Fourward Path

[AbdulAlhazred]

That right there is definitely a move towards modern game design which would be a real advancement in my opinion.

I've toyed with this idea in the past. After all, if you have your attack stat at 18 at 1st level and you add "standard" magic items (or inherent bonus) and expertise, you attack at level +3 for the majority of the 30-level spread. Getting rid of the necessity of maxing out one stat and also not having to obsess about having the correct attack item is certainly enticing.

This is how I see skills and skill challenges working in 4e.

But combat I see more as about deploying your powers, and using them - plus p 42 - to manipulate the field of battle to optimse your situation. This makes differeneces in attack bonus a needless complication, I think. (Using stats for damage is fine - this is like using them for other aspects of combat effect, like the number of squares pushed or whatever.)

Yeah, but one of the things that I saw with less hardcore players in 4e was a difficulty focusing in on the thematic elements needed to make their character be 'who I want to be'. 5e CLEARLY recognizes that, in spades! In 5e it is incredibly easy to be 'Big Axe Dwarf!' You can do it with one selection of a class and subclass (and race, but that part is chrome) at chargen. 4e makes you constantly keep making choices so you CONTINUE to be 'big axe dwarf'. I mean, there's an argument for thematic flexibility, but I also think there's an argument for just being what you are in the most simple terms. So you want to be 'Big Axe Dwarf' in HoML you put +4 in STR, probably crank up your CON as much as you can/want, don some heavy armor, pick up an axe, select the 'Axe Master' boon for first level, and you're on your way. You could do nothing about your Axe forever more in HoML from that day and you will plainly want to hack things with that nasty hunk of iron for the rest of your career. You are plainly Big Axe Dwarf. When you solve problems, by gosh you use your muscley muscles and your dwarfy axe.

Its just moving the focus a little to create tighter thematics, but without restricting your options in other respects (IE you can generate a TON of ways to make 'hack it with my axe' into a favorable proposition). You can obviously have more than one dimension to your character as well. I don't think you'd play a HoML character 20 levels without some further development. You just probably wouldn't develop into a rapier fencer...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think in the 4e framework, at least as it currently exists, this is handled in two different ways: out of combat, by way of "fail forward" narration in skill challenges; in combat, by power design (including out of turn actions with various sorts of triggers).

Changing combat to be more like skill challenges would be a big change. At that point, what is 4e offering that can't be found in a system like Cortex+ Heroic, or HeroQuest revised?

Yeah, I have gone a bit of the way to what [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] is talking about, which is to say an action always changes the situation, even in combat. This IS currently a difference between combat and non-combat situations, even in HoML to some extent. It still has a D&D lineage and recognizably 4e-derived combat, so it IS possible to stand around and whiff a whole bunch. Its just that critical failures usually do cause things to happen, and there's morale 'damage', which means you are unlikely to end up with one enemy elite soldier standing his ground for 5 rounds at the end of a fight (which is quite possible in 4e, though obviously the GM can fix that).

 

[pemerton]

one of the things that I saw with less hardcore players in 4e was a difficulty focusing in on the thematic elements needed to make their character be 'who I want to be'. 5e CLEARLY recognizes that, in spades! In 5e it is incredibly easy to be 'Big Axe Dwarf!' You can do it with one selection of a class and subclass (and race, but that part is chrome) at chargen. 4e makes you constantly keep making choices so you CONTINUE to be 'big axe dwarf'.

For me, that mechanical intricacy is one of the defining features of 4e.

I've got nothing against a game in which I choose at PC gen to be "Big Axe Dwarf!" and then that's what my character is, but these sorts of "free descriptor" games already exist (Cortex+, HeroQuest revised, I guess Fate too though I know it less well, and probably many others I'm not familiar with or an forgetting at the moment - Over the Edge and Maelstrom Storytelling are early-to-mid-90s exemplars which can do this sort of thing too).

For me, it would seem a lot of effort to turn 4e into one of those games - I'd rather just use 4e for what it does, and use those games (Cortex+ Heroic is one I'm running at the moment) for the other thing.

(That's not to say that other's are wasting their time making the effort - it's just to explain my tendency to watch what those others are doing rather than join in myself.)

 

[Garthanos]

I think in the 4e framework, at least as it currently exists, this is handled in two different ways: out of combat, by way of "fail forward" narration in skill challenges; in combat, by power design (including out of turn actions with various sorts of triggers).

Oh no doubt but I think some of that is inconsistent. We even have those miss effects including granting combat advantage or damage on a miss. I was just thinking in terms of perhaps having a little higher consistency. Rather like a flanking rule instead of power design. Even a basic attack could cause it ... Where as a subtle attack might be an exception.

Changing combat to be more like skill challenges would be a big change. At that point, what is 4e offering that can't be found in a system like Cortex+ Heroic, or HeroQuest revised?

I have heard the idea of making skill challenges go the other way causing more hit point like break down of the challenge.

 

[Garthanos]

For me, that mechanical intricacy is one of the defining features of 4e.

For me it might just be a defining feature of D&D, -- starts counting the names of polearms.

I've got nothing against a game in which I choose at PC gen to be "Big Axe Dwarf!" and then that's what my character is, but these sorts of "free descriptor" games already exist (Cortex+, HeroQuest revised, I guess Fate too though I know it less well, and probably many others

Fate is definitely driven by those big bold descriptors. The dynamic of Aspects and Fate Points while fascinating would only work in D&D if you had significantly simpler character design AND that will never happen for mages and because of that... well let's just call it incidentally incompatible.

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, I have gone a bit of the way to what [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] is talking about, which is to say an action always changes the situation, even in combat. This IS currently a difference between combat and non-combat situations, even in HoML to some extent. It still has a D&D lineage and recognizably 4e-derived combat, so it IS possible to stand around and whiff a whole bunch.

Didnt 13A add damage on a miss across the board?

 

[pemerton]

I have heard the idea of making skill challenges go the other way causing more hit point like break down of the challenge.

That's how Duel of Wits works in Burning Wheel. But in BW it works similar to Fight! (the complex melee resolution system) and Range and Cover (the complex missile skirmishing resolution system) - a series of "moves" are defined in mechanical terms, and everyone has access to them (with some abilities modifying the moves, a bit like feats that modify basic attacks).

The 4e equivalent would require powers for the new resolution system.

Fate is definitely driven by those big bold descriptors. The dynamic of Aspects and Fate Points while fascinating would only work in D&D if you had significantly simpler character design AND that will never happen for mages and because of that... well let's just call it incidentally incompatible.

In a descriptor-driven game, I'd be happy with the mage having the Fire Mage or Psychic Witch or whatever descriptor - that's how Cortex+ Heroic (both Marvel and the fantasy hack) handles it, and it works fine. Though differently from D&D!

 

[Marshall]

As to 4e growth
There are so many things that could have been pushed further (of course, right now, I can't think of much of them... stupid brain...) but the big ones in my mind right now :
[*]a further refinement of roles - especially the multi-role design of the [Berserker]

Uh, no. The Berserker and the multirole concept were abject failures by a design team that didnt understand the concept. The idea of switching between roles just means that half your abilities and/or powers are inaccessable at any given time.
The whole point of the role system was to define what the class was ALWAYS capable of, it never was a shackle on broadening classes capabilities. Even as early as the PHB, the concept of the subrole was implicitly applied. 2H Fighters were sub-strikers, Warlocks were always sub-controllers, Paladins are sub-leaders, etc, etc...
The same issue arises with the multi-power source classes, they are a result of a gross misunderstanding of the concept...

[*]a further integration and development of long terms afflictions by use of the [disease track]
[*]a further exploration of auras
[*]more development of abilities similar to the [skald]'s healing aura (where the other characters expend the action)
[*]more integration of SC into creature design - especially for solo design
[*]an exploration system where environments are built in a manner similar to a mix between a foe and an SC - actually, more like traps were
[*]...certainly some other cool thing I'll think about right after I log out...

Most of the actually good high level battles I played involved some form of SC that had to be completed to win. Its just way too easy for a coordinated team to tear thru any sized bag of HP at high level to make that a focal point.
So, yeah. Building 1e style puzzle monsters with integrated SCs and some good examples of terrain challenges/powers would go a long way.

It occurs to me that that is most of 4e's problem, its a fantastic 1000pc double sided jigsaw puzzle with no box art to show what it can do...

As to evolution
There are many things I would have liked to be in a 5e-from-4e that are actually in 5e... But many are missing also, and quite a few important parts were killed off
[*]removal of the 'fiddly' bonuses

Define 'fiddly'? None of the attack boosters are fiddly. Whether some are necessary is a different story. The last thing you want to do is remove all form of customization and tactics by collapsing everything into Dis/Ad.
Now, if you're referring to the glut of +2 damage on Mondays with a Butter Knife type bonuses....then yeah. 4e doesnt reward strategic thinking enough. Surprise is mostly useless, so no one tries to get it. Having a Boar Spear when fighting Boars(frex) is usually such a minor advantage that its not worth the effort to pick one up or the cost of doing so is impossible to pay. (Ex. Swapping to a spear obviates all your hammer feats, powers)

[*]better "human-facing" action economy system (this is where 4e could make the greatest gains in time-per-round-per-player)

Losing the Move Action for Speed was the only actual improvement that 5e made, then they went and borked it by making withdrawl an action, the bonus action insanity and collapsing all the reactions...trading engagement for some nebulous time bonus isnt good.

 

[Garthanos]

That's how Duel of Wits works in Burning Wheel.

Yes BW seemed quite fascinating.

But in BW it works similar to Fight! (the complex melee resolution system) and Range and Cover (the complex missile skirmishing resolution system) - a series of "moves" are defined in mechanical terms, and everyone has access to them (with some abilities modifying the moves, a bit like feats that modify basic attacks).

The 4e equivalent would require powers for the new resolution system.

Arguably some of the skill functions point to that

In a descriptor-driven game, I'd be happy with the mage having the Fire Mage or Psychic Witch or whatever descriptor - that's how Cortex+ Heroic (both Marvel and the fantasy hack) handles it, and it works fine. Though differently from D&D!

Dramatically so I know it can work in their context just saying it would never be D&D... ie we agree that D&D is bound up in what many games would call fiddly bits and are a feature.

 

[Garthanos]

Having a Boar Spear when fighting Boars(frex) is usually such a minor advantage that its not worth the effort to pick one up or the cost of doing so is impossible to pay. (Ex. Swapping to a spear obviates all your hammer feats, powers)

The over specialization issue definitely there its the same reason people end up using only 1 of their at-wills.
Flexible characters need to be more viable in my opinion.

Losing the Move Action for Speed was the only actual improvement that 5e made

move 2 spaces perform a standard action, move 2 more perform a minor action, move 2 more ...