat, such as using skills in combat, and (per PHB p 259 and DMG 2 p 86) using attack powers in non-combat situations.

When I look at D&Dnext so far, much of this is missing. There are no guidelines at all for improvised effects, and the DC-setting guidelines only approach the issue from the point of view of ingame difficulty, but not from the metagame point of view of the effect of DCs on pacing and flow. There is no non-combat conflict resolution at all (and traits are crying out for such a system!), nor rules for out-of-combat XP awards. And the skill rules are very fiddly and have a lot of overlap (eg Survival vs Nature Lore; Magical Lore vs Forbidden Lore), though the announced change in the skill mechanic, back to the first iteration, should deal with some of those issues (overlap is less of an issue in a stat-based, more free-descriptor style skill system).

In my 4e game, when the PCs encountered a dire bear and decided to tame it rather than fight it, adjudication and the award of XPs was completely straightforward, and every PC clearly had some way of contributing to the collective endeavour. How would I resolve that in D&Dnext without resort to sheer fiat? How would I make it as exciting, in play, as the combat encounter would be?

And that's before we even get to the more serious, session-dominating social encounters that 4e handles with mechanical ease.

Manbearcat · Oct 16, 2012

pemerton said:
I want a system that recognises what it is that 4e players - or, at least, many of those who post on this forum - do with their game. Which looks nothing like VinylTap's characterisation of it.

Some distintive features of 4e inlcude:

* Silo-ing non-combat abilities (many utility and skill powers, rituals, most of the skill system, etc;

* A robust non-combat conflict resolution system (skill challenges);

* Clear rules for awarding XP for non-combat encounters and challenges, and for quests, and for time spent in free roleplay, which - together with the combat XP rules - reflect a clear sense of what XP are for (ie progression at the rate of around 1 level per 12 or so hours of dedicated play);

* Solid rules for adjudicating improvisation, with clear DC guidelines set out by reference to metagame consequences for pacing, flow etc, and supporting crossover between combat and non-combat, such as using skills in combat, and (per PHB p 259 and DMG 2 p 86) using attack powers in non-combat situations.

Can't xp but exactly this (both in that the portrayal is detached from my own reality and from what I want from 5e).

Magil · Oct 16, 2012

Stormonu said:
I'd also ask the converse: what should be proffered to appeal directly to 4Eers?

This is a surprisingly easy question. In addition to what others have said, there are two things that I'd like to see in particular:

1. More emphasis on the tactical aspects of combat, particularly positioning. Right now I'm playing a Fighter in the Reclaiming Blingdenstone adventure, and currently it feels like it rarely matters where I move to or where I stand, so combats involve a lot of standing still and rolling attacks over and over (unfortunately, despite how good expertise dice appear on paper, I am less enthused about them in play), after using the first round to approach the enemy.

I know some people don't like to use a grid for whatever reason but I feel as though I should be rewarded more for good positioning. There aren't even rules for flanking anymore. If I'm not rewarded for tactical focus in combat, then as a Fighter, what else is left for me? Perhaps you may see why I'm lamenting the focus on a "simpler" fighter rather than a "more complex" fighter.

2. Along the same lines, more interesting monsters. I want monsters to do more fun and interesting things in combat, especially involving movement and positioning. That'll at least keep combat somewhat fresh.

ZombieRoboNinja · Oct 16, 2012

[MENTION=6672353]Magil[/MENTION] - what is your fighter build? I'd think a protector/defender type would care a good deal about positioning. A slayer, not so much.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2012

[MENTION=6672353]Magil[/MENTION], good points about dynamic and engaging combat encounters.

Magil · Oct 16, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
 @Magil  - what is your fighter build? I'd think a protector/defender type would care a good deal about positioning. A slayer, not so much.

I am playing a slayer, because Cleave seems like the best maneuver of the group by far when pretty much everything dies in one hit. Unfortunately even if I was playing protector I wouldn't have had a lot of opportunities to use Protect because of initiative rolls. I kinda miss improved initiative because there's no way to boost my initiative as a fighter that has low Dexterity.

However, I do agree that I probably should have picked either the protector style or the guardian theme and went with a shield build, it probably would have suited my tastes a little better. I'm not convinced it would help me completely recapture the feel from 4E however, because I played a Slayer in 4E too and it wasn't nearly this dull.

thewok · Oct 16, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
They did mention that the class isn't going anywhere, it's just not going to be called "sorcerer," because that meant something different in D&D history. So you don't need to get too bent out of of shape.

I disagree with the premise. The sorcerer has been in two editions: 3rd and 4th. It is different in each. In 3E, the sorcerer was basically a wizard who sacrificed the number of spells he could learn (and thus, utility) for being able to cast more spells per day and being able to cast spontaneously (if more slowly). In 4E, the Sorcerer embraced the "magical heritage" lore from 3E and became a high-damage spellcaster of various lineage, with the possibility to turn spells into melee attacks via a feat.

The sorcerer we have now in the playtest is the evolution of that concept. it is unlike either of the sorcerers before it, but then the 4E sorcerer was unlike the 3E sorcerer, too. There is no one thing that someone can point to and say, "That's a sorcerer," because each edition has had its own version of the class.

Sure, the dragon sorcerer was a melee/casting hybrid. But that was the dragon sorcerer--not the sorcerer as a whole. Other heritages could have had different focuses, with pure casting like the 3E sorcerer, wild magic like the 4E sorcerer option, and so on. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the basic idea for that class.

And now, the most exciting thing to come out of Next so far is being "pulled back" and then renamed because some people couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that heritages could do wildly different things.

The warlock is in a similar boat. Since the warlock has been different in each of its appearances (and even had three versions of itself in 4E), there is no one "D&D warlock." The warlock is what the developers define it to be. The sorcerer should have been treated the same way, rather than capitulating to people who probably would rather just have reprints of AD&D second edition manuals.

None of the Next classes are what they were "classically." Why should the Sorcerer be the lone exception to that idea?

I'm A Banana · Oct 16, 2012

thewok said:
The sorcerer we have now in the playtest is the evolution of that concept. it is unlike either of the sorcerers before it, but then the 4E sorcerer was unlike the 3E sorcerer, too. There is no one thing that someone can point to and say, "That's a sorcerer," because each edition has had its own version of the class.

Sure, but there is a way for someone who played a 3e sorcerer to point at the 5e sorcerer and say, "I can't play that as the same kind of sorcerer," and that's a problem for WotC.

In 5e, though they might revolutionize some mechanics (see: Expertise Dice), they're not really trying to revolutionize the concept of a thing. 4e was more comfortable with doing this, and it earned heaps of scorn for it, so 5e is being much more cautious about it. If a 3e player can't look at at the 5e sorcerer and say "That's a sorcerer!", then they've got an issue. Judging by this L&L, they've got exactly that issue.

thewok said:
None of the Next classes are what they were "classically." Why should the Sorcerer be the lone exception to that idea?

I disagree. The fighter is a flexible warrior with a suite of combat options, for instance, and that's quite similar to what a fighter has been "classically." The rogue is also trying to explore noncombat space and be great at exploration skills, which resembles the "classic" rogue pretty well. The wizard is mostly about memorizing and casting spells, which is the "classic" wizard (though they've got a few at-wills bolted on). The cleric is a spellcasting healer/buffer with deity-granted specific magic, which is very similar to the "classic" cleric.

Anyone who played a cleric in 1e can recognize the 5e version as being the same basic beast. This isn't true with someone who played a sorcerer in 3e or 4e looking at the 5e version and its mutant powers. It's too different.

Also, being renamed isn't the end of the world. If you like the class, GOOD NEWS, you'll probably still be able to play something much like it, and even call yourself a sorcerer if you want. But D&D doesn't need to force everyone to accept something different under the same name. That's 4e Archon territory.

Falling Icicle · Oct 16, 2012

ZombieRoboNinja said:
I've got that ol' familiar feeling I get from these articles: disappointment, which is usually tempered by pleasant surprise when I see what they actually do in the playtest. For example, I hated the "fighter design goals" with a passion, but those goals somehow led to the CS fighter, which I am very excited about.

You're right, there is still reason to be hopeful, if not optimistic. When they talked about their goals for the fighter, the entire impression I took away was that they didn't have a clue what to do with the class. At that time, they probably didn't. And yet they still managed to come up with the awesomeness that is CS. I just hope lightning can strike twice and they can do the same for the rogue.

I think the reason this article depressed me is that it indicates a lack of clear direction. It's like they've gone adrift. The really liked alot of the older articles, like when they talked about bounded accuracy, ability scores, and so on. They had a clear vision of what they were trying to accomplish, and it was new, innovative, bold. Instead of being all timid and wavering about it, they came out and defended the idea. Now, it's like they're being too timid to defend their ideas lest the offend someone. I understand that they need to take feedback into consideration and all that, it just seems like they got rebuked on the warlock and sorcerer and vancian wizard and now they're backtracking and don't seem to know what to do.

Manbearcat · Oct 16, 2012

Stormonu said:
I'd also ask the converse: what should be proffered to appeal directly to 4Eers?

Outside of these things mentioned by @pemerton and @Magil, I would also include:

1 - Player Metagame Resources;

1a - Character Builds including a suite of thematic Encounter Powers that they can deploy reliably from Actor and Director Stance that allows them to impose their vision upon the fiction.

1b - Bennies/Action Points (etc) that players earn from Milestone System (story or thematic) and, again, are able to deploy reliably from Actor and Director Stance (which allows them to impose their vision upon the fiction).

2 - Evocative, user-friendly, elegant Swarm mechanics that allow for diverse usage (from swarms of bugs, to animal herds/stampedes, to swarms of orcs/barbarians, to mass combat).

3 - Diverse, evocative Hazard/Trap system with mechanics that are unified with the rest of the system.

4 - User-friendly Condition Track system that allows for the DM to threaten the PCs further inside of the Encounter system and outside of it as well (4e could be improved upon here - both balance and simplification of mechanics).

5 - On the same line as Magil's post, regarding combat:

5a - A more granular action economy.

5b - Hard-coded terrain system.

5c - Much more mobility embedded in Classes' and Monsters' resources (including shift). Further, a wider scope (this is controversial as it seems this is unwieldy for many...but myself and my grouop love it) of immediate actions. Both of these allow for breaking of the "Rock-em, Sock-em Robots", "Battleship" nature of turn based combat.