What will happen to 4th edition?

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is that D&D is a luxury item so there's very little incentive to be somewhat accommodating... As to being told 4e was badwrongfun by a very large number of people how soon we forget but 4e was created as a response to people continually telling those who enjoyed 3.0/3.5 that they were having broken badwrongfun and that even WotC took a mocking tone towards those who had enjoyed the game... If anything 4e set the precedent for the squeakiest wheels getting the oil.

So, what you're saying is someone mocked you first and you don't need to be even a little accommodating. Well, I guess my feelings about the D&D Community are being born out...

I don't know who mocked your 3e or whatever. It wasn't me. I heard this "WotC mocked 3.5" meme a few times, and when I've looked at the supposedly mocking materials I didn't find a huge amount to complain about. You COULD construe them to be mocking, IF you wanted to, but it wasn't the only way to parse it.

But the devil is in the details... I don't think too many people objected to the goals of 4e... in fact I'd say this was one of the reasons 4e sold so well initially with the corebooks... but when the final implementation was revealed the side effects, trade-offs, etc. were enough to sour many on the end result.

But what I'm saying is that I don't believe you have to make a huge number of trade-offs.

I'll just say I disagree here. There were things fundamental to 4e... like Skill Challenges, how DC's were computed, the power structure, long set-piece battle fights, and so on that really rubbed people the wrong way but are some of the cornerstones that many 4e fans declared they love about the game... IMO there are some things that are irreconcilable as far as play style goes. And no me heavily house ruling and modding the game to work isn't really an option either... I mean we've got 4e fans in the 5e forum right now that are complaining that some of the monsters don't have cool powers but when it was suggested they design some, the answer was "I shouldn't have to, that's what the designers are paid to do..." D&D is a luxury item and for most people the point of purchasing a luxury item is that it caters to one's wants or desires... just saying.

Well, lets look at these things:

SCs, you didn't ever HAVE to undertake an SC, but they really aren't fundamentally different from what DM's do anyway. Nor are the SCs as they exist in the current RC version of 4e particularly problematic. Certainly if you play any sorts of games that have an option for abstract resolution (like many games have a quick combat system for instance) or many indie game's then you will find the SC to be very much in keeping with that. Its not an 'optional' part of the rules, but its not one you must actually use either, much like some monster you don't care for, you just don't play with it.

DCs, meh, again there is NO COMPROMISE??!! Really? I think at least some 4e people would be happy enough with much of 5e's approach to DCs, but even those who aren't certainly are usually interested in improvements like reducing the size of die modifiers. Things like (dis)advantage could have easily fit into a system that was a bit more like 4e.

I don't think setpiece battles have to be the only alternative. I don't actually think that the 4e designers were aiming quite for what they got here to start with. Nor do I think most of us would demand that fights remain exactly like they are in 4e. Certainly there needed to be a way to abstract a fight and pass over it quickly or put more emphasis on the story aspects of less interesting ones.

PERSONALLY I think in terms of powers that some elements could be closer to earlier editions and again if there's some abstract resolution system then that inherently would allow for more abstract power use as well.

On the whole my feeling was that some things about 4e characters are a little too obtuse. I 'get' what they were trying to do there with e-classes, but again I think it could be done using a more elegant rules solution that has the strengths of the 4e approach vs just going entirely to the opposite extreme of a 'hodge podge' like 5e does.

 

[pemerton]

At some point, you would think people would stop trying to turn D&D into the game they want it be, and recognize it is what it is and either embrace it or move on.

I bristle at being told to 'move on'.

<snip>

Nobody has suggested that YOUR version of the game should not exist, so I'd think you wouldn't want to suggest that other people's version shouldn't either.

I thought I'd add a bit to AbdulAlhazred's comment.

During the 3E/3.5 years I didn't play D&D the system, although I did buy some D&D books to use to support my Rolemaster game, and I used various D&D modules, including the WotC 3E adventure Bastion of Broken Souls as well as the Freeport Trilogy.

I followed D&D developments, and occasionally posted in threads about 3E. But I certainly didn't spend my time campaigning to have D&D re-written as a system I might consider playing.

Then, when 4e was announced, it became fairly clear to me, fairly early on, that WotC was redesigning the system to exclude some features that made 3E a no-go system for me, and to include other features that would make 4e more attractive to me than any previous edition of D&D. As some of these projected changes were being discussed online, I would participate in threads explaining what I thought their rationale was, and how I thought they could improve the play experience.

As far as I am concerned, basically everything that I anticipated about 4e's design came true, and as a system it has more than delivered what I was expecting from it.

But throughout it's lifetime, it seems that nearly every time I go online to talk about it I find some person "trying to turn (WotC's) D&D into the game they want it to be". Mostly, it seems, by telling me that the game I'm playing is either not D&D, or perhaps not an RPG at all.

I share AbdulAlhazred's irritation at that. I also don't see how such people can then, with a straight face, complain about others analysing and critiquing the latest WotC version of the game. Why is D&D now immune from advocacy for change when, for the last 6 years, advocating for change (if nothing else, in the form of ending the then-current edition) seemed for at least some of those people to be a full-time hobby?

If anything 4e set the precedent for the squeakiest wheels getting the oil.

<snip>

There were things fundamental to 4e... like Skill Challenges

The "squeakiest wheel" comment seems odd - what is 5e if not a response to 6 years of squeaking wheels?

Or, conversely, if you think that 5e is really a response to market demands why would you think 4e would be any different? WotC may have become better at measuring their market (in part because 4e players funded 2 years of research and development via DDI!), but the basic goal didn't change. Does anyone really think that, with 4e, WotC deliberately set out to build a system that only a few "squeaky wheels" were interested in?

As far as skill challenges are concerned, in what way are they fundamental to 4e? You could run 4e without using a single skill-challenge if you wanted, just as I have run it without using a single orc. I think there are a handful of (inherently optional) powers that reference the mechanic, plus I think one epic-tier thief ability in one of the Essentials books.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah but ultimately if what you want is incompatible with I want out of D&D... we're both saying one of us should move on... aren't we?

Or WotC can produce a system that is modular. Something they fairly clearly talked about for 5e but WotC appears to have not done at all.

Today I was just being amused by looking at the 4e Slayer (e-fighter) and comparing it to the PHB1 'weaponmaster' fighter. The humorous part is that if you stop worrying about the slayer's (IMHO bad) presentation, you could simply create this class by having a small power list and a single class feature and it would be exactly a standard 4e class. ALMOST nothing would change and the few very tiny changes would hardly be noticed.

Except they would. For whatever reason the D&D stereotypical fighter is an untiring unfeeling character who only cares if they are on 1+hp or 0hp - otherwise they hit at exactly the same level all the time. They don't mechanically pace themselves and they can't bring it when there is trouble. And despite being the masters of combat they aren't terribly interested in the situation's tactics.

You'd have needed options to both:
1: Give up Combat Superiority/Combat Challenge
2: Give up powers for a permanent static damage bonus.

(Of course I've done this in my 4e retroclone. But it's pitched first to 4e fans).

So, I don't see that there is any reason to declare what we want irreconcilable. The sad part is WotC didn't really make a serious attempt TO reconcile it.

Yup.

The problem is that D&D is a luxury item so there's very little incentive to be somewhat accommodating... As to being told 4e was badwrongfun by a very large number of people how soon we forget but 4e was created as a response to people continually telling those who enjoyed 3.0/3.5 that they were having broken badwrongfun and that even WotC took a mocking tone towards those who had enjoyed the game... If anything 4e set the precedent for the squeakiest wheels getting the oil.

The ironly of 3.0 fans complaining about 4e's marketing is strong given how 3.0's marketing talked about 2e.

I'll just say I disagree here. There were things fundamental to 4e... like Skill Challenges,

Skill challenges are neither fundamental to 4e nor more than a DM tool that was heavily botched in the description.

how DC's were computed,

In three incompatible ways? With subsequent supplements changing them? Sounds like D&D to me!

the power structure,

This one qualifies.

long set-piece battle fights, and so on

This one probably does. I've nothing against long set piece battles as long as they are such. Keep on the Shadowfell style long meaningless battles OTOH should die in a fireball.

that really rubbed people the wrong way but are some of the cornerstones that many 4e fans declared they love about the game...

Some of the factors. As mentioned, you can entirely remove skill challenges from 4e without trouble. Skill challenges are a good thing. Early Skill Challenge implementation was a clarinetist; simultaneously sucking and blowing.

I mean we've got 4e fans in the 5e forum right now that are complaining that some of the monsters don't have cool powers but when it was suggested they design some, the answer was "I shouldn't have to, that's what the designers are paid to do..."

Indeed.

Time for a DM to remove Skill Challenges from the game: <30 seconds.
Time for a set of professional designers to get skill challenges right: >1 year.

I'm playing 5e. The Kobolds and Cultists are basically a sack of interchangeable hit points. If you were to make a mistake and label the Kobolds Cultists or vise-versa I'd barely notice. That's weak design. Mechanics not reflecting theme.

It's easier to have options and not use them than create them from scratch.

 

[Imaro]

So, what you're saying is someone mocked you first and you don't need to be even a little accommodating. Well, I guess my feelings about the D&D Community are being born out...

That's not what I said, but playing the victim role without acknowledging the fact that it happens with every edition, including those who advocated for the changes that were implemented from 3.x to 4e is painting a pretty limited picture... unless of course your point is to evoke victim sympathy as opposed to honestly understand and talk about edition transitions in general and the one from 3.x to 4e specifically...

As to why I feel I should be able to comment however I want about 4e... simply put, because I spent my money on the product (books and DDI at one point) and was dissatisfied with it... thus I have every right to discuss and make that dis-satisfaction known.

I don't know who mocked your 3e or whatever. It wasn't me. I heard this "WotC mocked 3.5" meme a few times, and when I've looked at the supposedly mocking materials I didn't find a huge amount to complain about. You COULD construe them to be mocking, IF you wanted to, but it wasn't the only way to parse it.

And if I said I didn't find the negativity directed at 4e to be over the top I'm sure you'd take my unbiased opinion on it just like I'm taking the one above with a large grain of salt.

But what I'm saying is that I don't believe you have to make a huge number of trade-offs.

The problem is you keep stating that 4e should be the base and that's one of the problems... For me 4e wasn't fun so I had no desire to work at getting my fun out of it... I'm sure you could implemen t the things

Well, lets look at these things:

Let's not... because it misses the point... these are examples of some of the problems people had with 4e... I don't have the time nor the inclination to list every issue I and/or everyone else who didn't enjoy 4e had which also probably informs you that I also didn't have the time nor the inclination to figure out and modify the game (if even possible for certain things... like removing the power structure) to be something I and my players enjoyed.

I 'get' what they were trying to do there with e-classes, but again I think it could be done using a more elegant rules solution that has the strengths of the 4e approach vs just going entirely to the opposite extreme of a 'hodge podge' like 5e does.

Just wanted to comment on this real quick... what if people enjoy the so-called hodge podge more than the "elegant" solution, how do you reconcile that?

 

[Imaro]

The "squeakiest wheel" comment seems odd - what is 5e if not a response to 6 years of squeaking wheels?

Why does it seem odd... I don't disagree that 5e is (at least in part) a response to squeaking wheels, but it was (what I believe to be a minority of players) who were dissatisfied with 3.x and made it known continuously on the various boards and other mediums that led to 4e and Pathfinder... Once it was observed that this was the way to enact change why would it be any different for the next edition?

Or, conversely, if you think that 5e is really a response to market demands why would you think 4e would be any different? WotC may have become better at measuring their market (in part because 4e players funded 2 years of research and development via DDI!), but the basic goal didn't change. Does anyone really think that, with 4e, WotC deliberately set out to build a system that only a few "squeaky wheels" were interested in?

It don't think it matters what WotC deliberately set out to do (I don't think they deliberately set out to create an edition that lost them as many players as 4e did or enabled Pathfinder to rise as quickly as it did) once they created the impression that this was the way to enact change it was taken up by many who wanted 4e to be changed...

 

[Imaro]

Or WotC can produce a system that is modular. Something they fairly clearly talked about for 5e but WotC appears to have not done at all.

Well let's wait for the DMG before passing final judgement...

I'm playing 5e. The Kobolds and Cultists are basically a sack of interchangeable hit points. If you were to make a mistake and label the Kobolds Cultists or vise-versa I'd barely notice. That's weak design. Mechanics not reflecting theme.

It's easier to have options and not use them than create them from scratch.

Well first let me say kudos for at least having played the game before making comments unlike a few posters who comment on systems, campaign settings, etc. without having actually played or even read them...

That said I disagree it's weak design... I don't like mechanics that reflect the "theme" of monsters (unless it's a generic list of powers I can choose and pick from but then if not I'll make up my own) because it makes it that much harder to re-purpose them... moreso IMO than fluff that needs to be discarded. But to each his own, I'm just glad this edition seems to be shaping up towards many of my preferences...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Or WotC can produce a system that is modular. Something they fairly clearly talked about for 5e but WotC appears to have not done at all.

Eh, it was a pipe dream that anyone who's spent enough time around RPGs to have learned some game design ropes just laughed at. I can only assume it was pure Mearls pandering to the existing customer base BS as he was planning on throwing them off the boat. I guess its possible he really doesn't know his craft enough to not say stupid things? I hardly think so... I'm generous, I wish Mike well, in a different career.

Except they would. For whatever reason the D&D stereotypical fighter is an untiring unfeeling character who only cares if they are on 1+hp or 0hp - otherwise they hit at exactly the same level all the time. They don't mechanically pace themselves and they can't bring it when there is trouble. And despite being the masters of combat they aren't terribly interested in the situation's tactics.

You'd have needed options to both:
1: Give up Combat Superiority/Combat Challenge
2: Give up powers for a permanent static damage bonus.

(Of course I've done this in my 4e retroclone. But it's pitched first to 4e fans).

Nah. You would give up CS/CC for a static damage bonus and IIRC just keep FWT. You wouldn't need to give up powers, you'd just have a list of powers in the HotFL that consisted of nothing but Power Strike, Advanced Power Strike, Extra Power Strike, Power Strike IV, etc for your daily powers and some sort of lesser version for an encounter power. It would be boring and VERY SLIGHTLY different, but not materially so, from the current Slayer, BUT it would mesh perfectly with the rest of the system, AND you could salvage the terrible Epic blahness of the Slayer with some good high level daily powers. If you have the PHB etc you can just poach regular fighter powers to start with and avoid all the blahness.

The ironly of 3.0 fans complaining about 4e's marketing is strong given how 3.0's marketing talked about 2e.

I was in my D&D Hiatus during 3e, so I never really even heard about that.

Skill challenges are neither fundamental to 4e nor more than a DM tool that was heavily botched in the description.

In three incompatible ways? With subsequent supplements changing them? Sounds like D&D to me!

Honestly, IMHO the real problem was having easy, medium, and hard at each level. A DC should just be a DC of Nth level. If its HARD then its a level+5 DC! If its EASY then its a level-5 DC (or whatever, you can set them at any level you the DM want just like you can combat encounters).

This one probably does. I've nothing against long set piece battles as long as they are such. Keep on the Shadowfell style long meaningless battles OTOH should die in a fireball.

Yeah, the problem was they just seem to have under-appreciated the sheer stultifying idiocy of 5 filler fights in a row with each one being "some hobgoblins in a room fighting to the death." Nowhere does 4e even really talk about things like morale, even though there are actually very good rules for it and a skill that plainly sets out one sort of morale-type situation. Mostly though they simply failed to understand 4e's real niche as an action-adventure style of game, not a procedural dungeon-crawler. Its hard to understand how they got out of playtest without comprehending this, but internal testing really DOES suck.

Some of the factors. As mentioned, you can entirely remove skill challenges from 4e without trouble. Skill challenges are a good thing. Early Skill Challenge implementation was a clarinetist; simultaneously sucking and blowing.

ROFL

Time for a DM to remove Skill Challenges from the game: <30 seconds.
Time for a set of professional designers to get skill challenges right: >1 year.

I'm playing 5e. The Kobolds and Cultists are basically a sack of interchangeable hit points. If you were to make a mistake and label the Kobolds Cultists or vise-versa I'd barely notice. That's weak design. Mechanics not reflecting theme.

It's easier to have options and not use them than create them from scratch.

Yeah, I must say, the 5e monsters so far are not in the same league thematics to mechanics wise with the 4e ones. It really wouldn't be that hard to introduce some sort of minor 'power' for a kobold, like being able to set a trap or a 'dart past' effect that gave them an AC bonus against an OA or something. Shouldn't a mad cultist have something like a nasty damage bonus if it charges or something? I can just see a whole slew of them pelting up to the part in ordinary clothing wielding chair legs with tongues lolling and then WHAM!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not what I said, but playing the victim role without acknowledging the fact that it happens with every edition, including those who advocated for the changes that were implemented from 3.x to 4e is painting a pretty limited picture... unless of course your point is to evoke victim sympathy as opposed to honestly understand and talk about edition transitions in general and the one from 3.x to 4e specifically...

OK, but I can only speak for myself. I wasn't around and didn't pay the slightest attention to anything about D&D from about 1996 to about 2006, except to run a few 2e games and I think I played 3e or 3.5e "drop in for a visit with someone's group" maybe twice. So I missed out on any drama that was up, had no opinion, didn't diss anyone's favorite games, etc. When 4e started to be talked about in circles wide enough that I actually heard of it, not long before it came out, I decided I'd go buy a copy of the rules and maybe play some D&D. Beyond that I didn't drag myself into any 2e vs 1e vs OD&D silliness wars either back in the day, so I consider myself an innocent bystander. That is I was until a whole bunch of self-righteous blankety blanks started carpet bombing. So if any expects that I will ever yield an inch after being the guy that had nothing to do with starting it, they're sadly mistaken. Put down your weapons and go home.

As to why I feel I should be able to comment however I want about 4e... simply put, because I spent my money on the product (books and DDI at one point) and was dissatisfied with it... thus I have every right to discuss and make that dis-satisfaction known.

Fine, but you aren't buying it now, presumably you aren't playing it now, and presumably it is of no interest to you, yet here you are in a thread about the future of a game you could care less about! Its certainly true that you are welcome to post here, and I'd say you might even have something interesting to say about the actual thread topic, but I'm mystified as to why anyone would spend their time dissing a dead game. If you want to start a thread with the topic "All who were dissatisfied with 4e vent here" I'm happy to just not even open that thread...

And if I said I didn't find the negativity directed at 4e to be over the top I'm sure you'd take my unbiased opinion on it just like I'm taking the one above with a large grain of salt.

Well, I'm not directing negativity at any other games. I'll be frank and say I've pointed out the shortcomings of previous editions of D&D in threads, in an illustrative way, not to complain about them or WotC for writing them, etc but just to explain how 4e was different. And yes, if you said that the negativity directed at 4e wasn't 'over the top' I would just put a few appropriate emoticons next to that and roll my eyes. You and I both know it was drastically over the top.

The problem is you keep stating that 4e should be the base and that's one of the problems... For me 4e wasn't fun so I had no desire to work at getting my fun out of it... I'm sure you could implement the things

I'm just saying, whatever you call it, 5e or whatever, that there was a game in there somewhere that was satisfying to both sides, IF they would stop being dorks. Some people just seem to be unable to let go. Thanks a whole lot for that!

Let's not... because it misses the point... these are examples of some of the problems people had with 4e... I don't have the time nor the inclination to list every issue I and/or everyone else who didn't enjoy 4e had which also probably informs you that I also didn't have the time nor the inclination to figure out and modify the game (if even possible for certain things... like removing the power structure) to be something I and my players enjoyed.

I see, you just want to h4te, not actually make any good faith effort to have a community where there's some dialog and some agreement on a common game system that we all could enjoy together. I've never suggested that it should be up to YOU to sit down and make the game you like out of a game you didn't like. I only stated that everyone should have been willing to enter into that process in good faith. I don't think that happened. 5e isn't the result of a good faith effort to bring together the elements of different editions that we could all enjoy together, it was nothing but a purge of the heretics. So no point was missed, except by you IMHO. Just remember, I offered the olive branch, you didn't take it.

Just wanted to comment on this real quick... what if people enjoy the so-called hodge podge more than the "elegant" solution, how do you reconcile that?

I don't have to 'reconcile' anything. You have no interest in reconciliation so why is that my job? I don't see any reason why the default expected solution can't be the one I like and its still possible to bend it in a number of ways without breaking it. If you want to meet on that common ground, give an inch.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm playing 5e. The Kobolds and Cultists are basically a sack of interchangeable hit points. If you were to make a mistake and label the Kobolds Cultists or vise-versa I'd barely notice. That's weak design. Mechanics not reflecting theme.

Yup, that's something I hated already in AD&D 1e and 2e: Having dozens of widely different monsters that had almost exactly the same combat stats. I mean, what's the point? Then I vastly prefer a system that is honest about it and uses templates, e.g. just saying:

Kobold: use stats for small humanoid.

There, done!
Then you can have a book that contains nothing but roleplaying information about monsters with story hooks, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well let's wait for the DMG before passing final judgement...

My issues are already locked into the system it seems. Honestly, modularity can only do so much to a system that is deliberately designed to be antithetical to the style of play that I want to see supported.

Well first let me say kudos for at least having played the game before making comments unlike a few posters who comment on systems, campaign settings, etc. without having actually played or even read them...

That said I disagree it's weak design... I don't like mechanics that reflect the "theme" of monsters (unless it's a generic list of powers I can choose and pick from but then if not I'll make up my own) because it makes it that much harder to re-purpose them... moreso IMO than fluff that needs to be discarded. But to each his own, I'm just glad this edition seems to be shaping up towards many of my preferences...

What's wrong with all kobolds being sneaky and able to set a trap, for example? This is exactly the sort of thing that kobolds DO, so why shouldn't the mechanics of the game support that? Its not likely you will re-purpose that away, and if you decide to use kobold stat blocks to represent something else, why then clearly you'd be wanting to replace or ignore SOMETHING. Having had a vast amount of experience doing this stuff in 4e I assure you that repurposing monsters in various ways is not a big deal. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and on top of that there are all sorts of 'theme' monsters around in all editions that have very specific mechanics. 4e just pushed that down to the level of the more mundane monsters so that you could make them all feel special, instead of the AD&D 'bags of hit points' kobold, goblin, orc, hobgoblin, gnoll, bugbear, ogre, (hill giants actually have a special ability). Actually it wasn't even a 4e innovation, 3e did it too. Heck, even in 1e there were rules for adding special stuff to humanoids.