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

[mattcolville]

So I ask you, for those switching to 5E from 4E, are you worried about missing powers? For those having played the playtest, did there feel like a lack?

I will miss it, but I'm also glad it's gone.

I loved the way it made you feel as a player. All these cool options! Every round neat choices! Combos! So many cool new powers to look forward to! You felt like a star on your turn.

I liked how they made everyone think tactically. Like a wargame or boardgame. That's how I run the bad guys!

I didn't like how my players, across all groups and many games, focused too much on their powers. They had these cool cards! They wanted to use them!

I didn't like how complex it made 1st level characters. Many first time players came to my table and especially if they were playing a Cleric, they had a stack of power cards and no idea how to use them. Too many things to learn for the new player.

I never liked the fact that the majority of your effectiveness came from your powers and only a tiny fraction from your Items. Because my GM style is not "save the world" but rather "loot dungeons for cash and treasure."

But the treasure never meant much. Powers were what everyone wanted more of. And cash was just a way to convert items you didn't want into items you did want.

So I had a love/hate relationship with it.

 

[Dungeoneer]

The philosophy behind AEDU

As others have said, AEDU is just one way to implement a certain design philosophy. This, as I understand it, is the philosophy broken down into a few simple rules:

1. All classes have interesting abilities to choose between in combat.
2. Those abilities increase in power in a scalable way so that no class is left behind at any level.
3. Depending on their frequency of use, number of enemies effected and other factors, abilities should have their to-hits and damage output fall into certain predefined ranges.
4. Every class should have abilities that can be used all the time; no class should ever run out of things to do. Some abilities may be resources that must be managed. These are generally more powerful.
5. Abilities should be such that whenever a player uses them, they feel like the class they are playing. Using a rogue's ability should make you feel like a rogue. Using a bard's ability should make you feel like a bard. This requires a certain amount of uniqueness, especially for iconic class abilities.

Giving every class the same number of abilities and dividing them into At-Wills, Encounters, Dailies and Utilities is one way to achieve these goals, but it's clearly not the only way. As others have pointed out, you can find alternatives in Bo9S, 4e psionics, 4e Essentials and 13th Age.

When I think about 'modern game design' I think about Sid Meier's statement that a game is a series of interesting decisions. We want to give the player a handful of options to choose between in combat, with no option clearly better than the others in every situation. Choice is important, not just to allow the player to express themselves but to make the game interesting. Thus, Rule #1.

We talk a lot about balance, but per Rule #2, really the idea is that no class should be irrelevant early in the game or obsolete at later levels. It is not necessary that every class be precisely equal to every other one. And honestly, I don't think that was ever a design goal, even in early 4e.

Following Rule #3 should give designers a good mathematical foundation on which to build classes. Although early AEDU classes tended to look a lot alike, at least on paper, the truth is that if we have this foundation you can get pretty creative with your classes. No need to make them all similar, we know that they will all be similarly effective in terms of damage output. Again, it's not necessary that they be precisely balanced, just that no class gets left behind.

Rule #4 leads directly to the A, E and D in AEDU. But it isn't strictly necessary that every class have At-Will powers, Encounter powers and Daily powers. We want more powerful abilities to be used less frequently, but there are lots of ways to achieve this. For instance in 13th Age, there are powers that 'unlock' only on certain rolls of the dice. Or a power might have to be 'recharged' in some way after use. We should't have a class, however, that has ONLY abilities that are limited like this, or they might become ineffective at some point.

Rule #5 might be the hardest to explain in concrete terms, but it's the reason for the 'power block'. The 4e fighter power 'Tide of Iron' allows the player to push an enemy one square when they're using a shield. This 'feels' like the sort of brute force maneuver we would expect from a fighter. It is more interesting than simply hitting the enemy for damage, which every class can do. This is one of the fighter's At-Wills, so it should be fairly unique to the fighter class. If the bard can also push enemies around with an At-Will it makes this ability less cool for the fighter. The bard should have to use a more restricted ability to do the same thing, or have different requirements apply before it can push an enemy. This way each class feels like it fills a niche, where it is very good at what it's doing.

Personally, I like this design a lot, to the point where I'm not particularly interested in a class-based RPG that doesn't deliver it in some way. I don't care if you call it AEDU or not. I want each class to feel unique, have interesting choices and be effective at every level.

 

[Bluenose]

Abilities should be such that whenever a player uses them, they feel like the class they are playing. Using a rogue's ability should make you feel like a rogue. Using a bard's ability should make you feel like a bard. This requires a certain amount of uniqueness, especially for iconic class abilities.

Rule #5 might be the hardest to explain in concrete terms, but it's the reason for the 'power block'. The 4e fighter power 'Tide of Iron' allows the player to push an enemy one square when they're using a shield. This 'feels' like the sort of brute force maneuver we would expect from a fighter. It is more interesting than simply hitting the enemy for damage, which every class can do. This is one of the fighter's At-Wills, so it should be fairly unique to the fighter class. If the bard can also push enemies around with an At-Will it makes this ability less cool for the fighter. The bard should have to use a more restricted ability to do the same thing, or have different requirements apply before it can push an enemy. This way each class feels like it fills a niche, where it is very good at what it's doing.

Personally, I like this design a lot, to the point where I'm not particularly interested in a class-based RPG that doesn't deliver it in some way. I don't care if you call it AEDU or not. I want each class to feel unique, have interesting choices and be effective at every level.

I like your analysis in general, but I think #5 points to exactly why some older edition players disliked the 4e Wizard. Wizards/Mages/MUs in previous editions had no such feel. All they did was cast spells. And those spells could do anything. Then 4e came along and tried to find What Wizards Do and put that into the game (that it perhaps failed in the core rules to do that well is another problem) and not permitting much extension past this. So of course these new limits meant the Wizard couldn't do everything that it did before. Some people did not like this.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I like your analysis in general, but I think #5 points to exactly why some older edition players disliked the 4e Wizard. Wizards/Mages/MUs in previous editions had no such feel. All they did was cast spells. And those spells could do anything. Then 4e came along and tried to find What Wizards Do and put that into the game (that it perhaps failed in the core rules to do that well is another problem) and not permitting much extension past this. So of course these new limits meant the Wizard couldn't do everything that it did before. Some people did not like this.

I think what you're talking about doesn't have much to do with the 5 rules or AEDU but with the 'roles' that 4e introduced. I liked roles, but it definitely required them to redefine the wizard a bit. I could see not everyone taking to it.

 

[Lokiare]

... What?

In 4th Edition, As a third level Weapon master Fighter and I have a choice of 2 at-will powers, 2 encounter powers, 1 utility power and 1 daily power. Many of 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.)

Well, your partially right. On top of what you listed in 4E you could use an action point to get an extra action, aid another, basic attack, bull rush, charge, crawl, escape if grabbed, grab a creature, make an opportunity attack, ready an action, run, use second wind, shift, squeeze, stand up, total defense (great for moving through threatened areas), walk, or use 2-3 at-will maneuvers, 2 encounter maneuvers, 1 utility maneuver, and 1 daily power (which was likely "Reliable" meaning they could re-use it until they hit with it). That's just out of the PHB. That's not including the robust page 42 improvisation that allowed the player to use a basic attack or a power to do something not listed.

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,

You can do this in 4E too, its just usually (but not always) better to use an at-will maneuver instead.

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.

Many at-will powers were not limited by weapon, and combat superiority maneuvers were no different than 4E at-will maneuvers except you can run out. So in 4E you have 2 at-will maneuvers and 2 encounter maneuvers that are equivalent to those you listed. 4E is still ahead.

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.

Action surge is equivalent to 4E's action points, except in 4E you got more than 1 or 2 a day (1 point per 2 encounters), there are many feats and maneuvers in 4E that key off of charging, there are some maneuvers that key off hitting or missing with an attack. So this is a wash.

On top of this Fighters in 4E also give their Marked opponents a -2 to attack anyone else, they get a free attack if those opponents attack someone else or move away. So 4E is one or more up on 5E.

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?

Nice try, but 4E has the same freedoms and no trap options as everything is about equal. In both systems you can make a gimped character if you work at it, its just that in 4E its harder to do.

I've seen many players that run out of limited use maneuvers and start improvising or be perfectly happy using basic attacks and at-will maneuvers for the rest of the day. In my experience healing surges are the thing that cause a party to stop and rest.

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.

The same goes for 4E. I see plenty of improvisation in my games.

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.

5E gives you a few options that once expended devolve the combat into 'hit it and hit it again". In 4E you at least are left with 3-4 (basic attack, 2-3 at-will maneuvers) interesting things you can do each round when you run out of limited resources.

Defenses and abilities weren't unbounded in 4E. They were bounded by point buy and the maximum you could add to it at any given level. The fake bounding in 5E puts an artificial limit on your ability scores so that you don't feel your character reaches its full potential in the the system laws. Something 4E doesn't do. Defenses could not reach more than a certain amount as they were based on your ability scores and your magic items for characters and your level and ability scores for monsters. In 4E you could get the Quick Draw feat and swap your weapon out every round to as many weapons as you could carry. I'm just not seeing these supposed limits you keep implying 4E had...

Note: this post is not edition warring. I'm not attacking 5E. I'm comparing it to 4E line by line rule by rule. Very different than insulting an edition...

 

[Neonchameleon]

... 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.)

You might not have seen people use basic attacks that weren't granted - but I've used them. I've even made the odd grab or bull rush. In fact I've once seen a 4e fighter who didn't make ranged basic attacks ever - and I've made melee basic attacks with a variety of classes (my Warlord had them as part of their SOP for when they didn't have the necessary backup to Brash Assault).

Your claim about some powers wanting specialised weapons is irrelevant given that for any given character the only powers that matter are the powers actually on the character sheet.

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!)

Half of this is special pleading. A 4e fighter can use a longbow - and some of the ones I see carry them (most carry javelins - some carry longbows as well for serious distance). And they use them when they are the best tool they have available. You can also carry a golf-bag of weapons in 4e just as easily as Next. You also have the Pogo-stick test. Any option that is strictly worse than another option (like bouncing around the dungeon on a pogo stick). The fear of sucking from two weapons is actually there for two reasons:

1. Specialisation. If you have put a feat or a combat style or even a magic item into any attack style that makes it superior
2. Changing weapons when you are already in melee is counterproductive.

And there's a bug in the effective math. It's set up such that by default two shortswords are better than a greatsword as they do the same DPR but less overkill, meaning that they are better against chaff (e.g. 2hp kobolds where all the extra damage from the greatsword is wasted) and no worse against big stuff where the full DPR is relevant.

In short your entire list of the above amounts to "I have a list of inferior options to my SOP that I can use when they happen to be relevant".

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.

1: If you didn't want 4e maneuvers that encouraged you to specialise you didn't have to take them.
2: The maneuvers all work the same way. Walk up to the enemy. Attack with a basic attack. Add a rider that forces an additional roll. You're about as interesting as the 4e Knight.

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.

So. Charge isn't actually a distinct option in Next the way it is in 4e. It's just a Melee Basic Attack, exactly the same as all your other melee basic attacks. Even the 4e Knight gets multiple stances to use for the charge. Not helping your case here.

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.

And if you have better two weapon fighting you've just annihilated your "I can use any weapon" argument. Sure you can. You can also use a rock as a weapon. The two weapons are better. And your reaction ability is much more obvious and so much less interesting than the 4e Fighter with their Mark/Combat Challenge.

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,

You have that backwards. The 4e fighter has all its trap options clearly marked as such. You've listed numerous trap options as viable options.

But fundamentally the reason that the 4e fighter is much more interesting than the Next one is the same reason the 4e Fighter is much more interesting than the 4e Knight (the Next fighter is more fiddly than but has about the same number of options as the Knight). 4e Powers are a design language into which you can insert just about any ability that moves or hurts people. The Next Fighter options are riders which only alter the way the attacks work at a defined point and always do it the same way. Further the requirement that 4e Fighters have different encounter powers means that you don't just find one "best" attack style and spam that.

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.

Or you must be using special pleading here - everything you can do out of the box in one system you can do in the other. But you run into the GURPS "Bag of Sand" principle; if sand in the eyes worked every time

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.

I refer you to your previous paragraph. Your arguments here apply to Next every bit as much as they do 4e.

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.

Hint: Next has weapon type specific feats and class abilities. 4e has defences that are bounded - they might scale by level but so do PCs and enemies; the cause of the treadmill complaint. Bounded stats aren't relevant unless you think you can get both strength and dexterity to 20. Every single argument you make here applies to Next as much as it does 4e.

And to add the icing on the cake is that in 4e a Javelin uses Strength to hit. In Next it uses Dexterity. This means that if you have a fighter with Str 18 and Dex 10 (viable in both systems), the 4e fighter can hit people with the javelin pretty effectively. The Next fighter is inept with all ranged weapons. Which is why almost all 4e fighters in my experience carried javelins, throwing axes, or throwing hammers. Sure they'd rather be in the enemy's face like a good fighter, but they weren't bad with heavy thrown weapons. A Str 18, Dex 10 fighter in Next can barely hit the broad side of a barn door with any weapon. Although having double checked the rules, a Next fighter can use a Dart with their strength modifier to hit because it's a Finesse weapon, so this almost evens out (Next fighters should all carry darts unless their dexterity is equal to their strength, whereas 4e fighters had a choice of large throwing weapon - although it's good to see the dart fighter return if we want the feel of D&D)

And that isn't even getting into subtle traps such as that melee rogues so far as I can tell should always use two weapons - they get to roll twice to trigger their sneak attack, and two shortswords hits as hard as a greatsword but they can't finesse the greatsword.

 

[Dausuul]

And to add the icing on the cake is that in 4e a Javelin uses Strength to hit. In Next it uses Dexterity.

Nitpicking, but you're wrong about this one. The innovation of using Strength for thrown weapons was one of 4E's best ideas IMO, and Next stuck with it; the "Thrown" property states that you use Strength for attack and damage. The dart is a finesse weapon not for the sake of fighters, but so that wizards and rogues can use them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nitpicking, but you're wrong about this one. The innovation of using Strength for thrown weapons was one of 4E's best ideas IMO, and Next stuck with it; the "Thrown" property states that you use Strength for attack and damage. The dart is a finesse weapon not for the sake of fighters, but so that wizards and rogues can use them.

Having double checked you're absolutely right, and thanks. I was looking under attack rolls and finesse but hadn't thought to check under the thrown property.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, its was partly a 4Ed innovation. In 3.XEd, thrown weapons used Dex for targeting bonuses, but Str for damage bonuses.