D&D 5E Essentials: More like 3.9e than 4.5e (link inside)

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

So, again, with feeling, a fighter without Daily abilities doesn't mean a fighter that sucks. It just means that the fighter should rock without suddenly becoming Vancian and having narm-worthy moments like "I can't hit this guy with my sword again, guys, 'cuz I did it less than 5 minutes ago" for a class that is, ostensibly, powered by their own physical prowess.

This is a very extreme reading, as I think you know.

There's a significant difference between, "I can't hit this guy with my sword again" and "I can't exercise enough control over this situation to get 4x weapon damage and a status modification at this time, but I can use a bread-and-butter attack just fine."

Having more complicated or dangerous combat tricks that you can't pull off over and over again against the same enemy is quite a bit more realistic than, for example, the 3.x trip monkey or endless iterations of "I swing my sword" with no variety.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You do know the three psionic classes that use PPs are all variously terrible given they can be broken in half by a *single* low level at-will don't you?

Well, since I've actually seen PP-based classes in play, both as a player and as a DM, and not one of them has been "broken in half" (they all pretty much contributed effectively to party victory), I'd have to say that my actual experience is vastly different from your expectation.

It's possible that your fears are overblown. Of course, it's also possible that all the people who played Power Point classes just didn't take advantage of whatever it is you're considering.

Having more complicated or dangerous combat tricks that you can't pull off over and over again against the same enemy is quite a bit more realistic than, for example, the 3.x trip monkey or endless iterations of "I swing my sword" with no variety.

Which is why just before that line you quoted, I presented a possible system with at-wills that get bonus kickers in specific situations (e.g.: if the enemy is knocked prone, I can do 2[W] damage!; if I charge, I can use my Con modifier to add damage!; whatever).

If you're going to want a system where you can't pull off the same tricks over and over again, make those tricks actually rarer in actual combat.

Don't slap me with "Well, I can only swing this hard once per day." It breaks the sense that the martial power source is purely your own muscle, since regular physical strength doesn't work that way.

And, either way, none of it means that the fighter needs to be weaker than the spellcasters.

Which is why I'd be excited to see such a build in the Essentials line. It's something that a lot of people aren't happy about, that can be fixed without breaking 4e. It might not happen, but it'd be another problem Essentials can fix (and we'll find out next week when the fighter preview comes).

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Don't slap me with "Well, I can only swing this hard once per day." It breaks the sense that the martial power source is purely your own muscle, since regular physical strength doesn't work that way.

Again, that's an extreme and bizarre reading that forces a sort of Vancian mindset onto something that really doesn't need to have any relationship to Vance. It's more about what's going on in the game world than it is about muscle. Abstraction of melee combat didn't go away when they created a power system. Treating most martial powers and even many more magical ones as in-game-world effects forces them to be nonsensical. Every version of D&D has this issue. It's the same kind of abstraction that leads to the first level 3e fighter seeming to exchange blows with an enemy a mere once every 6 seconds. Fighting doesn't work that way.

Whether you're using an at-will, an encounter, or a daily does not represent how hard the guy is swinging any more than your one attack roll as a 3e Fighter represented your only attempt to hurt someone that round.

This sort of thing has driven me batty since I was 14. Why is the combat system (of every D&D edition) abstract when that helps people make a point and simultaneously simulation when that allows one to call it silly. Why seize on what is clearly among the least simulationist parts of the game and holler that it fails to be realistic?

 

[Bluenose]

As I pointed out in another thread: "be believable in context" =/= "be weak."

Here's an example: I'd love for a fighter (or any martial character) build that relies on at-wills. These at-wills are more frequent and higher-level than other characters' at-wills (they can be more powerful). They might also have situational "kickers" that flash in, when in particular situations (say, there's an additional effect if they're flanking, or if the enemy is prone, or if they're not next to any other enemies). If they can make a class mostly devoid of encounters (psionic classes), they can boil a class down to a half-dozen awesome, evolving, at-wills with situational kickers that make the fighter a powerhouse whose tactics change with a changing battlefield.

A badass with a sword.

So, again, with feeling, a fighter without Daily abilities doesn't mean a fighter that sucks. It just means that the fighter should rock without suddenly becoming Vancian and having narm-worthy moments like "I can't hit this guy with my sword again, guys, 'cuz I did it less than 5 minutes ago" for a class that is, ostensibly, powered by their own physical prowess.

Have you read the surviving medieval weapon manuals, or the various Japanese/Chinese/Other ones? They talk frequently about the tricks and manoeuvres that a warrior can use in combat. They're pretty clear that there are differences between the ones that you can use safely even when your opponent has seen them, the ones that you can try as a surprise but which you shouldn't repeat, and the ones that are only worth trying if you can either create or take advantage of an unusual situation. It's not exactly the same as At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies but it is pretty close.

Of course, if you're thinking it should be done a different way, then that I suppose would be possible. Rather than have a natural 20 be a critical hit, instead it 'converts' the At-Will power you're using into a Daily power. Rather than a Shield Push, doing 1W and a push of 1, you get Shield Slam doing 3W, push 3 and knock prone. You'd also have a few encounter powers, special tricks that you've learnt which are risky if someone has seen them but can be useful occasionally.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again, that's an extreme and bizarre reading that forces a sort of Vancian mindset onto something that really doesn't need to have any relationship to Vance.

The 4e powers system is pretty Vancian. There's differences, but the system is, literally, "You can do this once per (time span)."

Abstraction of melee combat didn't go away when they created a power system.

4e combat is also not very abstract. More so than most wargames, maybe, but it's pretty particular, still.

Treating most martial powers and even many more magical ones as in-game-world effects forces them to be nonsensical.

I'm not sure I understand. If Magic Missile isn't an in-game-world effect, why does it have effects, in the game world (namely, a roll to hit and HP damage that can be done at any time, by a character)?

It's the same kind of abstraction that leads to the first level 3e fighter seeming to exchange blows with an enemy a mere once every 6 seconds.

I was personally quite comfortable with the "the attack roll only represents attacks that might get through -- your enemy and you are constantly exchanging little blows, feints, knicks, and dings that do nothing" explanation. That kept it convincing enough for me.

Whether you're using an at-will, an encounter, or a daily does not represent how hard the guy is swinging any more than your one attack roll as a 3e Fighter represented your only attempt to hurt someone that round.

I find it harder to believe that a fighter daily or encounter power is "the only thing that might get through," specifically because you can't do it whenever you want. The power itself has a recharge limitation, rather than being able to do it "whenever you get an opening" (about once in six seconds for your 3e attacks, but more often for high-level warriors skilled in melee combat).

Which is why a martial class build that used only at-wills with "kickers" would work to satisfy that. In that case, the kicker bumps in "whenever you get an opening," without having to use some metagame, nonsensical, recharge mechanic to justify it. It happens whenever you get that opening. That opening might not happen more than once an encounter, or once every 3-5 encounters, but it happens because of the circumstances in combat, not because your muscles recharged.

Why seize on what is clearly among the least simulationist parts of the game and holler that it fails to be realistic?

Simply because it is among the least realistic, and once that threshold (which is different for all people) is passed, it's hard to play the RPG in-character.

Fighter dailies, rogue encouters, warlord healing...to varying degress, for varying players, these pass the threshold of "Can I still have fun pretending to be an elf while this doesn't make any sense?"

If WotC is interested in changing up the feel of how classes play with the Essentials line (and it seems that they are), having martial classes that don't use artificial recharge mechanics would go a HUGE way toward making the martial classes feel martially powered, distinct from other power sources, without weakening them in the slightest.

Think of how a rogue gets Sneak Attack damage, or how a Fighter marks with their attacks, or how Rangers have to be in front to get Prime Shot. These depend on action and reaction in actual combat, rather than artificial and nonsensical recharges. I'd like the Martial power source to take their cues from THAT rather than from Vancian wizard dailies.

 

[Mark CMG]

I didn't realize speed had entered into the equation. /boggle

Not speed, so much, as technology and simplicity. The DDI is geared toward the mechanics of making characters easier, and that means it is even easier to min/max and spend time looking for mechnical advantages. With games whose rules are primarily focused on combat, any technology that shifts the focus toward the mechanics of creating a character is going to have particular results then and at the table. But it can also happen with just the books if the rules within are more focused toward one end than previously.

 

[AllisterH]

Not sure the rogue is a good example AT ALL.

One of the design constraints with the rogue is that unless the power ITSELF is one that grants combat advantage, you design rogue powers with the impliclt understanding that the rogue is functioning under combat advantage...

Definitely prefer the recharge system personally, as I tend to see the powers more of a narrative sense that ACTUAL direct correlations.

Like the other poster, especially when I started DMing with 2e, I always worked under the assumption that combat WAS abstract (indeed, the 2e books ade this expliclt clear since a round was 1 whole minute)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would also like martial classes have no dailies... i actually like martial classes doing more damage when they can set up in a certain situation, but i would not go as far as martial classes having no encounter powers.

I can totally wrap my brain around tricks only beeing usable once per encounter... i actually do like the ranger model here, where he only uses at-wills, but has some tricks up his sleeve which he can do as immerdiate actions and minor actions which he can throw in here and there (i know there are viable other encounter powers).

 

[I'm A Banana]

They're pretty clear that there are differences between the ones that you can use safely even when your opponent has seen them, the ones that you can try as a surprise but which you shouldn't repeat, and the ones that are only worth trying if you can either create or take advantage of an unusual situation. It's not exactly the same as At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies but it is pretty close.

I just would rather see it modeled as the creation of the unusual situation, or the things that you shouldn't repeat (not that you can't). It's a very different feel to having a warrior who uses all his tricks and stunts to set up an unusual situation so that he can get a big attack in, vs. "I use my daily power, and it works, you explain it."

Of course, if you're thinking it should be done a different way, then that I suppose would be possible. Rather than have a natural 20 be a critical hit, instead it 'converts' the At-Will power you're using into a Daily power. Rather than a Shield Push, doing 1W and a push of 1, you get Shield Slam doing 3W, push 3 and knock prone.

I like this idea.

While I personally can grok encounter powers, the "they've never seen this before" thing doesn't work so well for me (since you can fail to kill enemies that show up in future encounters). The "you can't recover your breath this easily during the ongoing slog of combat" makes some sense.

But, really, making a fighter, rogue, ranger, etc., who uses only at-wills that can occasionally do awesome things, is totally doable within the 4e framework. I'd be pumped if Essentials went this way. The argument that it makes weak fighters doesn't hold water.

Definitely prefer the recharge system personally, as I tend to see the powers more of a narrative sense that ACTUAL direct correlations.

They're not that great at being narrative, either, though. There's no rising action. There's no building threat. You can go nova on your first swing out the door, which isn't narratively satisfying, either. If they were narrative, I'd expect an Iron Heroes style "build up your strength" mechanic.

But even if they were, not everyone wants to bother justifying rule-enforced narrative convention. Personally, I prefer when it makes sense from the set-up, because I prefer to be a little more fast-and-loose with my preparation and execution. Then I can slap a narrative pacing on top of whatever my group determines is the climax, based on vagaries such as how late the game is going that night, how much sleep the players got the night before, etc., rather than on an artificial, in-game "rest" system.

Which is not to say that it doesn't work just fine for some people, just that I -- and many, I'm guessing -- would like to be able to do it differently. And I don't see any reason why that can't be. I do see some reasons why the Essentials line may change that (though they may not).

 

[WalterKovacs]

For some of us, rules mastery = fun. Thus, saying "we want to make wizards more complicated than fighters again" actually is code for "now all wizards will be more fun than all fighters" to people like me.

Reading this article again while I'm a bit less ticked off, I kindof see where they are going. They are just making noob builds for a bunch of classes. It would be nice if they would actually call these builds, instead of classes. If they had have said "we want there to be less complex builds for each class" rather than "we want some classes to be more complicated than others", their intent would be alot more clear.

There is a reason they did not call them "just" builds. X Power contains builds ... and in those books, you do not have enough information to play those classes without also using the appropriate PHB book as well. However, with the Essentials line, you will see all the information you need to play the class. While explaining it on DDi as new builds would probably be a better idea, the distinction has to do with how much information is included in the book.

I still don't think it's a good idea. I didn't think the psionic mechanics were a good idea either. All characters should be structured in roughly the same way. Will the noob builds be valuable enough to justify the change? My experience suggests probably not, but the sample of players I've played with over the years is pretty heavily biased towards powergamers. Maybe there really are enough "I don't want to think, I just want to roll dice" players out there to justify it. Personally, if I was new to the game and had one of these characters pushed onto me, I'd probably recognize the difference pretty quick(first time I ever played D&D I immediately noticed the complexity difference between the fighter and the mage), and be insulted enough by the suggestion that I couldn't handle a more complex character that I wouldn't play with that group again.

A couple points:

(a) Different strokes for different folks. If the goal is to expand the game, bring in new players, and get as many people playing as possible, diversity is a good thing. Is it better to have TONS of classes that one type of player likes or to have a few classes for each type of player. You have a level of complexity you like. But do new classes change your existing options which you are happy with? As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. You can only play one class at a time (unless you are a bard, hybrid, etc) so does it matter if some of the classes (or some of the builds) aren't to your liking as long as the class you do build IS to your liking?

(b) Your last point about having a character forced upon you ... I would blame the GROUP for saying "you have to play this character" more than I would the system. I have seen some groups/DMs who assume their players aren't "ready" to play anything more advanced than a human fighter and have to "earn" the ability to become more advanced classes/races by proving themselves. However, a reasonable group would work with a player to find out not only what kind of character they wanted to play, but also what kind of complexity they are comfortable with.

(c) I can see where your frustration lies ... specifically in that, if you want to play a character of type X, you don't want the game to then tell you "well, that means the complexity level is Y". With the older classes in 4e, there are enough builds that they create a range of complexities to choose from. The newer classes are less so, but even then, some of the "classes" are more like VERY different builds of existing classes, such as the runepriest as a weird type of cleric, or the seeker as a more magical ranger. The druid, the shaman and the warden are all similar in concept, but different in execution, sort of various aspects of older versions of the druid. In many cases, a character theme can be figured out in a number of ways. A dual wielder can be a fighter or a ranger or a barbarian and each has it's own nuances and complexities. A spellslinger doesn't have to be a wizard as both warlocks and sorcerers offer both a thematic similarity while being mechanically quite different.

The Essentials line isn't the END of the line... there is going to be a Player's Options book which is introducing Shadow magic beyond just the assassin class. It will likely be a bit meatier in terms of complexity than the Essential books. But, ultimately, the goal is to make the game more accessible, get more players, etc. Making a small group VERY happy vs. making them slightly less happy to try to make other people happy enough to play the game, the latter is the better option. The game started with the "everyone is equal" idea, wanting to get the baseline understood before they started to riff on it. Since then they have mostly gone with more complicated (although the Barbarian is probably a good example of a "less complex" class as they made a striker whose ability to deal extra damage didn't come from having to spend minor actions and tracking which enemy is your prey, or on getting into the right position. They just have a big weapon, do lots of damage with their powers, and do extra stuff when they crit/kill/rage. Making the game more diverse makes it more interesting to more people.