Just wrote this on the WotC forum.
I've been thinking on it for some time, and the 5th edition troll-joke thread compelled me to write what I thought.
So here it is:
Hi all. First, this is not a anti-4e thread, and I dont want it to become. To start with, I'm a 4e fan and supporter.
However, I've seen a trend in the past months. First, the 4th Edition streamlining with Essentials. Second, the retiring of several products in 2011. Third, the shiny new "legends and lore" articles from Mike Mearls, which do look like (despise his denial) a lot like a market ressearch ("what do you like more, grid or no grid?"). Plus several concerns from Mike Mearls about the 4e status, voiced by him (who is the Lead Designer, no less...), about things he doesn't like from current status of the game (like increasing complexity) or does not use (like grid-related ways to resolve cover).
It seems obvious to me that a company like WotC has to preview things. Just like Apple starts to build iPad 2 even before they sell iPad 1, WotC HAD, for sure, a plan about 4e lifespan. Whatever that plan is, it is subject to change, sure. If they thought "4e will last 6 years", that might become 4, or 8 (or 2 or 16) depending on things like, you know, sells.
However, the retiring of several products from this year release schedule sounds like a change. It might be becouse of they are losing steam in the shops, or becouse of a change in the plans (whatever that change might be). What they are not, for sure, is the result of a random roll in some senior armani-suited executive table.
So, in my opinion, we are in 4e last year. Maybe in q4 of 2011, or maybe in 2012, we'll see DD 5e (or Advanced D&D 4th, or "skills and options 2" or whatever it's called)
So the question is: what would you *think* it would looks like, and what do you *want* it would looks like?
In my own opinion, while 4e has several (most) things done right, it also has several mistakes, or things that would be streamlined.
1) too much powers. There is too much space wasted to explain "deft strike" and "nimble strike" or "footwork lure" and "Luring strike". Those powers are bassically the same. They dont really need to build diferent flavors of every power: a barbarian attack that hit 2 monsters and a fighter attack that hit two monsters could be the same "cleave". Similarly, a wizard fire attack that hit an area and a warlock fire attack that hit an area could be "fireball". Some powers might (and should) be "class exclusive", but a bunch core of it *should* be... core.
2) Padded sumo. The increase in player staying power (more hp at lvl 1, healing surges) was mostly wellcomed. However, the increase in monsters hp was not so massively acclaimed. Fights are too long, monsters have too much hp. WotC themselves have recognized this in some ways, as new monsters (specially solos) have fewer hp, but stronger damage.
3) conditions. There are too much of them, and the durations are too complex. Marks, curses, quarrys, divine challenges, plus stuns, dazed, inmobilized, bleeding, blind, bloodied... And every single of them last for a different duration: End of next turn, begining of your turn, until save, even some of them until someone else attacks the monster. Too much bookkeeping.
4) every power source feels too similar. Yes, there is fluff diference, and class diferences as well. A rogue does not looks like a wizard. But that's not power-source based, but class based. A rogue does not look like a warlord either. Essentials is a step in that way (so was psionics). Martials characters in essentials dont have daily powers, while psionics dont have encounter powers. Class balance is fundamental. However, class balance does not means "class being exactly the same". WotC has shown that, with proper design, classes can be balanced while being mechanically different (ie: hunter vs pyromancer vs psion as controller)
5) too much options. There is a bloat amount of feats, paragon paths and epic destinies and whatnot. This starts to look like 3.5 with prestige classes and what not. There is an "infoxication" (information intoxication). Plus an excess of options mean harder to balance design: you can make a balanced fey charge feat, thinking of fighters. But that will lead to umbalanced "feycharger" builds for swordmages, wizards, warlocks and whatnot.
So... what are your suggestions? What whould you like to see? What would you like NOT to see?
I'm currently in the process to design my own homebased stuff for local play. Based strongly on 4e Essentials, but also with Mutant and Masterminds or Legends of Anglerra stuff incorporated. My own design premises are:
Combat has to last half an hour or less. This leads to either more roleplaying, or more combats per session, depending on your playstile. In any case, lengthy combats dont help anybody.
New (or cassual) players should not receive a "shock" of information just to build up a lvl 1 character
All classes should be balanced, but different both in fluff and in mechanics (hardest part, probably)
No power should be "fire and forget". Therefore, no Daily, no encounter powers. All powers will be "at wills" that can be boosted with encounter-based "powerpoints" (name them mana, adrenaline, conviction)
s
No hit points. This is a sacred cow that will hurt to kill, but IMO, hit points make for slow combats. I'm not talking about being able to soak too much damage (that could be the same with any other sistem, like wound levels). The problem is the *damage roll*. Once you start to add up modifiers, it bogs down the game flow. It's not that easy to start adding up each little piece of damage bonus from feats, paragon path features, powers, abilities, magic items, conditions, class adventages and what not. Plus something that 3.0 edition showed about initiative: the less rolls you make, the faster the game goes. So either the damage roll is added to the to hit roll, or the damage is not rolled (but static).
This also allows for AC revamp
Conditions are simpler. 4e went a good way in this. Being "stun by nausea" and being "stun by fear" are different conditions in 3.0, but the same in 4e. It can be streamlined even more (like restrained, inmobilized, grab, etc) Conditions should add up, too (2 dazed should mean stun)
BOARDLESS PLAY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. Minis, and grids, are very nice. But not *every* fight should *need* them, specially if you plan your longest fight be 45m, the shortest ones be 15m, with the average being half an hour. Board preparation (drawing the room, or taking tiles, getting the right minis, placing them, etc )takes time. In a 1 hour long battle, 5 min preparation is nothing. In a 15m short skirmish, 5 min preparation makes for 33% more time wasted This means pushing, pulling and sliding need an optional built-in method to play, and terrain should have non-grid rules too.
No class ability bonus. Elven dexterity, or dwarven toughness, should be feats/adventages/"paths". This is for two reasons: not to piggeon hole classes and races (so you can see an elven fighter or dwarven rogue back in the table), and not to "force" people to build unnatural or weird combinations (such as dwarvem infernal lock. Sure, there should be nothing that *stops* you to play an infernal lock. But there shouldnt be anything that *forces you* (or "incentive" you) to build it.
I would make 4 classes, warrior, rogue, mage and cleric. Everything else is a "template" or "path" or "specialization" of those. Paladins, rangers, warlocks and monks can be "kinds" of warriors, rogues, mages and clerics, respectively. So would be "eldritch knights", "bards", "mentalists" and "shamans", if you need them too. This will also cleanse one of 4e flaws (in my tastes), which is the "need" to fill every role-powersource gap, even with classes that really do not mean nothing for standard fantasy trope (like the warden, ardent, or battlemind)
Skill "stunts" are nice. Should replace most feats (think on them as current utility skill powers)
"bonus to hit" feats are bland, and boring. Every one ends taking them anyways. Just get rid of them, and/or roll them into the regular maths (ie: fighter and rogues weapon talents, if you feel they should have better attack bonus than, say, a cleric). Conditional feats might be better (such as "extra +1 to hit when attacking prone enemy"), but anyways, you should not be forced to choose between non-combat, roleplaying feats (like, say, +2 to diplomacy) and combat, tactic feats (like, say, +1 to hit with swords, or extra movement). Just for the same reason utility powers and attack powers are separated in 4e, or most non-combat spells went into rituals.
I've been thinking on it for some time, and the 5th edition troll-joke thread compelled me to write what I thought.
So here it is:
Hi all. First, this is not a anti-4e thread, and I dont want it to become. To start with, I'm a 4e fan and supporter.
However, I've seen a trend in the past months. First, the 4th Edition streamlining with Essentials. Second, the retiring of several products in 2011. Third, the shiny new "legends and lore" articles from Mike Mearls, which do look like (despise his denial) a lot like a market ressearch ("what do you like more, grid or no grid?"). Plus several concerns from Mike Mearls about the 4e status, voiced by him (who is the Lead Designer, no less...), about things he doesn't like from current status of the game (like increasing complexity) or does not use (like grid-related ways to resolve cover).
It seems obvious to me that a company like WotC has to preview things. Just like Apple starts to build iPad 2 even before they sell iPad 1, WotC HAD, for sure, a plan about 4e lifespan. Whatever that plan is, it is subject to change, sure. If they thought "4e will last 6 years", that might become 4, or 8 (or 2 or 16) depending on things like, you know, sells.
However, the retiring of several products from this year release schedule sounds like a change. It might be becouse of they are losing steam in the shops, or becouse of a change in the plans (whatever that change might be). What they are not, for sure, is the result of a random roll in some senior armani-suited executive table.
So, in my opinion, we are in 4e last year. Maybe in q4 of 2011, or maybe in 2012, we'll see DD 5e (or Advanced D&D 4th, or "skills and options 2" or whatever it's called)
So the question is: what would you *think* it would looks like, and what do you *want* it would looks like?
In my own opinion, while 4e has several (most) things done right, it also has several mistakes, or things that would be streamlined.
1) too much powers. There is too much space wasted to explain "deft strike" and "nimble strike" or "footwork lure" and "Luring strike". Those powers are bassically the same. They dont really need to build diferent flavors of every power: a barbarian attack that hit 2 monsters and a fighter attack that hit two monsters could be the same "cleave". Similarly, a wizard fire attack that hit an area and a warlock fire attack that hit an area could be "fireball". Some powers might (and should) be "class exclusive", but a bunch core of it *should* be... core.
2) Padded sumo. The increase in player staying power (more hp at lvl 1, healing surges) was mostly wellcomed. However, the increase in monsters hp was not so massively acclaimed. Fights are too long, monsters have too much hp. WotC themselves have recognized this in some ways, as new monsters (specially solos) have fewer hp, but stronger damage.
3) conditions. There are too much of them, and the durations are too complex. Marks, curses, quarrys, divine challenges, plus stuns, dazed, inmobilized, bleeding, blind, bloodied... And every single of them last for a different duration: End of next turn, begining of your turn, until save, even some of them until someone else attacks the monster. Too much bookkeeping.
4) every power source feels too similar. Yes, there is fluff diference, and class diferences as well. A rogue does not looks like a wizard. But that's not power-source based, but class based. A rogue does not look like a warlord either. Essentials is a step in that way (so was psionics). Martials characters in essentials dont have daily powers, while psionics dont have encounter powers. Class balance is fundamental. However, class balance does not means "class being exactly the same". WotC has shown that, with proper design, classes can be balanced while being mechanically different (ie: hunter vs pyromancer vs psion as controller)
5) too much options. There is a bloat amount of feats, paragon paths and epic destinies and whatnot. This starts to look like 3.5 with prestige classes and what not. There is an "infoxication" (information intoxication). Plus an excess of options mean harder to balance design: you can make a balanced fey charge feat, thinking of fighters. But that will lead to umbalanced "feycharger" builds for swordmages, wizards, warlocks and whatnot.
So... what are your suggestions? What whould you like to see? What would you like NOT to see?
I'm currently in the process to design my own homebased stuff for local play. Based strongly on 4e Essentials, but also with Mutant and Masterminds or Legends of Anglerra stuff incorporated. My own design premises are:
Combat has to last half an hour or less. This leads to either more roleplaying, or more combats per session, depending on your playstile. In any case, lengthy combats dont help anybody.
New (or cassual) players should not receive a "shock" of information just to build up a lvl 1 character
All classes should be balanced, but different both in fluff and in mechanics (hardest part, probably)
No power should be "fire and forget". Therefore, no Daily, no encounter powers. All powers will be "at wills" that can be boosted with encounter-based "powerpoints" (name them mana, adrenaline, conviction)
s
No hit points. This is a sacred cow that will hurt to kill, but IMO, hit points make for slow combats. I'm not talking about being able to soak too much damage (that could be the same with any other sistem, like wound levels). The problem is the *damage roll*. Once you start to add up modifiers, it bogs down the game flow. It's not that easy to start adding up each little piece of damage bonus from feats, paragon path features, powers, abilities, magic items, conditions, class adventages and what not. Plus something that 3.0 edition showed about initiative: the less rolls you make, the faster the game goes. So either the damage roll is added to the to hit roll, or the damage is not rolled (but static).
This also allows for AC revamp
Conditions are simpler. 4e went a good way in this. Being "stun by nausea" and being "stun by fear" are different conditions in 3.0, but the same in 4e. It can be streamlined even more (like restrained, inmobilized, grab, etc) Conditions should add up, too (2 dazed should mean stun)
BOARDLESS PLAY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. Minis, and grids, are very nice. But not *every* fight should *need* them, specially if you plan your longest fight be 45m, the shortest ones be 15m, with the average being half an hour. Board preparation (drawing the room, or taking tiles, getting the right minis, placing them, etc )takes time. In a 1 hour long battle, 5 min preparation is nothing. In a 15m short skirmish, 5 min preparation makes for 33% more time wasted This means pushing, pulling and sliding need an optional built-in method to play, and terrain should have non-grid rules too.
No class ability bonus. Elven dexterity, or dwarven toughness, should be feats/adventages/"paths". This is for two reasons: not to piggeon hole classes and races (so you can see an elven fighter or dwarven rogue back in the table), and not to "force" people to build unnatural or weird combinations (such as dwarvem infernal lock. Sure, there should be nothing that *stops* you to play an infernal lock. But there shouldnt be anything that *forces you* (or "incentive" you) to build it.
I would make 4 classes, warrior, rogue, mage and cleric. Everything else is a "template" or "path" or "specialization" of those. Paladins, rangers, warlocks and monks can be "kinds" of warriors, rogues, mages and clerics, respectively. So would be "eldritch knights", "bards", "mentalists" and "shamans", if you need them too. This will also cleanse one of 4e flaws (in my tastes), which is the "need" to fill every role-powersource gap, even with classes that really do not mean nothing for standard fantasy trope (like the warden, ardent, or battlemind)
Skill "stunts" are nice. Should replace most feats (think on them as current utility skill powers)
"bonus to hit" feats are bland, and boring. Every one ends taking them anyways. Just get rid of them, and/or roll them into the regular maths (ie: fighter and rogues weapon talents, if you feel they should have better attack bonus than, say, a cleric). Conditional feats might be better (such as "extra +1 to hit when attacking prone enemy"), but anyways, you should not be forced to choose between non-combat, roleplaying feats (like, say, +2 to diplomacy) and combat, tactic feats (like, say, +1 to hit with swords, or extra movement). Just for the same reason utility powers and attack powers are separated in 4e, or most non-combat spells went into rituals.
