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

[Nemesis Destiny]

I will definitely miss AEDU in terms of what it brought to mundane (i.e. non-magic-using) classes - the ability to remain relevant past level 7.

Yes, this was in part due to toning down the power of casters (again, a major win for me), but I also like the fact that non-casters can feel powerful and effective. They can choose their moments to shine, like only casters could before.

Which isn't to say that AEDU didn't benefit casters as well, because I think it really did. Wizards never run out of magic, so they never need to stop feeling "magical" when they run out of daily spells or want to save them for later. Encounter powers really helped here too.

So far, Next simply doesn't live up to my expectations in terms of what playing a given character should "feel" like, to me. Yes, it feels noticeably more "old school" and if that was a design goal, then they've succeeded, I suppose, but they've also succeeded in turning me off from buying their game.

I indicated these preferences again and again in the playtest feedback, but apparently that makes me an outlier (either that or they decided they'd just do whatever they felt like anyway). So be it. I have almost all the 4e product I care to buy, and for my future gaming purchases, there are other games made by other companies that I'd be happy to support.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

AEDU does not create balance. It does not foster balance. It doesn't have anything to do with balance between classes. AEDU is simply the idea that everyone has non-generic mechanical things otherwise known as "cool things" they can do all the time, everyone has slightly cooler things they can do slightly less often, and everyone has really cool things they can do every once in a while.

One thing that really repulses me is this idea (featured in 5e and in a few other games) that simply adding AEDU makes the game "balanced" in the same way that adding sugar makes food sweeter. AEDU is not an ingredient of "balanced" games. It's not the cause of "balance" in games. It's a symptom of a design philosophy that regardless of what character building options you choose you should have access to the same amount and variety of abilities as anyone else. Symmetry is important to game balanced game design. The aim for symmetry simply begat AEDU. It could beget many other things as well but in the case of 4e that's what they went with. You can speak on the demerits of AEDU all you like (it has many) but it's pretty hard to seriously argue that symmetrical design is bad.

The AEDU system in 4e certainly did create balance as it gave an equal number of options. This meant that one player wasn't stuck with one option while another player had 30.

When you standardize the number of options and the amount each option can be used, it then becomes MUCH easier to balance options against each other. A game where one character can simply make basic attacks for 1d8+4 every round forever and another one can use a selection of daily recharge abilities that do 10d6 points of damage is difficult to balance effectively. The 10d6 damage abilities are much stronger...but they are of limited use. Limited use is a disadvantage...but how MUCH of an disadvantage? Is is appropriate for them to do 10d6 damage or is being limited only worth double damage from the other class? That depends on the number of rounds of combat you fight each day. That number varies from group to group.

Given all that unpredictability and variability, it's difficult to come up with a number that is truly "balanced". AEDU minimizes the variability which enables the designers to more accurately determine the balance between abilities. This enables each class to feel just as powerful as every other class: Equal opportunities to shine and abilities having a similar effect on combat.

Plus AEDU makes each ability into a self contained stat block. This means it was much more difficult to stack abilities together to break the balance of the game. For instance, gaining a new power gives you more options but doesn't change the effectiveness of your old powers at all. An ability worded like most were in 3.5e: "When making an attack, you can now add 1d6 points of damage" allowed all sorts of wiggle room...Spells were attacks, you could add 1d6 to them now...even it it might not have been the intention of the ability.

I'm virtually positive that AEDU came out of a desire for balance. The early days of 4e came out of surveys given to RPGA players, specifically Living Greyhawk players. The number one concern of nearly every player I spoke to at the time was how 3.5e was completely unbalanced. The original and earliest playtests of 4e were given to specifically chosen RPGA members(mostly Triad members, authors, Circle members, and trusted friends of the others). The complaints about 3.5e at the time were all the same: Why did Wizards, Druids, and Clerics get the ability to change the entire universe 20 times a day while Fighters had one move: Swing your sword.

I was friends with a number of playtesters and although they were sworn to silence, I knew what kind of game they liked. They were pushing the entire time for more balance and more equality between the classes. AEDU was an elegant solution to help balance the game. Give all the classes the exact same structure to minimize the differences.

I don't believe symmetry is needed at all. You CAN balance classes that aren't created using the exact same structure...it is just more difficult and more prone to problems when you make small mistakes designing the game. The key to balance is minimizing variability. This can be done using other methods.

 

[jodyjohnson]

WotC has more data on AEDU and 4e then any previous edition of the game.

Once the Character builder went online they had hundreds of thousands of easily mine-able data from characters people were actually playing, what they were using and what wasn't up to par.

I think they didn't play-test 4e elements much because they already knew what 4e players were using. The numerous surveys and polls just informed the existing data.

Once the math and character options for the pre-4e group were baselined then building the 4e versions is very straight-forward while knowing how player's will game the 4e system just like they gamed the 3.x systems.

1e and 2e were less gamed because the main elements to be gamed were spells, tactics, and magic items - all under the purview of 'DM-may-I'.

 

[GX.Sigma]

So far, Next simply doesn't live up to my expectations in terms of what playing a given character should "feel" like, to me.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Lokiare]

I don't miss AEDU from 5E. I miss what it allowed players to do with the game. In 5E if you want that flexibility you have to play a spell caster or improvise and hope your DM knows how to guesstimate complex probability equations in their heads. So now half the character concepts I want to play are off limits if I want to do anything but "hit it, hit it again" or "Hide, hit it, hide, hit it" or some variation thereof.

AEDU allowed the classes to be balanced the poster above me explained it in quite a bit of detail. I agree with most of what they said.

AEDU allowed you to have several options at any given time. Even if you used all your powers, you still had 2-3 at-will powers to choose from plus all the normal combat actions like bull rush, charge, grab, etc...etc...On top of that you had robust and fair rules for improvisation that amounted to make an attack roll or a skill check against a defense. So everything was covered.

In 5E we don't see that. We see non casters with 1-2 options: "hit it, or hit it harder", while casters have a multitude of options and by level 10 they have more options than a caster in 4E had even at level 30.

This would be fine if it were split between the classes where you could pick a Fighter with one option, or you could pick a Fighter with 5 options. We don't see that though and are just left wanting.

In summary: I want what AEDU did for the game, but we don't necessarily have to have AEDU...

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm not married to the AEDU system, but what it represented is key for me to have any interest in a game. It ensured that everyone in the game had roughly equal options to choose from, and the spikes and lulls that keep each round from feeling samey. I actually rather prefer something more like the psionics system, where you have at-wills that get boosted into something better on a per-encounter basis, and a mixture of balanced systems like we had post-essentials can be great (especially when applied to all basic archetypes).

 

[n00bdragon]

snip

I'm not sure what you're on about. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. We agree on pretty much everything, though I feel like your post has the tone of disagreement.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

What do you mean by this?

It means what it says. It means Next does not live up to my expectations. The system doesn't do what I want; it doesn't push the right buttons for me. Personal preference. I explained it somewhat in the sentence of that paragraph that you did not quote.

 

[Wyckedemus]

AEDU allowed you to have several options at any given time. Even if you used all your powers, you still had 2-3 at-will powers to choose from plus all the normal combat actions like bull rush, charge, grab, etc...etc...On top of that you had robust and fair rules for improvisation that amounted to make an attack roll or a skill check against a defense. So everything was covered.

In 5E we don't see that. We see non casters with 1-2 options: "hit it, or hit it harder", while casters have a multitude of options and by level 10 they have more options than a caster in 4E had even at level 30.

This would be fine if it were split between the classes where you could pick a Fighter with one option, or you could pick a Fighter with 5 options. We don't see that though and are just left wanting.

In summary: I want what AEDU did for the game, but we don't necessarily have to have AEDU...

... What?

In 4th Edition, As a third level Weaponmaster Fighter and I have a choice of 2 at-will powers, 2 encounter powers, 1 utility power and 1 daily power. Manyof these powers limit how I can use them, or what weapons I can use. On top of that I can use second wind. I can also charge to make a basic attack. (However I've never seen anyone make a basic attack that was not granted outside a power or a charge.)

In D&D Next (which is not yet fully developed) I can play a Fighter (Warrior) at Level 3 and be able to make at-will melee or ranged attacks with a variety of weapons including my greataxe, or using two-weapon fighting to melee or throw two hand axes to spread my attacks out (without needing a power to tell me I can), or a longbow to make an attack at longer range (without fear of sucking because the enemy's defenses scaled above my Dex ability score. Thanks, Bounded Accuracy!)
Twice each combat (barring opportunities for recharging) I have a choice between 3 different combat superiority maneuvers with any melee weapon, and none of those attacks are limited by weapon like many 4E at-will or encounter powers were. I can also use Action Surge to make another attack action and mix it up. I can also charge to make an attack, but I can use combat superiority on that attack, unlike 4E's basic attack.
I get second wind as an ability, and might have better two-weapon fighting or the ability to react to give an enemy disadvantage if I so choose.

These lists aren't so different. They have a comparable number of options. The D&D Next Fighter has more freedom and less trap options, and yes, there is a Daily power for the Fighter which many love to have. In my experience, it was fun to get one's daily off (unless they missed). However after it was used, I've seen many players assume that they've run out of ammo and now want to rest and recover dailies. That was a story-killing trap. When their fighter is healthy, but they want an extended rest just so they can do a whirlwind-style attack again? How does that make sense in the world?

You must not be playing 5E regularly, or at least you must have the "limited to thinking inside a box" mindset that in order for something to be a valid combat option it has to be codified as a power in a little box.

5E gives me plenty of solid, varied attack options. I'm sorry that you don't see them. It's not like 4th edition which limited my choices to "attacking with my one good weapon" with one of a few specific powers. With accuracy feats and unbounded ability scores forcing you to race against unbounded defenses for your primary attack, using anything other than your primary weapon was seen by most to be a trap option. This is because there was a necessity in the system that taught us to think that.

... in my opinion.

 

[Incenjucar]

... What?
In D&D Next (which is not yet fully developed) I can play a Fighter (Warrior) at Level 3 and be able to make at-will melee or ranged attacks with a variety of weapons including my greataxe,

4E has this.

or using two-weapon fighting to melee or throw two hand axes to spread my attacks out (without needing a power to tell me I can),

Granted that you have to take certain builds for 2-weapon style in 4E.

or a longbow to make an attack at longer range (without fear of sucking because the enemy's defenses scaled above my Dex ability score. Thanks, Bounded Accuracy!)

Granted that this is an issue with ability scores being part of the to-hit formula. Terrible design choice.

Twice each combat (barring opportunities for recharging) I have a choice between 3 different combat superiority maneuvers with any melee weapon, and none of those attacks are limited by weapon like many 4E at-will or encounter powers were.

So, encounter powers? I don't see why it's bad that 4E also includes weapon-specific ones. Weapons shouldn't mean anything? Granted I'd prefer powers that let you do ANY weapon's specialty, whatever it is, rather than just a particular weapons.

I can also use Action Surge to make another attack action and mix it up.

Sounds like an Action Point?

I can also charge to make an attack, but I can use combat superiority on that attack, unlike 4E's basic attack.

4E's combat superiority is a +1 to hit, so does in fact function when making a charge. And then you have the slayer's charging stance... oof.

I get second wind as an ability, and might have better two-weapon fighting or the ability to react to give an enemy disadvantage if I so choose.

Sounds like 4E powers.

These lists aren't so different. They have a comparable number of options. The D&D Next Fighter has more freedom and less trap options, and yes, there is a Daily power for the Fighter which many love to have. In my experience, it was fun to get one's daily off (unless they missed). However after it was used, I've seen many players assume that they've run out of ammo and now want to rest and recover dailies. That was a story-killing trap. When their fighter is healthy, but they want an extended rest just so they can do a whirlwind-style attack again? How does that make sense in the world?

You must not be playing 5E regularly, or at least you must have the "limited to thinking inside a box" mindset that in order for something to be a valid combat option it has to be codified as a power in a little box.

5E gives me plenty of solid, varied attack options. I'm sorry that you don't see them. It's not like 4th edition which limited my choices to "attacking with my one good weapon" with one of a few specific powers. With accuracy feats and unbounded ability scores forcing you to race against unbounded defenses for your primary attack, using anything other than your primary weapon was seen by most to be a trap option. This is because there was a necessity in the system that taught us to think that.

... in my opinion.

Honestly, that just sounds like a 4E fighter or slayer build. They aren't all "pick this one weapon and suck with everything else." Beats the heck out of a 2E or 3E fighter in either case.

You have the AED in there. I assume there's a Utility hiding around somewhere?