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.
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).
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
