Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DogBackward" data-source="post: 5958606" data-attributes="member: 50642"><p>This is simply not true. So, yes, a Cleric who worships the <em>God of War</em> can, for one hour, become about as good as a Fighter in damage output. Not in accuracy, just damage, and he does so by using a once-per-day ability. And uses <em>another</em> once-per-day ability in order to have as much HP as the Fighter.</p><p></p><p>The problem here isn't that the Fighter isn't the best at Fighting, it's that for some reason, people love ignoring the fact that (in any normal game) there will be more than one fight in a day. Yes, you can <em>almost</em> match me in damage and health (but again, not accuracy, which is <em>huge</em> in a flat-math system) for an hour. When that hour's up? When your spells run out, I'm <em>still</em> a raging badass.</p><p></p><p>First of all, again, limited uses per day. Yes, the Wizard can Charm Person... but not only can they only do it once, they can't do it without pissing off whoever they did it to; you'll note that the target of Charm Person knows they were charmed. So yeah, the Wizard <em>could</em> simply Charm the merchant... but if you don't want to be chased out of town, you might want to let someone with a social Background use Diplomacy instead.</p><p></p><p>Which brings me to my second point; flexibility doesn't have to be given purely in activated class features. Everybody has flexibility, because everybody has ability scores and skills. If you're playing a Fighter, you're doing so because the main thing you want to do is hit things. Gaining the ability to "Kill More Stuff" is <em>exactly</em> what a Fighter wants. Beyond that, if the only thing you use to decide what your character can do is specifically written-down class features, then that's your fault, not the game's. You have skills, you have an imagination, use it. The Wizard being able to do lots of unique things is mechanically balanced against the Fighter's combat prowess. In-game, you don't need special abilities to do things other than attack. You simply say "This is what I'm doing." The flat math and ability/skill system is designed specifically to make that easy. Flat math means that anybody can try anything, and have a non-zero chance of success.</p><p></p><p>And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing?</p><p></p><p>There's a big difference between "I don't know what the Fighter is supposed to be." and "I know what the Fighter's supposed to be, but I'm still working on figuring out the best way to implement it."</p><p></p><p>As for the Guardian theme... the Fighter in 4e has dozens (maybe even <em>hundreds</em> by now) of abilities that use the same type of action. Why is this somehow a bad thing? It's called opportunity cost. "If I use ability A, I can't use ability B at the same time, so which one is worth more to me right now?"</p><p></p><p>Well, there's also the aid action. And the fact that you're not seeing all of the spells out there. For one, there are already great teamwork options; the Wizard has Invisibility, for example... but doesn't have the Stealth skill or Dexterity to make good use of it. If you read it, you'll notice that it doesn't remove the need for sneaking, it just allows you to attempt to sneak when you normally wouldn't be able to. A Wizard trying to sneak, even while invisible, would still have a horrible Stealth check, and probably get caught. So what's the best option? Make the Rogue invisible. Bam, teamwork.</p><p></p><p>There's also the fact that, again, you don't need abilities that specifically say "Give this bonus to your teammate" in order to use teamwork. There are going to be tons upon tons of special abilities and spell in the game. Not only will many of those be teamwork oriented (Mearls has already talked about the Bard, for example), but there will be dozens of ways to combine your abilities to work as a team. You don't need an ability that says "Hey, work together." All you have to do is say "Hey guys, working together makes things go much more smoothly. Let's do that."</p><p></p><p>And if you don't work together? You'll be less effective. That's the way it works, and trying to enforce teamwork is artificial and boring.</p><p></p><p>Okay, right... repeat after me: "<em>Play. Test.</em>" Do you really expect a full complement of options and abilities in a very early Alpha playtest? Of course not. However, there have been very specific talks about what's to come; like special combat maneuvers for the Fighter, different abilities for the Rogue. It was states long ago that the designers <em>specifically</em> chose to use the low-option, simple version of the Fighter. Y'know, for the people that like playing simple characters (which you can't really do easily in 4e).</p><p></p><p>And you know full well you won't need to worry about the options that Wizards and Clerics will have.</p><p></p><p>Also, remember that this is level one. Level one characters in 4e are reduced to spamming their at-wills just as much, and it gets just as boring. And you wanna talk about inflated hit points?The weakest kobold in 4e has (if I'm remembering right) about 24 HP. Most normal kobolds in Next have 1. The strongest normal kobold? 10. If you're talking about the boss monsters... <em>they're <strong>boss</strong> monsters</em>. Even the boss of all the Kobolds only has 44 HP. The Ogre has 88... and is the equivalent of a 3rd or 4th level boss enemy. Of course it has tons of hit points, because it's meant to challenge a party of triple the party's level. Wanna take a look at the average solo in 4e and talk about hit points? Especially if you're fighting a solo of 3-4 levels higher than your party.</p><p></p><p>Have... have you actually played the playtest? "Ease of play" is the thing that people are shouting their praise for all over the internet. I'll admit that not listing spell effects in monster stats is an issue... and so did a lot of other people. And guess what? They listened, and said that they'll work on improving that issue. As for keeping track of player spells... you don't need software, you need your book on hand. And again, we'll look at 4e... 3-4 pages of power cards for <em>every</em> class, even at mid-level? It's impossible to play a "simple" class in 4e, and you want to talk about "ease of play".</p><p></p><p>This is another "we're in playtest" problem. DM guidelines are not something mechanical that needs to be tested early, so they can be included once the rules themselves are hammered out.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and for your "terrain" and no forced movement... do your players never improvise? You don't have to look at a character sheet to know that a normal person can try to push another person around. All it is is a simple contest; I used Strength vs. the higher of the target's Strength or Dexterity. Now, I'll admit, a few guidelines for adjudicating improvisation like this are warranted. But if your players really can't just look at you and say "I want to push him into the pit.", then maybe they shouldn't be playing a tabletope game. 4e trains players to look at their character sheet what they can do. We need to get away from that, because it is limiting by nature.</p><p></p><p>As for monsters... yes, the average, run-of-the-mill mook doesn't have much special about it. They're mooks, that's the point. Now, I will admit that Caves of Chaos is not the best adventure to showcase interesting monsters; it was designed with tons of rather plain monsters. The sheer number of enemies can make this seem like a much bigger problem than it actually is. In addition to that, it's already been stated that they're going to move to having leader type monsters add special abilities to their mooks. So yes, taking out the leader usually becomes a priority. Taking out leiutenants isn't a joke, because unless you take out the boss first, they have a special ability or two in addition to being somewhat tougher than normal.</p><p></p><p>In addition to that, the fact that just about <em>every</em> 4e enemy has a list of special abilities to keep track of is horrible. When you've got a good half-dozen or more enemies, each of which has two to three limited-use abilities that have to be tracked separately and one or more always-on features that have to be remembered, it becomes an nightmare to run.</p><p></p><p>How many ways are there to easily prevent 4e monsters from using their powers? I'll give you a hint; not many. Certainly no more than in any other edition.</p><p></p><p>You can figure out how to exploit a monster's weakness in Next just as easily as in 4e. Lots of kobolds? They're very weak, so use lots of area attacks. Ogre? Heavy damage single target effects. Dragon? Figure out what element it resists, then hit it with the opposite. There is no more or less of this in Next than in 4e. Using tactics and cunning to overcome enemies is just as useful in either edition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DogBackward, post: 5958606, member: 50642"] This is simply not true. So, yes, a Cleric who worships the [i]God of War[/i] can, for one hour, become about as good as a Fighter in damage output. Not in accuracy, just damage, and he does so by using a once-per-day ability. And uses [i]another[/i] once-per-day ability in order to have as much HP as the Fighter. The problem here isn't that the Fighter isn't the best at Fighting, it's that for some reason, people love ignoring the fact that (in any normal game) there will be more than one fight in a day. Yes, you can [i]almost[/i] match me in damage and health (but again, not accuracy, which is [i]huge[/i] in a flat-math system) for an hour. When that hour's up? When your spells run out, I'm [i]still[/i] a raging badass. First of all, again, limited uses per day. Yes, the Wizard can Charm Person... but not only can they only do it once, they can't do it without pissing off whoever they did it to; you'll note that the target of Charm Person knows they were charmed. So yeah, the Wizard [i]could[/i] simply Charm the merchant... but if you don't want to be chased out of town, you might want to let someone with a social Background use Diplomacy instead. Which brings me to my second point; flexibility doesn't have to be given purely in activated class features. Everybody has flexibility, because everybody has ability scores and skills. If you're playing a Fighter, you're doing so because the main thing you want to do is hit things. Gaining the ability to "Kill More Stuff" is [i]exactly[/i] what a Fighter wants. Beyond that, if the only thing you use to decide what your character can do is specifically written-down class features, then that's your fault, not the game's. You have skills, you have an imagination, use it. The Wizard being able to do lots of unique things is mechanically balanced against the Fighter's combat prowess. In-game, you don't need special abilities to do things other than attack. You simply say "This is what I'm doing." The flat math and ability/skill system is designed specifically to make that easy. Flat math means that anybody can try anything, and have a non-zero chance of success. And besides... how much "flexibility" does the 4e Fighter have? All of their powers equate to "Kill More Stuff" or "Be Hard to Kill", just like the Fighter from any other edition. How is this a new thing? There's a big difference between "I don't know what the Fighter is supposed to be." and "I know what the Fighter's supposed to be, but I'm still working on figuring out the best way to implement it." As for the Guardian theme... the Fighter in 4e has dozens (maybe even [i]hundreds[/i] by now) of abilities that use the same type of action. Why is this somehow a bad thing? It's called opportunity cost. "If I use ability A, I can't use ability B at the same time, so which one is worth more to me right now?" Well, there's also the aid action. And the fact that you're not seeing all of the spells out there. For one, there are already great teamwork options; the Wizard has Invisibility, for example... but doesn't have the Stealth skill or Dexterity to make good use of it. If you read it, you'll notice that it doesn't remove the need for sneaking, it just allows you to attempt to sneak when you normally wouldn't be able to. A Wizard trying to sneak, even while invisible, would still have a horrible Stealth check, and probably get caught. So what's the best option? Make the Rogue invisible. Bam, teamwork. There's also the fact that, again, you don't need abilities that specifically say "Give this bonus to your teammate" in order to use teamwork. There are going to be tons upon tons of special abilities and spell in the game. Not only will many of those be teamwork oriented (Mearls has already talked about the Bard, for example), but there will be dozens of ways to combine your abilities to work as a team. You don't need an ability that says "Hey, work together." All you have to do is say "Hey guys, working together makes things go much more smoothly. Let's do that." And if you don't work together? You'll be less effective. That's the way it works, and trying to enforce teamwork is artificial and boring. Okay, right... repeat after me: "[i]Play. Test.[/i]" Do you really expect a full complement of options and abilities in a very early Alpha playtest? Of course not. However, there have been very specific talks about what's to come; like special combat maneuvers for the Fighter, different abilities for the Rogue. It was states long ago that the designers [i]specifically[/i] chose to use the low-option, simple version of the Fighter. Y'know, for the people that like playing simple characters (which you can't really do easily in 4e). And you know full well you won't need to worry about the options that Wizards and Clerics will have. Also, remember that this is level one. Level one characters in 4e are reduced to spamming their at-wills just as much, and it gets just as boring. And you wanna talk about inflated hit points?The weakest kobold in 4e has (if I'm remembering right) about 24 HP. Most normal kobolds in Next have 1. The strongest normal kobold? 10. If you're talking about the boss monsters... [i]they're [b]boss[/b] monsters[/i]. Even the boss of all the Kobolds only has 44 HP. The Ogre has 88... and is the equivalent of a 3rd or 4th level boss enemy. Of course it has tons of hit points, because it's meant to challenge a party of triple the party's level. Wanna take a look at the average solo in 4e and talk about hit points? Especially if you're fighting a solo of 3-4 levels higher than your party. Have... have you actually played the playtest? "Ease of play" is the thing that people are shouting their praise for all over the internet. I'll admit that not listing spell effects in monster stats is an issue... and so did a lot of other people. And guess what? They listened, and said that they'll work on improving that issue. As for keeping track of player spells... you don't need software, you need your book on hand. And again, we'll look at 4e... 3-4 pages of power cards for [i]every[/i] class, even at mid-level? It's impossible to play a "simple" class in 4e, and you want to talk about "ease of play". This is another "we're in playtest" problem. DM guidelines are not something mechanical that needs to be tested early, so they can be included once the rules themselves are hammered out. Oh, and for your "terrain" and no forced movement... do your players never improvise? You don't have to look at a character sheet to know that a normal person can try to push another person around. All it is is a simple contest; I used Strength vs. the higher of the target's Strength or Dexterity. Now, I'll admit, a few guidelines for adjudicating improvisation like this are warranted. But if your players really can't just look at you and say "I want to push him into the pit.", then maybe they shouldn't be playing a tabletope game. 4e trains players to look at their character sheet what they can do. We need to get away from that, because it is limiting by nature. As for monsters... yes, the average, run-of-the-mill mook doesn't have much special about it. They're mooks, that's the point. Now, I will admit that Caves of Chaos is not the best adventure to showcase interesting monsters; it was designed with tons of rather plain monsters. The sheer number of enemies can make this seem like a much bigger problem than it actually is. In addition to that, it's already been stated that they're going to move to having leader type monsters add special abilities to their mooks. So yes, taking out the leader usually becomes a priority. Taking out leiutenants isn't a joke, because unless you take out the boss first, they have a special ability or two in addition to being somewhat tougher than normal. In addition to that, the fact that just about [i]every[/i] 4e enemy has a list of special abilities to keep track of is horrible. When you've got a good half-dozen or more enemies, each of which has two to three limited-use abilities that have to be tracked separately and one or more always-on features that have to be remembered, it becomes an nightmare to run. How many ways are there to easily prevent 4e monsters from using their powers? I'll give you a hint; not many. Certainly no more than in any other edition. You can figure out how to exploit a monster's weakness in Next just as easily as in 4e. Lots of kobolds? They're very weak, so use lots of area attacks. Ogre? Heavy damage single target effects. Dragon? Figure out what element it resists, then hit it with the opposite. There is no more or less of this in Next than in 4e. Using tactics and cunning to overcome enemies is just as useful in either edition. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top