D&D 5E Are you going to miss AEDU? (And did you feel a lack in the playtest because of it?)

[keterys]

I've had some interesting situations in 4e where the PCs didn't have a lot of time to rest, so had to choose when to take a breather, being more or less prepared for different situations or letting NPCs die while they rested (or pushing on at risk to themselves). I'll miss the concept of a dramatic short rest / breather if 5E ends up not having one that matters to the group.

I do think that 4e's encounter powers create rotes a little too much; not that having _no choice_ is better, but I'd like more flexibility for most characters, unless it's in theme for their character. That is to say, it's okay for fighters to be able to push for a bit extra every now and then and only pull off maneuvers so often, but it probably shouldn't be the same 3 maneuvers every single encounter. Any more than they should make a roll vs. AC for some damage with nothing special added every round. Happy middles, and all that.

 

[Larrin]

I think that when I miss AEDU, what I'm actually missing is a combination of is feeling like I'm being a [class] with every attack and that my character has combat functionality. This isn't 5e specific, and I actually think 5e does this better then pathfinder, in my opinion.

Heck there are times in 4e when I don't get these 'needs' met. (low levels and certain classes).


My take from the AEDU system is the philosophy of trying to make a cleric/fighter/bard/wizard be a cleric/fighter/bard/wizard every turn and that while being that in combat, it is a meaningful contribution and gives them a few things to choose from. I can agree with people thinking that not every class needs the same progression in AEDU-type powers to get this accomplished, but it served the purpose of making it easier to design the classes for the first go at it, so I can't really fault it for existing.

So my longing for AEDU type power systems to be in D&D really is just wanting my characters to be flavorful and functional (and tactical, i guess) in combat

For example: I've played a version of the same character in 4e, 5e and pathfinder, a death priest (all at lower levels). For me, If my guy can feel like the death priest I see him as most of the time, and isn't just limited to one way to contribute in combat (only basic attacks or one cantrip, same thing in the end to me), I'm happy with whatever form that takes.
-4e warpriest death domain gave me this, I always felt I had tactical, death priest-like, choices and actions to make in combat.
-5e cleric death domain, less choice per encounter (could mace attack people, or cantrip (chill-touch?), spells were mostly used for healing), Definitely a step back from the level of 'death-priestly-ness' I felt, but had enough cusomization AND functionality to be a contender in combat. Missed AEDU for sure.
-Pathfinder, Cleric death domain. Until I gained enough levels that I could afford to cast 1 spell per battle, or that my domain powers weren't worthless, I felt like a poorly made fighter. He was as customized into what I wanted him to be like as best I knew how, but his functionality was low. That was when I missed AEDU the most.


Anyway: 5e seems a step back from what AEDU brought me that I liked. They wouldn't need to put back AEDU to fix this for me, there are things in 5e that begin to satisfy me in this regard, but not to the same level that 4e provided for most classes.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

[No message]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My group has talked about this some, and tomorrow when we meet I will bring this up again.

So far we are pretty split. Most of us are glad to see mostly Daily Wizards back but are upset to see the rogue and fighter.

I said when we were waiting for the first playtests I would love a 2e wizard and 2e cleric to sit at a table with a fighter mixed from Bo9S and 4e and a Rogue mixed from reg 4e and essentials....

SO not all clerics have the same spells (sphere access) and wizards had limited spells known and drawbacks on some spells (although I would add the 3.5 reserve feats and cantrips) and Fighters had some basic attacks and some stances mixed with cool encounter powers, and rogue have cool movement powers with a few one off tricks.


I also liked early idea's of different types of rests Short, Long, extended..

 

[DMZ2112]

I think D&D4 is a fun game, and I think it was an important process step in Wizards' development of D&D as a holistic entity.

But no, I won't miss the powers system at all in the future when playing mainstream D&D. That doesn't mean I won't come back to D&D4 or its spinoff products, and it doesn't mean I won't play or enjoy 13th Age, but I won't miss AEDU in D&D5.

 

[Johnny Champion]

Coming back to D&D from 30+ years, it felt very strange to see fighters and rogues possessing 'powers'. Fighter and rogue skills and abilities, I assumed, were primarily gained through dedicated training, apprenticeship and experience. The feeling that AEDU provides makes these classes seem as magical as wizards and clerics. Maybe it is a semantic thing; that 4E powers can be non-magical in nature (skills in the case of a fighter) or magical in nature (spells in case of a wizard) but still under the same structure of AEDU. Whatever they wind up with in 5e, I hope they have at least an option for combat without AEDU or a renamed equivalent.

 

[Storminator]

I think that when I miss AEDU, what I'm actually missing is a combination of is feeling like I'm being a [class] with every attack and that my character has combat functionality.

This is a pretty key idea. Well expressed.

For my part, I hope to still be playing 4e more or less forever, so I hope not!

PS

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is a pretty key idea. Well expressed.

For my part, I hope to still be playing 4e more or less forever, so I hope not!

PS

Has anyone put out a 4E clone? I would think someone could take the d20 license and make something that looks a lot like 4E (obviously they would have to have different powers and concepts that deviate from the core system).

 

[Wyckedemus]

The player probably won't like the D&DN rogue. If they only play rogues, there's a real problem there. There's a little too much "mother may I have combat advantage?" going on with D&DN rogues IMO. Bt they may enjoy the fighter, especially if they would have been a fan of the slayer.

What sort of things? I don't think I've seen anything like Handspring Assault in D&DN (that's a rogue power that lets you attack and then shift as one action, plus it's reliable so if you miss you can use it again). Or Deep Cut (inflict ongoing damage), or...

The rogue gets the Cunning Action ability at Level 2 which is an amazingly open ability that replaces the movement secondary effects of so many 4E powers.

Want to move in, attack, and disenage? Sure, that replaces most powers that allowed the rogue to shift as part of the action. Want to attack with ranged, then move and hide? Go for it.

In 5E, Cunning action allows the Rogue to do the following things to get sneak attack:

Move to cover... then Hide (Cunning Action).... then make a ranged attack with Combat Advantage for sneak attack.

Move adjacent to an enemy that is adjacent to your ally, then make a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage... then Disengage if he's still alive, or Hustle if you killed him, to move to safety, or set up your next victim.


This is the kind of freedom that I want to replace "powers". To have abilities that can be combined in ways to fulfill a variety of combat needs.

... in my opinion.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Has anyone put out a 4E clone? I would think someone could take the d20 license and make something that looks a lot like 4E (obviously they would have to have different powers and concepts that deviate from the core system).

It's not a clone, but 13th Age builds on a lot of 4e concepts.