D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[tetrasodium]

But that's really the issue. For some of us, we could clearly visualize what the power was doing, and didn't need the extra bits. Others really wanted to know "hey, how does this power even work??!!111" and there was...very little. Why did it work without all the things Oofta mentioned that would definitely have been in the ability in almost every other edition? Why does it work on mindless undead and avatars of dead gods? Because it says so, and that's the same with just about every other thing in 4e.

Now, there's something to be said about abilities that don't have a million caveats about what they can be used against. Take for example 3e's Sneak attack. It's "precision-based damage" so it can't be multiplied on a crit. Doesn't work against undead or constructs or oozes (I think?) or elementals, who in strict defiance of their art and minis "have no discernible back or front", or even sometimes against creatures who had too many eyes (all-around vision) or were inexplicably, Rogues 5 levels higher than you were. Can't be part of a "volley" attack. Needed clarifications on whether or not it worked with some spells (something I had DM's reject outright as a matter of course). In fact it was the areas where it wasn't limited that got the most scrutiny, like DM's who insisted it was "once per turn" and "you can't Sneak Attack with a greatsword"!

Now contrast and compare Sneak Attack in 5e. Yes, it can only be used once a turn. No, you can't use it with a Greatsword. But when you meet it's requirements (have advantage or don't have disadvantage when attacking someone adjacent to an ally who isn't incapacitated) it works. You don't have to ask if you can crit with it. Or if it works on random strange creature #852. It does.

And there's a lot less argument about it. People (mostly) accept that this is the Rogue's method of dealing damage and their means of contributing in a fight. But removing all the "grey areas" from the rules is going to invite these questions- we see it actually even in 5e now, where the designers don't explicitly define things like what "teleport" means or whether or not a hemisphere has a floor, and multiple page thread debates arise over it. And even if some developer weighs in via a tweet (or X or whatever you call it now), a lot of people still disagree, lol.

4e told us we don't have to quibble about the details. But it turned out, for a lot of people, the fun was in the details. They like knowing things like "you can't charm a zombie" (even though, inexplicably, you can in 5e). That fireballs are somewhat inexact, being spheres in a world of cubes. And what mystical words one needs to mumble to cast magic missile. Oh and being able to rely on things like "magic missile always hits" even if it turns out to be better that it doesn't, lol.

The 3.x limits on sneak attack were a good thing that provided the gm quite a bit of influence over how the party needed to approach a given encounter and more. 5e'half baked natural language is a mess simplification

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that's really the issue. For some of us, we could clearly visualize what the power was doing, and didn't need the extra bits. Others really wanted to know "hey, how does this power even work??!!111" and there was...very little. Why did it work without all the things Oofta mentioned that would definitely have been in the ability in almost every other edition? Why does it work on mindless undead and avatars of dead gods? Because it says so, and that's the same with just about every other thing in 4e.

It is due the structure of 4e's design that most powers need to usually work and can't be situational. Because there is no shared pool of power uses, but each power has a single use, situational powers are a massive liability. If you can't use two of your four encounter powers against the foes in this encounter, then that is your power budget halved! (And despite this, they still botched it, as there are many powers that require several foes to be effective or even usable at all, so fail to function against solo foes.) The issue is easily averted by a shared pool, like 5e's battlemaster fighter has. As long as at least one of your manoeuvres is usable in the situation, you can burn your whole budget via that, so some manoeuvres being situational is not such a big deal.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When I first saw it, I was completely turned off by things like reach weapons being made almost useless and strange 1/combat or 1/day maneuvers that did "2[W] damage and slowed the target until the end of their next turn." It wasn't until I actually played the game more that I realized how good it was, despite it's initial presentation.

For me it was exactly the opposite.

The only thing that rubbed me the wrong way initially was the abundance of obvious errors in the core books.

Essentials nearly won me back. But ultimately the game was just too time consuming and not immersive enough.

 

[James Gasik]

The 3.x limits on sneak attack were a good thing that provided the gm quite a bit of influence over how the party needed to approach a given encounter and more. 5e'half baked natural language is a mess simplification

Going to have to disagree: telling a Rogue player that his one big combat trick only works against half the monsters in the game didn't sound like a good thing to me then or now.

EDIT: ok, it's not half. It's about 1/3, not counting things that are very hard to sneak attack due to being immune to flanking, like Swarms or Beholders, and the existence of the existence of Fortification Armor and Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. So call it a better than 33% chance of fighting something immune to Sneak Attack.

 

[Lanefan]

You keep saying the features rely on the PC knowing someone, as if that's a precondition that needs to be satisfied before their benefits can be received.

To me, this seems blindingly obvious.

That is not how the features are written. In some cases, a benefit of the feature is that you know someone. Receiving that benefit doesn't "rely" on you knowing someone. You just do.

How?

How do you know that someone, in a place you've never been? What's the backstory that put that person there? Easy to answer once, sure, but not so easy to answer when it happens in every place you visit no matter how remote.

And this is something you're reading back into the features that isn't there. There's no requirement, explicitly stated or otherwise, that you know or are known by someone.

This seems an example of letting game rules trump in-fiction believability; where the reverse should IMO be true.

 

[James Gasik]

Game rules have to be written at least somewhat agnostically, edge cases are what the DM is for. "Believability" on the other hand, is not a universal thing, especially when applied to a given fantasy game world.

 

[Raiztt]

Are people really expecting whatever comes out in September to be substantially different from what we currently have?

 

[James Gasik]

Are people really expecting whatever comes out in September to be substantially different from what we currently have?

How does that quote go? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting a different result?

 

[Cadence]

Are people really expecting whatever comes out in September to be substantially different from what we currently have?

Depends on the meaning of "substantial" I'm guessing. (Were Holmes->Moldvay->Metntzer, 3->3.5, 4->Ess, etc.. substantial?).

 

[Raiztt]

Depends on the meaning of "substantial" I'm guessing. (Were Holmes->Moldvay->Metntzer, 3->3.5, 4->Ess, etc.. substantial?).

I'm fully expecting something on the scale of 3e -> 3.5 to be perfectly honest. D&D as it exists now is the most profitable it has ever been I cannot imagine any corporate ghoul wanting to take any risks that would deviate from the goose that laid the golden egg. Surveys be damned.