D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Neonchameleon]

I have seen considerable debates as to what the relationship of Essentials is to 4e; whether it is a separate edition, part of 4e, or, as you say, a "betrayal". I have not read Essentials. Since I don't know which is the case, I tend to avoid the issue and speak only to things that I know about; the intent is not to create a double standard.

Oh, it's 4e's own internal edition war, undoubtedly. It is a lot less heavy on the AEDU than other versions and goes for more fluff baked into the classes. I prefer it as an option because it opens the game up while not breaking the math or being incompatable.

In specific, the three martial melee classes I named - the two fighters (Slayer and Knight) and the two weapon ranger (Scout) get no daily attack powers at all, and their only encounter attack power is Power Strike (do +1[W] damage after you've seen whether the attack connects) which they get more uses of as they level. They also attack with melee basic attacks all the time.

Instead of At Wills they get stances that modify their melee basic attack, and they are in that stance until they change it. And they always roll their melee (or ranged) basic attack.

They get utility powers on the same level structure as any other 4e character. But I don't recall a single utility power in Essentials for these three classes that isn't either At Will or Encounter. (Which isn't to say that they can't get daily powers - they are allowed utility powers from other fighter or ranger subclasses respectively). Nothing daily at all except healing surges.

I assume the "IMO" is implied? My point is not that 3e is better in these regards (though I happen to think that it is). My point in that reflective post is that (as the saying goes) anything you freely assert I can freely deny. Posting something on a message board doesn't make it true. To wit:

Posting something on a message board doesn't make it true. However I try to post only things that are true. Such as 3.X being the worst balanced versions of D&D - compare druids to fighters.

Telling people that they can only perform a certain action if they have a power card and selected it during character creation is a limitation.

You can attempt any action you like in 4e. You just are only especially good at the tricks you have practiced. And the encounter powers reflect the tricks you practice and are good at.

Your fighter already had the ability to try anything you could think of; it's a make-believe game.

Fine. My fighter tries to cast fireball.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Such as 3.X being the worst balanced versions of D&D - compare druids to fighters.

I've had an abundance of both (and played both myself). Druids are more popular than clerics in my games, and fighters are more popular than anything. They compare very well. The fighter heads into melee and mashes and racks up the treasure, and the druid summons some allies, chucks some nonstandard attack spells, and heals him up afterwards. They play together very well.

You can attempt any action you like in 4e. You just are only especially good at the tricks you have practiced. And the encounter powers reflect the tricks you practice and are good at.

Well, there's the ability to attempt, and then there's the ability to do so with a chance of success that makes sense. My sense is that it is sufficiently hard to go off the book that this is not satisfied.

Fine. My fighter tries to cast fireball

Go check out the incantation rules in Unearthed Arcana. Come up with a version of fireball that suits your needs. Roll the skill checks. Good luck.

That said, D&D postulates magic as a separate entity from the rest of the rules of the game world. Always has. (And should; it's magic, after all).

 

[Jester David]

Two arms, two legs, a head, a functioning brain, a heart, a liver, some lungs. Humanoids are a "spot the difference" picture. They're mostly the same. 4e classes on the other hand behave fundamentally differently in play.

A bow ranger and two-weapon ranger play fundamentally different despite potentially having all the same class features and powers.
But a two-weapon ranger and a rogue and an avenger will play fairly similarly. Paladins play similar to fighters, invokers play similar to wizards.

All classes have the same base tactics as well. Start a fight, find a way to use your Encounter powers. Focus fire. Defenders defend, controllers control. Save Dailies for harder or boss fights then throw down black cards as soon as possible.

Do me a favour. Tell me when you get fighters casting fireball. Or wizards cutting peoples heads off with fullblades. The cool things classes do are cool because of what actually happens, not because of the resource mechanic.

How was the original 4e magic missile different from a ranger shooting a bow? How many powers can be summed up as "deal some damage and daze"? How is a fighter making a close burst 1 attack with his sword different than a wizard doing something identical with martial crossed out and arcane written in and the [W] replaced with a d8?

Here's a couple power from somewhere:

Daily
Standard Action
Close burst 1
Target: Each creature in the burst you can see
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 1d10 + Ability modifier damage, and ongoing 5 damage (save ends)
Miss: Half damage.
Kicker: If you have the right class option, targets you hit are also knocked prone.

Daily
Standard Action
Personal
Effect: You shift your speed, including through squares occupied by enemies. Until the end of your next turn, you can squeeze without penalties to your attack rolls or speed.
Targets: Creatures whose spaces you shift through
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 3d8 + Ability modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square.
Miss: You push the target 1 square.

Encounter
Standard Action
Target: One creature
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 2d8 + Ability modifier damage, and the target treats all squares as difficult terrain until the end of your next turn. You and your allies ignore difficult terrain until the end of your next turn.
Kicker: If you have the right class option, until the end of your next
turn, your allies can ignore difficult terrain even if you miss.

Encounter
Standard Action
Target: One creature
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 2d10 + Ability modifier damage. If the target leaves the space it currently occupies before the start of your next turn, it takes an extra 1d10 + Ability modifier damage.

Quick, which are spells, which are prayers, and which are exploits?

Actually I looked at the Bo9S and said that. I looked at 4e and said "Ah good. A fighter worth playing. But finally I have a wizard that isn't either largely irrelevant or going to keep the DM up nights trying to prepare for all the overpowered nonsense I can spam".

So maybe, just maybe, you're not someone who should be playing a fighter. Is that really so bad?
Besides, fighters were always worth playing in 3e. They could be great damage dealers and are the kings of damage in Pathfinder.
The wizard comment is true. They needed a little more love at low levels and a little less crazy at high. But that didn't require changing every other class. And the majority of the game was quite playable. Wizards were only weak/crazy at the very low levels and very high. With the later rarely being reached. Seems silly to change so much over content a small minority is going to experience.

You know something silly? Those players have classes in 4e that would suit them down to the ground. Two types of fighter (Slayer, Knight) and two types of Ranger (Hunter, Scout). Also a Paladin (Cavalier). I've got one at my table - and the difference Essentials made to him is huge. And to be honest, it sounds as if they want to play either a 3.5 Warlock or a 4e Elemental Sorceror.

Discussing Essentials at the same time as regular 4e is a dodge. Essentials, while made for new players, was also design to evade much of the criticism that had been levelled at 4e. And it came out two years into the edition, too late to save it as people had already made their mind and customers had been lost.
Had WotC started with something similar to Essentials and books like those we've seen the past year, we would not be talking about 5e.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So maybe, just maybe, you're not someone who should be playing a fighter. Is that really so bad?
Besides, fighters were always worth playing in 3e. They could be great damage dealers and are the kings of damage in Pathfinder.
The wizard comment is true. They needed a little more love at low levels and a little less crazy at high. But that didn't require changing every other class. And the majority of the game was quite playable. Wizards were only weak/crazy at the very low levels and very high. With the later rarely being reached. Seems silly to change so much over content a small minority is going to experience.

Couldn't XP, but this is a great point. No reason to fix things that aren't broken, just the (smaller) ones that are. And if some people don't like playing fighters (or anything) that's also fine, as long as there are enough that do. Play something else. There's plenty of game to go around.

Discussing Essentials at the same time as regular 4e is a dodge. Essentials, while made for new players, was also design to evade much of the criticism that had been levelled at 4e. And it came out two years into the edition, too late to save it as people had already made their mind and customers had been lost.

This does agree with my limited sense of it.

Had WotC started with something similar to Essentials and books like those we've seen the past year, we would not be talking about 5e.

I don't know that this is true. D&D has been going downhill as a business for a while, for a variety of reasons. Releasing a different ruleset probably would have helped, but the GSL, the setting, the product quality (price, aesthetics, add-ons), the failed online initiatives, and the abysmal marketing campaign are all independent of that. So is the state of the other hobbies with which rpgs compete. So while mechanics matter, I think this statement is rather optimistic at best.

 

[n00bdragon]

Repackaging them as a power and is relatively trivial.

No, I think the distinction is very critical. You see, there's nothing in the rules of pre-4e D&D that allows the fighter to increase his damage or move his allies around. It's not even suggested that the DM accommodate such requests. If a player were to ask for such a thing it would be the most absurdly "Mother May I"... thing which I can imagine (I refrain from using the word "mechanic" because there's nothing mechanical about it).

Essentially, you have a character who must ask permission to be cool every single round, and if the DM is going to be the final arbiter of when you will and will not be cool what's the point of even being at the table?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

<snip good stuff>

Here's a couple power from somewhere:

Daily
Standard Action
Close burst 1
Target: Each creature in the burst you can see
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 1d10 + Ability modifier damage, and ongoing 5 damage (save ends)
Miss: Half damage.
Kicker: If you have the right class option, targets you hit are also knocked prone.

Daily
Standard Action
Personal
Effect: You shift your speed, including through squares occupied by enemies. Until the end of your next turn, you can squeeze without penalties to your attack rolls or speed.
Targets: Creatures whose spaces you shift through
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 3d8 + Ability modifier damage, and you push the target 1 square.
Miss: You push the target 1 square.

Encounter
Standard Action
Target: One creature
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 2d8 + Ability modifier damage, and the target treats all squares as difficult terrain until the end of your next turn. You and your allies ignore difficult terrain until the end of your next turn.
Kicker: If you have the right class option, until the end of your next
turn, your allies can ignore difficult terrain even if you miss.

Encounter
Standard Action
Target: One creature
Attack: Ability vs. Defence
Hit: 2d10 + Ability modifier damage. If the target leaves the space it currently occupies before the start of your next turn, it takes an extra 1d10 + Ability modifier damage.

Quick, which are spells, which are prayers, and which are exploits?


So maybe, just maybe, you're not someone who should be playing a fighter. Is that really so bad?
Besides, fighters were always worth playing in 3e. They could be great damage dealers and are the kings of damage in Pathfinder.
The wizard comment is true. They needed a little more love at low levels and a little less crazy at high. But that didn't require changing every other class. And the majority of the game was quite playable. Wizards were only weak/crazy at the very low levels and very high. With the later rarely being reached. Seems silly to change so much over content a small minority is going to experience.
<snip good stuff>

So much worthy of XP, but I have to spread it around first. Nicely done.

 

[billd91]

Essentially, you have a character who must ask permission to be cool every single round, and if the DM is going to be the final arbiter of when you will and will not be cool what's the point of even being at the table?

Is there any refereed RPG in which this isn't fundamentally the case? What do you do in 4e if the DM disagrees that what you're trying should be possible and won't let you use the value from the table on page 42?

If you can't trust the DM to let you do cool stuff in pre-4e editions, how can you trust him to do so in 4e?

 

[Ahnehnois]

No, I think the distinction is very critical. You see, there's nothing in the rules of pre-4e D&D that allows the fighter to increase his damage or move his allies around. It's not even suggested that the DM accommodate such requests. If a player were to ask for such a thing it would be the most absurdly "Mother May I"... thing which I can imagine (I refrain from using the word "mechanic" because there's nothing mechanical about it).

Essentially, you have a character who must ask permission to be cool every single round, and if the DM is going to be the final arbiter of when you will and will not be cool what's the point of even being at the table?

Power Attack doesn't increase damage? Weapon Specialization? Anything having to do with crits? 2e Weapon Mastery dosn't increase damage? 5e fighters don't get increased damage? The DMG doesn't encourage DMs to add a +2 or -2 circumstance modifier if the situation warrants it? There's room for improvement in how it's done, but there are lots more ways than these for fighters to increase damage across the D&D spectrum. Ways that don't require the DM to do anything special.

Moving allies is a rather odd concept. Characters have always been able to move. Replacing the ability of an ally to move himself is one of those quasi-magical things that make people look cross-eyed at the game; it's not clear to me what's happening there. But the ally can still move, accomplishing the same result.

More to the point, I don't recall this "asking permission" phenomenon ever occurring in a game. It's not as if D&D players have been complaining for decades that their characters are not cool and suddenly their prayers were answered. They either enjoyed themselves (which is most people, or they wouldn't be at the table) or they didn't (in which case there might or might not be some issues in the rules to address).

***

An example of giving the fighter a meaningful and reasonable and truly different new ability would be an ability to bypass the hit point system (save or die), inflict a bleeding wound, hamstring an opponent, or poke someone's eye out. Or an active defense mechanic or resistance to the above types of assaults. These outcomes have been described in D&D, but don't come about through the typical combat rules.

Definitely room for improvement, but it's got nothing to do with packaging together a hundred different variations on forced movement, dazing opponents, and inflicting various amounts of hit point damage and acting as if this improves the fighter's options.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

If you can't trust the DM to let you do cool stuff in pre-4e editions, how can you trust him to do so in 4e?

For the win!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Power Attack doesn't increase damage? Weapon Specialization? Anything having to do with crits? 2e Weapon Mastery dosn't increase damage? 5e fighters don't get increased damage? The DMG doesn't encourage DMs to add a +2 or -2 circumstance modifier if the situation warrants it? There's room for improvement in how it's done, but there are lots more ways than these for fighters to increase damage across the D&D spectrum. Ways that don't require the DM to do anything special.

Moving allies is a rather odd concept. Characters have always been able to move. Replacing the ability of an ally to move himself is one of those quasi-magical things that make people look cross-eyed at the game; it's not clear to me what's happening there. But the ally can still move, accomplishing the same result.

More to the point, I don't recall this "asking permission" phenomenon ever occurring in a game. It's not as if D&D players have been complaining for decades that their characters are not cool and suddenly their prayers were answered. They either enjoyed themselves (which is most people, or they wouldn't be at the table) or they didn't (in which case there might or might not be some issues in the rules to address).

***

An example of giving the fighter a meaningful and reasonable and truly different new ability would be an ability to bypass the hit point system (save or die), inflict a bleeding wound, hamstring an opponent, or poke someone's eye out. Or an active defense mechanic or resistance to the above types of assaults. These outcomes have been described in D&D, but don't come about through the typical combat rules.

Definitely room for improvement, but it's got nothing to do with packaging together a hundred different variations on forced movement, dazing opponents, and inflicting various amounts of hit point damage and acting as if this improves the fighter's options.

Couldn't XP you but well done!