As long as we are talking hypothetically...

[thecasualoblivion]

Exactly correct. 4E is designed so that the math works. And everything new must comply with the boundaries of that math.

And this is worse than having bad math that causes the game to break down?

 

[wingsandsword]

Exactly correct. 4E is designed so that the math works. And everything new must comply with the boundaries of that math.

In the long term, that is a design flaw.

3.5 had balance in mind, but it was a lot more open. It was an open-ended framework that designers could add new things to. It meant it was easier to break balance, but it was far easier to expand. It had room for creative new kinds of magic like Incarnum, among many others. It had room for new classes that went in new directions. It was a system but it was meant to be expanded.

4e is much more tightly built, to me in a bad way. Niche protection, very tight class design, very closed-end design from a mechanical end. Yes, you can come up with two dozen new power sources, but in the end it's just fluff and slight variations on what came before, but if 4e ends up being as innovatively expanded as 3.5 I will be utterly amazed.

 

[Nifft]

Niche protection, very tight class design, very closed-end design from a mechanical end. Yes, you can come up with two dozen new power sources, but in the end it's just fluff and slight variations on what came before, but if 4e ends up being as innovatively expanded as 3.5 I will be utterly amazed.

What do you see as "niche protection" in 4e? I mean, 3.x had Trapfinding, which served no purpose except to let everyone know they needed to hire a Guild-certified Rogue, not some cheap imitation (like a Ranger).

I see less of that stuff in 4e.

Cheers, -- N

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In the long term, that is a design flaw.

3.5 had balance in mind, but it was a lot more open. It was an open-ended framework that designers could add new things to. It meant it was easier to break balance, but it was far easier to expand. It had room for creative new kinds of magic like Incarnum, among many others. It had room for new classes that went in new directions. It was a system but it was meant to be expanded.

4e is much more tightly built, to me in a bad way. Niche protection, very tight class design, very closed-end design from a mechanical end. Yes, you can come up with two dozen new power sources, but in the end it's just fluff and slight variations on what came before, but if 4e ends up being as innovatively expanded as 3.5 I will be utterly amazed.

3.5E had balance in mind when it nerfed melee characters and removed every roadblock to caster dominance compared to AD&D? As for innovative characters, which ones? Incarnum was kind of far fetched, Bo9S and Psionics were controversial favorites, Tome of Magic included the interesting Binder and two failures. For PHB2, Beguiler and Duskblade were solid but hardly on the cutting edge of innovation.

As for 4E:

Niche Protection--Aside from limiting classes to one role and the fact that you'll never be as good at a different role as a class of that role, there is a lot of flexibility here. I'm currently playing an unkillable melee Striker Wizard.

Very Tight Class Design--I see only one limitation here, and the best way to describe this is that if you are a Fighter, you can't build yourself to not be a Fighter. I don't really see the issue. The classes and different build choices for those classes are all plenty distinct.

Closed Ended--PHB2 introduced some interesting subtle variants on the game, as have the Monk preview and the Artificer. Nothing as big a departure as Incarnum, but the differences are distinctive enough to be differences.

 

[am181d]

4e is much more tightly built, to me in a bad way. Niche protection, very tight class design, very closed-end design from a mechanical end. Yes, you can come up with two dozen new power sources, but in the end it's just fluff and slight variations on what came before, but if 4e ends up being as innovatively expanded as 3.5 I will be utterly amazed.

Gotta disagree. The power mechanic is pretty broad, particularly as far as races go, and we're seeing looser design rules on the DM/monster side, not stricter ones.

And as far as player options go, we're seeing more and more variations rom beast companions to summoning to Dragonmarks to multi-classing/hybrids/spellscarring to monk attack/move powers.

I will say this: powers (and balance concerns) make designing original/homebrew 4e classes a lot more daunting than it ever was in 3e or before...

 

[Nifft]

I will say this: powers (and balance concerns) make designing original/homebrew 4e classes a lot more daunting than it ever was in 3e or before...

Agreed. You basically have to write a whole new magic system for every class, comparable to 1/3 of the estimable 3.5e Tome of Magic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

...comment on your response to the following scenario:

1. 4E is successful, maintains itself as the top selling and most played RPG, and runs 8-10 years in its current direction before being replaced by a 5E even less like previous editions
2. Pathfinder tapers off after a successful launch by 3PP standards, and achieves a stable presence on par with True20 or Mutants and Masterminds.
3. The 3.5E playing community shrinks over time until its on par with people playing previous editions.
4. OGL based gaming begins a slow decline, with the big names soldiering on and fewer and fewer new products being released.

I think it is a likely scenario, with two exceptions.

1.- I think 5th edition will be here in about 6 years, not 8-10

2.- Paizo could reach a level where it reaches a popularity just below White Wolf and become a good business with a confortable level of sales for their company size. Not everybody needs to become "#1" in order to survive in business

-

I don't buy the idea that 4th Edition D&D is remotely similar to the New Coke scenario. The people who keep hoping for the "WotC collapse and bankruptcy and Paizo rescuing the D&D hobby" are just living a fantasy.

According to Amazon.com, 4th Edition D&D books hold 7 of the 10 bestselling positions of the category "Roleplaying & Fantasy"

Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items in Role Playing & Fantasy. Updated hourly.

 

[Cadfan]

If the OP's scenario happens, I probably end up playing 5e.

I love 4e. Right now. I loved 3e too, though. And then after 8 years I knew all of its flaws, all of its warts, all of its hidden blemishes, and I knew them intimately. And I was ready for something new to come along that fixed as much of those things as possible.

And I knew that it would get other things wrong. And it would try new things, and some of those new things would fall flat. But gaming is a journey and not a destination, so I'm fine with that.

Now I'm playing 4e. And slowly, over time, I'm starting to notice some flaws in the system. They tend not to be the sorts of flaws that get complained about online, because unfortunately a significant amount of the complaining about 4e is driven by trolls and people only vaguely familiar with the system. But eventually that will die out and we'll get to the point we were in during 3e, discussing 3e's flaws and how to solve them. And we'll do the same thing. We'll talk about the problems with 4e, we'll talk about how we get past those problems, and those conversations will enter into the culture and the collective mind of the gaming community, and in some small way effect the development of 5th edition when its time comes.

And 5e will do the same things. Fix some stuff well. Fix some stuff awkwardly. Update the game to match newer fantasy concepts. Try some new experiments, and succeed and really broaden the game. Try some new experiments and fail. And the cycle will continue and if I'm playing rpgs that many years in the future I'll probably be part of it and probably have a great time.

 

[Starbuck_II]

In the long term, that is a design flaw.

3.5 had balance in mind, but it was a lot more open. It was an open-ended framework that designers could add new things to. It meant it was easier to break balance, but it was far easier to expand. It had room for creative new kinds of magic like Incarnum, among many others. It had room for new classes that went in new directions. It was a system but it was meant to be expanded.

I'm confused about this idea of yours.

Didn't the Core 3.5 rulebook have issues. Codzilla, casters get more power than non-casters, etc.

The game is only balanced if you play the way the designers expected: Cleric as healer, Fighter Tank, Rogue for occasional sneak attack (Lidda is even one handed instead of TWFing), and the Wizard is a blaster.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

If the OP's scenario happens, I probably end up playing 5e.

Don't you hate it when you make a comment and then Cadfan comes and just makes a much more articulate and insightful comment than yours?

Cadfan, I agree with everything you just said.

In short: D&D is a game that evolves along with its players.