D&D 4E 4E is the Right Direction for 5E

[ren1999]

"Please explain how and why you need to rewrite the existing Feather Fall spell. I'm not even sure which edition this is supposed to be for. The level part is 3E, the rest 4E, except that 4E doesn't have auto-triggers as far as I know, unlike 3E (and earlier) contingency."

Thanks for the comments. For some spells, I need to make few if no changes. What I'm attempting to do here is to merge Pathfinder spells with the 4E Style to create 30 template spells that beginners can use to learn how the power mechanics work. Module designers can then introduce custom spells.

My idea is to break down every class into 4 types for beginners so they can learn how to play the game. This will be introduced in 5E.
A fighter type class with 30 main Exploit Powers.
A rogue type class with 30 main Skills
A cleric type class with 30 prayers centering around charisma such as Hold Person.
A wizard type class with 30 spells centering on telekinesis and force powers.

My Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and Pathfinder Module Tester kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[Jhaelen]

But 4E needs to have more complex rules for advanced players.

I enjoy playing 4e very much and think it's the best edition of the D&D so far.

But I disagree with pretty much everything in your post and particularly the sentence I quoted above.

 

[the Jester]

Teaching a player has been a cinch in 4e, and I've done quite a bit of that at conventions and with my groups.

I had a new player at my regular campaign start yesterday. She had never played before at all. Within 10 minutes she was already playing like a pro. The trick is not to overload them with minutiae, including character creation. Get a concept for what they want and build character for them or give them a pregen.

This is totally a playstyle thing- but YUCK.

If you want to play D&D in my campaign, you make your character. I'm happy to help, but "I made my character" is absolutely essential to me, both as a player and as a dm. "I rolled the dice. I assigned the stats. I picked the powers." Etc.

The reason it's a nightmare to introduce new gamers to 4e is because you have tons of classes, each of which has multiple builds; you have tons of powers for each class (barring a few exceptions, e.g. the elementalist sorcerer); you have tons of feats. You have tons tons tons of choices. Option overload! Now, the CB is a great option and a wonderful timesaver, but new gamers don't have it and neither does anyone in my group at present. And it should be an optional tool, not an essential part of making your character. The fact that it's quasi-essential underlines 4e's flaws very dramatically IMHO.

Again, that's all about playstyle preference, but I feel very strongly about it.

 

[S'mon]

If I allow drop-in players in a game, I have stack of acceptable pregens to hand them. Even with players joining for the long term, IME it can make sense to give them a pregen they can change later. Partly to get them playing; but thinking about it the bigger benefit is that with pregens I automatically get characters who fit into the campaign setting. It can be surprisingly hard otherwise, a lot of players don't seem to take direction as to what the themes of a campaign are, what ideas would work and what would not. Maybe I don't express it very well. My Southlands 'Heavy Metal Swords & Sorcery' campaign best suits Martial PCs, but most of the non-pregens created have been spellcasters, usually arcane strikers (lots of warlocks, one sorceror) which has often left them a bit on the sidelines.

Edit: I guess I should have used something like the Neverwinter Themes, pre-approved backgrounds. That seems potentially rather limiting though, and the Neverwinter ones are quite specific and mostly only suit 1 PC per campaign.

 

[kevtar]

4E is the right direction for beginner players.

I would agree with one caveat. It depends on how it is introduced. If you ease people into it, then yes - there are things about 4e that are good for beginning players, but if you unload all of the material on them, it can get overwhelming. I was the adviser for a middle school gaming club. The kids primarily played Warhammer and I wanted to introduce D&D to them. I started out with the PHB1 and "Keep on the Shadowfell." These kids were ages 11-13 and many of them had exceptionalities such as high-functioning autism, Asperberger's, and learning disabilities (they were identified with IEPs) and yet they took the game naturally and with little trouble. Now, there are a lot of factors to consider here. (1) the game design, (2) the kids were supporting each other in learning the game, and (3) I'm an experienced teacher with a PhD in curriculum and cultural studies... so yeah, there were extenuating factors - but ultimately, I've found in my experience that 4e can be an easy introduction to new D&D players if you can control the amount of content they are exposed to at the initial introduction to the game. Keep it tight and focused, then when they start asking questions about options, show them new options.

But 4E has too many powers that are almost the same. It has too many feats that are similar to powers. It needs to consolidate all of that and come up with template powers.

Yes. The thing I like less about 4e is the power-bloat and powers that are too similar, especially as they cross classes.

Utilities and Rituals must have some kind of encounter combat application. It all needs to be grouped with the combat powers somehow.

Meh. Combat works well without rituals. Let's focus on using rituals to flesh out other aspects of the game.

Triggered, reaction, opportunity actions should all fall under triggered actions.

Yep.

4E Fortitude, Reflex and Will Defense are actually good...

I enjoy the defenses mechanic, but I think both systems have merit.

...This would make Orcs relevant threats and Dragons not too strong to destroy the entire party in just a few rounds.

I agree with previous responses that a less-steep curve is needed to maintain a broader diversity of threats to PCs, and I agree that dragons should be fearsome, terrifying creatures that cause a deep sense of dread in the hearts of adventurers everywhere. Tradition!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is totally a playstyle thing- but YUCK.

If you want to play D&D in my campaign, you make your character. I'm happy to help, but "I made my character" is absolutely essential to me, both as a player and as a dm. "I rolled the dice. I assigned the stats. I picked the powers." Etc.

The reason it's a nightmare to introduce new gamers to 4e is because you have tons of classes, each of which has multiple builds; you have tons of powers for each class (barring a few exceptions, e.g. the elementalist sorcerer); you have tons of feats. You have tons tons tons of choices. Option overload! Now, the CB is a great option and a wonderful timesaver, but new gamers don't have it and neither does anyone in my group at present. And it should be an optional tool, not an essential part of making your character. The fact that it's quasi-essential underlines 4e's flaws very dramatically IMHO.

Again, that's all about playstyle preference, but I feel very strongly about it.

Meh, I've had some new players at my games. My main Tuesday night group for instance was easy to set up and get going. We just sat down with CB and I asked the player what sort of character they wanted and what sort of race they wanted to play, general questions basically. I explained a few of the more salient choices that would get them basically what they wanted and turned them loose to pick powers and whatnot. Everyone came up with an interesting character that they liked, and the whole process was surprisingly quick. One guy that had the books made his own character by hand, the other 3 I helped. I think we spent 1/2 hour total on that. Later, after a couple sessions, 2 of the players changed maybe one feat or power they had, that was about it.

I think 4e does a pretty good job of making play at the table generally pretty straightforward, especially at low levels. Things are pretty fast and intuitive there, at least with a DM that has a good handle on the rules.

Really it seems like as long as you have CB available and someone that has a decent knowledge of the options (or if you stick with Essentials options) you can figure it out and get going reasonably well. It would be good if the number of options was a bit less and they were a bit more "here's all the stuff you pick to make this iconic character concept" but it doesn't work badly.

During play combat could still be streamlined more, and again just a few less options that are a bit more clear about how they fit into the overall way the character plays would be excellent. I do think 4e is on the right track though. A 5e that made choices a bit less granular and removed or simplified a few things in the combat system would hit the spot. I'd also go for pooling more options into say power source, like a lot of the class power lists. That would cut out some redundancy and allow clearer and more iconic choices there. The Essentials approach to feats really works though. I might rework their place in the game some, but not that much.

As for the OP's statements about 'PFizing' and 'adding complex rules', no. There's utterly no need for that. Presenting things a bit differently to emphasize exploration and RP more and having clearer SC rules would do that I think. If combat is streamlined a bit to be say 30% faster then I think you'd find a nice sweet spot where it all hangs together quite well. 4e missed a bit on some things and that does reduce its newbie friendliness and default feel in play some, but it really is pretty close as it is. IMHO 5e should polish, not totally rework things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think 4e is incredibly tough on new players. There is exactly one build of one class that IME the typical new player can handle ok, and that is the 4e PHB Ranger Archer -it doesn't take much to say "Twin Strike!" when your turn comes up. Seeing new players trying to cope with Leader classes is painful, and Controllers aren't much better. You'd think Essentials Knights & Slayers ought to work, but IME the Stance mechanic is non-intuitive and confusing, far moreso than PHB Powers. And all the melee Strikers are really hard to make survivable.

I can't recall seeing a brand new player playing a Defender. I do know a non-newbie player who's maybe not the shiniest nickel in the barrel, and his attempt to play an Essentials Knight was very much not good.

This doesn't match my experience either from Encounters play or giving someone a pregen knight to play with in my WoBS campaign. But then when introducing someone to a Knight, I've always given them a "Default Stance" of either Battle Guardian, Poised Assault, or Defend the Line with World Serpent's Grasp. I then add a "Trick Stance" (normally Hammer Hands) and explain it like that.

4E is the right direction for beginner players.
But 4E needs to have more complex rules for advanced players.

Ugh! The more I play, the more I want and like simple rules.

Pathfinder does a few things right. But Pathfinder is hundreds of pages of material. The Pathfinder learning curve for each spell is very steep. Lightning Bolt does 8d6 at 8th level? Imbalanced.

Extremely weak.

Utilities and Rituals must have some kind of encounter combat application. It all needs to be grouped with the combat powers somehow.

No. Please, no.

The monsters have too many hit points and are too overpowered. Actually play testing the encounters from Dungeon magazine always necessitates altering the hit points power or raising weapon damage higher. Gamma World actually said to add the characters level to the damage.

Gamma World doesn't have feats. And how long monsters last depends how optimised PCs are. Play testing using what?

[qb]There needs to be a full page devoted to the DM altering monster stats so that a 1st level or 30th level monster can be used in a 4th level adventure. This would make Orcs relevant threats and Dragons not too strong to destroy the entire party in just a few rounds.

Agh, no. Levelling up should mean something in the world. And the lowest level dragons are Level 1 Solos.

 

[D'karr]

This is totally a playstyle thing- but YUCK.

If you want to play D&D in my campaign, you make your character. I'm happy to help, but "I made my character" is absolutely essential to me, both as a player and as a dm. "I rolled the dice. I assigned the stats. I picked the powers." Etc.

The reason it's a nightmare to introduce new gamers to 4e is because you have tons of classes, each of which has multiple builds; you have tons of powers for each class (barring a few exceptions, e.g. the elementalist sorcerer); you have tons of feats. You have tons tons tons of choices. Option overload! Now, the CB is a great option and a wonderful timesaver, but new gamers don't have it and neither does anyone in my group at present. And it should be an optional tool, not an essential part of making your character. The fact that it's quasi-essential underlines 4e's flaws very dramatically IMHO.

Again, that's all about playstyle preference, but I feel very strongly about it.

Sure, but there is a big difference. You are an experienced player. A new player doesn't need ALL the options. The purpose of teaching them is to get them playing, not to spend an evening looking through 40 books of options.

Pregens are great for this because they get them playing based on their initial concept. Even if they create the character themselves with help from someone at the table, I'm not giving a new player a bunch of options. Limit them to one book, and as they develop they can either change the character or create a new one when they are ready.

 

[ren1999]

These are some great comments. I didn't know there were still some people excited about Dungeons and Dragons left.

I'm currently learning how to play Pathfinder and comparing it with 4th Edition. I really like the feel of Pathfinder spells. The game play reminds me of how D&D used to be. 4E is really superior to Pathfinder in that low level characters have a fighting chance. Starting a character off with 9 hit points just sucks. It also doesn't hurt to have an encounter or daily spell that does a lot of damage to help the characters along.

So most of you feel that 4E shouldn't have more complex rules. I'll just take back that comment.

I want to focus more on how redundant some powers and feats are in 4E. That could use a lot of work. I really want to rewrite many powers in 4E.

In my very rough Javascript tester I'll be putting in the alert boxes my suggestions for 5E. I originally designed this web-based program to teach myself how to play Pathfinder -- I'm thinking I could use it one day to teach others how to play Pathfinder or 4E.

My Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and Pathfinder Module Tester kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[S'mon]

This doesn't match my experience either from Encounters play or giving someone a pregen knight to play with in my WoBS campaign. But then when introducing someone to a Knight, I've always given them a "Default Stance" of either Battle Guardian, Poised Assault, or Defend the Line with World Serpent's Grasp. I then add a "Trick Stance" (normally Hammer Hands) and explain it like that.

The Knight player (who you know) showed up with his own character. He had been playing (& GMing!) 4e for several years, so was not a newbie. He still couldn't make sense of the Stance mechanics printed on the charbuilder action cards. This player had done ok with a 3.5 Fighter a few years previously. He hadn't done so good with a 3.5 Paladin though - played him as a Fighter with fewer feats.

Most new 4e players I see, they struggle, but they generally enjoy themselves and keep playing.