D&D 4E What can Next do to pull in 4e campaigns?

[Obryn]

I think monsters need a veneer of a class. If the PCs encounter an hobgoblin fighter it should feel like a fighter and not do a dozen cool things the party fighter can't do. If they fight an elf wizard it should feel similar to an elf wizard PC.
If classed monsters have unique powers it's... disruptive. Distracting. If NPC elf wizard can fire a force bolt that allows them to teleport at-will then why can't the player character learn that same spell?

You shouldn't be applying the full class rules (although that should be an option) but there should be a simple template system for giving a monster the feeling of a class, with assorted level bands.

I don't find it disruptive at all, but this in an old debate I'm not interested in re-engaging. Suffice to say, I don't find this problematic and indeed I think it's awesome to break that symmetry and give NPCs unique and flavorful tricks. I consider it a strength of the system that adding on a power or two can give a monster the feel of a class, without worrying about inadvertently giving PCs overpowered spells, exploits, etc. I think pc/npc symmetry is a terrible expectation that has negative side effects which ripple through the entire system.

It's a hassle, especially when you mix in feats, spells, keywords and assorted unique special abilities.
I'm okay with core rulebook spells though. Because they're the same content as the PCs are using it's content I should know anyway, and after a little while you just become familiar with the common spells. You know what a magic missile or fireball does.
While it's convenient to have the full text in a monster statblock, having 2-3 unique snowflake powers for every monster was a huge headache for me during 4e. A dozen new powers to learn for each encounter, most of which will see a single use? Almost 40 for an entire adventure. Ugh.

Monsters using Core Rulebook spells is exactly what I said I don't want, though. That's the "spell lists in stat blocks" thing that I and others are saying is a deal-breaker.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree about the monster/NPC self contained abilities. Because they are all in a simple and functional language pulling from a short, common list of effects, I find it far easier than referencing hundreds of spells which don't all distill down to this functional shorthand and instead work as 300+ self contained "keywords." It made prep much easier, and monster creation infinitely easier for me.

 

[Jester David]

I don't find it disruptive at all, but this in an old debate I'm not interested in re-engaging. Suffice to say, I don't find this problematic and indeed I think it's awesome to break that symmetry and give NPCs unique and flavorful tricks. I consider it a strength of the system that adding on a power or two can give a monster the feel of a class, without worrying about inadvertently giving PCs overpowered spells, exploits, etc. I think pc/npc symmetry is a terrible expectation that has negative side effects which ripple through the entire system.

PC/NPC symmetry was problematic in 3e, but there was so much of it. Feats, stats, hit dice, saves, advancement. A lot of it was needless. But just because an edition went overboard doesn't mean a dash of symmetry is bad. A middle ground between the OMFG symmetry of 3e and the are-the-DM-and-Players-in-the-same-game?? detachment of 4e.

Unique NPC powers are great if there is a narrative reason. Yeah, the powerful reclusive necromancer can have a unique energy draining spell. The human NPC fighter who is a knight in the Elite Order of Butt Kickers can have a special move taught only to the EOoBK and requires a decade to master.
But a town guard having a special move that's on par or better than what the fighter can do? Pass.

Monsters using Core Rulebook spells is exactly what I said I don't want, though. That's the "spell lists in stat blocks" thing that I and others are saying is a deal-breaker.

It's not that bad.
When I need a really quick spell ruling I have my iPad or the books I paid good money for to reference. I felt like my PHB was a waste of $40 in 4e. Doubly so when I got the Rules Compendium. Or I can ask my players, because it's content they know.
I also tend to "cheat" and use a website that generates spell cards for my monsters, saving them as a PDF that I reference on my tablet.

There's other reasons. Compare the Dark Priest from the 5e Bestiary in the current package to ones from earlier packages.
Spells in the current package take two lines. It and the Dark Adept could fit on a single column. In the Dec 2012 package spells take 17 lines. In a theoretical two-page "Cultist" section of the Monster Manual it's the difference between three monsters (plus fluff and art) and four monsters (plus fluff and art). Or extra customization options. And that's just one of the many spell using creatures.

Listing spells means much more space. Listing powers means spells get cut in high level monsters to 2-3 key spells and there's less space for other content.

Frankly... I'd rather have more monsters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Monsters using Core Rulebook spells is exactly what I said I don't want, though. That's the "spell lists in stat blocks" thing that I and others are saying is a deal-breaker.

Indeed. If D&D Next monster statblocks are a list of pointers to other books rather than being complete statblocks that contain everything I need to run the game then I am never going to DM D&D next other than for one-shots. (And frankly, if I want a D&Dish one shot I'm using Dungeon World).

As for having more monsters, I have six 4e monster manuals, a 3.0 MM, a 2e Monstrous Manual, a 1e MM, a Monsternomicon, and quite a few other sources for monsters including the d20PFSRD. Unless D&D Next is utterly opaque, I will be able to run monsters almost as easily using those sources as I will with the official monster manuals. I don't want more monsters than that - I want better ones. Ones where I don't have to convert on the fly or have half a dozen books open in front of me.

 

[Obryn]

PC/NPC symmetry was problematic in 3e, but there was so much of it. Feats, stats, hit dice, saves, advancement. A lot of it was needless. But just because an edition went overboard doesn't mean a dash of symmetry is bad. A middle ground between the OMFG symmetry of 3e and the are-the-DM-and-Players-in-the-same-game?? detachment of 4e.

Unique NPC powers are great if there is a narrative reason. Yeah, the powerful reclusive necromancer can have a unique energy draining spell. The human NPC fighter who is a knight in the Elite Order of Butt Kickers can have a special move taught only to the EOoBK and requires a decade to master.
But a town guard having a special move that's on par or better than what the fighter can do? Pass.

As I said, I'm not really interested in re-engaging this debate. I've not found it problematic. It's clear you did.

It's not that bad.
When I need a really quick spell ruling I have my iPad or the books I paid good money for to reference. I felt like my PHB was a waste of $40 in 4e. Doubly so when I got the Rules Compendium. Or I can ask my players, because it's content they know.
I also tend to "cheat" and use a website that generates spell cards for my monsters, saving them as a PDF that I reference on my tablet.

There's other reasons. Compare the Dark Priest from the 5e Bestiary in the current package to ones from earlier packages.
Spells in the current package take two lines. It and the Dark Adept could fit on a single column. In the Dec 2012 package spells take 17 lines. In a theoretical two-page "Cultist" section of the Monster Manual it's the difference between three monsters (plus fluff and art) and four monsters (plus fluff and art). Or extra customization options. And that's just one of the many spell using creatures.

Listing spells means much more space. Listing powers means spells get cut in high level monsters to 2-3 key spells and there's less space for other content.

Frankly... I'd rather have more monsters.

But here... Yeah, it is absolutely that bad.

I'm not sure I can be much clearer than "I don't want to reference spell lists during play, and I expect my stat blocks to be self contained," though. I've done the spell lookup thing. Been there, done that, for years and years. Don't want to do it ever again.

Even if, for whatever reason, you're insisting on NPCs using PC spells for stuff like the dark acolyte, you need to cut that cruft the hell down. Print the basics and limit yourself to just a few spells, rather than giving them a full pc spread. No stat block should be several pages. Use less spells! Keep it concise and functional.

 

[Quickleaf]

Wait, so the reasoning behind having spells pulled from stat blocks in 5e was "errata"? Gah! That just boggles my mind.

It must be the idea that there needs to be PC / NPC parity when it comes to what sorts of abilities they have. But that's a slippery slope. I mean, there are complicated PC abilities that NPCs probably shouldn't have just because the DM is one person and only has so much cognitive processing space. And then there are times when you want to break the rules (for whatever narrative reason) and then you don't need a full spell write up describing components and such, do you? The needs for a PC ability and an NPC/monster ability are different: The PC ability can be much more complicated to allow for greater choice / strategic / tactical use by the player. The NPC/monster ability needs to be easy for the DM to describe and adjudicate...given all the other tasks and monsters the DM needs to handle.

Maybe a happy medium could be met with anything you need to run a monster or NPC in combat included in its stat block, and then if it has access to ritual-type spells used out of combat, those could be listed and linked to the PHB/spell reference.

 

[Desdichado]

Before I switched to the D&D Next playtest, I played a 4th edition campaign from start to finish, levels 1-30.
It was a blast, but at the end I was exhausted. My 4th edition fatigue had become critical and I think one more 2-hour battle would have drove me insane.

After the grueling slog through 4e's epic levels, I was ready for a change. The simplicity and speed D&D Next promised sold me pretty fast, and it delivered. Gone was the bloated tactical grind and in its place a simple and easy combat system that made for fast (sometimes too fast), action packed, immersive battles.

I had longed for the cinematic theatre-of-the-mind combats of 2e, and Next delivered that experience. I loved the system elegance and power structure of 4th, and I was sad to see it go – but at the end of the day I was having more fun with Next.

I think D&D Next can pull in 4e campaigns that are fatigued. If your game sessions are nothing but big, long, grindy, grid-based combats (in which the PCs are never in danger). If you miss a seamless transition from exploration to encounter and think you might like ToM over Grid. If you are tired of indestructible characters with unlimited healing. And, if you have had it up to here with the dazed condition – then I think D&D Next will be a refreshing change.

More than anything else I've seen on 5e, from WotC or anyone else, this one post right here encourages me to give it a look.

And I never even played 4e--I was already fatigued with grindy tactical combat in 3.5! It was obvious from before it's release that 4e was going to amp up one of the aspects of 3.5 that I was already most done with.

Not that I need 5e to do this, but still--it's an encouraging sign nonetheless.

 

[Mistwell]

Wait, so the reasoning behind having spells pulled from stat blocks in 5e was "errata"? Gah! That just boggles my mind.

No. They have not spoken to the matter in any way. I was speculating using an example of a larger possible reasoning. And, others said they liked that spells were referenced rather than constantly written out for monsters, if it was the same as the PC spell.

It must be the idea that there needs to be PC / NPC parity when it comes to what sorts of abilities they have. But that's a slippery slope. I mean, there are complicated PC abilities that NPCs probably shouldn't have just because the DM is one person and only has so much cognitive processing space. And then there are times when you want to break the rules (for whatever narrative reason) and then you don't need a full spell write up describing components and such, do you? The needs for a PC ability and an NPC/monster ability are different: The PC ability can be much more complicated to allow for greater choice / strategic / tactical use by the player. The NPC/monster ability needs to be easy for the DM to describe and adjudicate...given all the other tasks and monsters the DM needs to handle.

The way the system currently operates in the Beta test, they use both methods depending on the monster. Sometimes they just name a spell, and it's the PC spell. Sometimes they write out a spell-like ability unique to the monster (even if it has the same name as a PC spell), and write out the details in the monster entry. Earlier I gave an example of simply naming PC spells, here is an example of the later method:

Human Witch Doctor.
Ray of Enfeeblement (2/day): The witch doctor chooses a creature within 50 feet. The target must make a DC 14 Dexterity save. Failed Save: 14 (4d6) necrotic damage, and, if the target’s hit point maximum is 25 or less, the target’s melee attacks deal only half damage, and the target has disadvantage on Strength and Dexterity checks and saving throws. This effect lasts for 1 minute.

Now that Ray of Enfeeblement is completely different from the PC version of the spell of the same name. The PC spell just says, "On a hit, the target has disadvantage on attack rolls based on Strength or Dexterity, and it can deal no more than 1 damage with such an attack."

So it seems they use both methods, depending on the monster.

 

[Storminator]

So it seems they use both methods, depending on the monster.

I would assume they use both methods to test which one is preferred.

PS

 

[Wulfgar76]

More than anything else I've seen on 5e, from WotC or anyone else, this one post right here encourages me to give it a look.

Hobo-

I'm glad you found my commentary useful. I've taken to calling what I like best about D&D Next its "Hat Trick", three design philosophies that inject a breath of fresh air into the tabletop experience. Things I have missed sorely for 2 editions. Those things are:

1. Speed of Play
2. Bounded Accuracy
3. Theater of the Mind

Once you get a taste of those three things in action, I expect you may never play a 3rd edition variant again.

And I never even played 4e--I was already fatigued with grindy tactical combat in 3.5! It was obvious from before it's release that 4e was going to amp up one of the aspects of 3.5 that I was already most done with.

Combat, especially as levels increased, became a tactical grindy nightmare in both editions - albeit for reasons. D&D Next has roughly the battle speed of AD&D, with better balance and rules.

 

[pemerton]

I am "the older crowd" and so is most of my group (all started in AD&D).

I've been gaming for over 30 years and started with the Moldvay Basic book. That pretty much makes me an "older player" by any metric.

my own anecdotal evidence is a group of 8 players (including me), all over 40-something, all of whom regard 4E as the best D&D rule set there has been so far.

I'm over 40 and the youngest in my group. All but one of use have been playing since the 80s (I started with Moldvay Basic, as I think did some of the others). And all of us regard 4e as the best D&D ruleset to date.

I think monsters need a veneer of a class.

For me, an NPC or monster gets a veneer of class by wearing armour and carrying weapons (veneer of fighter) or by wearing robes and carrying a staff (veneer of wizard) - in otherwords, they look the part of the relevant fantasy trope. I don't t

If classed monsters have unique powers it's... disruptive. Distracting. If NPC elf wizard can fire a force bolt that allows them to teleport at-will then why can't the player character learn that same spell?

Unique NPC powers are great if there is a narrative reason.

There's always a narrative reason! The players in my game expect monsters, and NPC wizards, to be able to do weird stuff they haven't encountered before, and I've never found it disrupting. Dare I say that's part of what makes it magic?