Will there be a 4.75 a la Pathfinder?

[fjw70]

On a related note, Dragon Age by Green Ronin has a really cool point mechanic triggered by rolling doubles or triples (IIRC) as it uses 3d6 instead of a d20. It might be worth a look at for more ideas (I haven't read it but am going off what I saw in the Tabletop episode where Dragon Age was featured). Note to self: buy the PDFs and give it a read.

Yes that system partially inspired my ideas.

 

[fjw70]

Indeed, and that's the rub!

Everyone seems to have a slightly different idea of what a 4e clone should be. I've been told that my clone-in-progess 'doesn't feel like 4e,' even though from my view it's a logical extension of 4e. On the other hand, every time I pose a design question to the 4e community -- most recently "Is the class vs. non-class skill distinction worth keeping?" -- there are always fans who suggest changes much more radical than even I'm willing to make.

I think it's great that fans have diverse opinions -- even PF fans vary quite a bit in attitude and hopes -- but it also means that a lot of 4e fans will look at any given clone and think "Ugh, not for me!"

In my opinion 4e variants and clones should stay away from changing the core math of combat. Nth at is 4e's greatest strength IMO. You can have alternate classes or new monster types but it should all be built on that core combat math. Sort of like how original 4e and essentials are built on the same math platform (eventually) so it's all the same game.

 

[Emerikol]

13th Age is a game that only someone with a lot of 4e sensibilities could love. That said it is different from 4e. I'd say in all good ways but that is me. It is still a totally unacceptable game for me due to a massive lack of narrative mechanical unity including various dissociative mechanics as well as martial healing predominant. Those things are stuff 4e players and lovers seem to not mind so in that sense it is at least an option in some ways.

I think the designers of the game wanted to produce something that no one could claim doesn't look like D&D but also hit the 4e design goals in many areas.

I do think some of their mechanics are improvements. The fighter odd even thing is exactly right in my opinion for a high action fighter. I personally am happy with the simple fighter but it seems to hit a certain element.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

In my opinion 4e variants and clones should stay away from changing the core math of combat. Nth at is 4e's greatest strength IMO. You can have alternate classes or new monster types but it should all be built on that core combat math. Sort of like how original 4e and essentials are built on the same math platform (eventually) so it's all the same game.

I agree.

Frankly, I wouldn't touch the basic post-MMIII monster design. That works and creating your own monsters and NPCs - my own personal preference - is easy, simple, and strangely satisfying. As much as I love the monster builder, it's the one DDi tool that I don't feel that I "need".

 

[fjw70]

Yes, Gamma World was a great example of a 4e variant built on the 4e math. It is a shame we didn't see more of that sort of thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

13th Age is a game that only someone with a lot of 4e sensibilities could love.

It has room to appeal to classic D&Ders, causal 3e & 4e fans, and indie types. If you're dead-set against non-magical healing or targeting REF/FORT/WILL instead of forcing saves (the two clearest 4e-isms in 13A), you can reject it out of hand as some sort of 0-tollerance policy, but it strikes me as an over-reaction. OTOH, I'm very close to rejecting 13A based on the lack of consistency and balance in class design (and, really, even finding any fun or interest in any of the classes - so far I've played three times, and each time the class I tried was disappointing) - though, I do find it more appealing from the DM side of the screen (good handling of monsters, combat, and nifty indie/storytelling tricks like icons). That and the possibility that I might eventually find a class worth playing - maybe in 13TWs - keep it on my 'maybe' list. Of course, 5e isn't off my list just yet, either (I figure I have to see the Advanced game before giving up on it entirely, because, no matter how bad Basic or Standard may look, Advanced just might change it radically), and I could always go back to 3.5 or even try Pathfinder again (if 5e turns out /that bad/ and 4e disappears) - or go in the opposite direction and do FATE.

But, the one thing I hold out absolutely no hope for is a 4.75 -it'd just be too easy for WotC to block. It'll likely never happen - if it does, WotC (or Hasbro) will pull the litigation trigger.

 

[Zardnaar]

Are many people actually playing 13th Age though? I heard they were having trouble with various things but not sure how accurate that will be. Delayed MM or something like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why clone 4e? WotC is still printing and selling 4e.

WotC hasn't put out anything substantial for 4e since 2012, so while they might not have sold off their back stock yet, or might even say it's nominally still in print, it's been languishing essentially (pi) nu-supported for 2 years. Long enough to for a lot of pent-up demand for 5e to build up.

To clarify: I'm curious what 4e fans would consider an improvement of 4e.

Not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about, really. Through the edition war, which raged from the moment 4e was announced until it was dead and buried, 4vengers thought more about defending it, and during the 5e playtest, it was more a matter of trying to get some fraction of the good stuff from 4e into 5e, so it might potentially be /almost/ as good as 4e.

While there's a lot you could do to make 4e better, there's been no prospect of D&D continuing in those sorts of directions.

So, while it's fruitless speculation, things that might make 4e better (or make good modules, options or alternate 4e-based games):

- grouping powers under Source instead of class (cuts down on redundant powers, makes Source more meaningful - more racially, you could split Source and Role from class, letting the player pick and choose from among Source & Class powers and Role & Class features.)
- loosening up MCing by removing feat taxes and just letting multi-classed characters swap powers and same-role features at whim (cross-role features might still be an issue).
- more racial and theme 'substitution' powers to go with that.
- more chargen/development options that open up substitution powers.
- controller role support in the form of class features instead of overpowered controller powers (which screw up the options above).
- Advice, guidelines, & examples of good Epic-level stories and adventures.
- Getting skills onto the de-facto +1/level bandwagon to simplify on-the-fly DCs
- An optional simplified, flat +1/level progression to replace magic-item dependence, stat boosts, and feat taxes.
- A massive clean-up of feat traps, feat taxes, and over/under-powered and redundant feats in general
- further development of the potential of skill-challenge type mechanics, linking them directly to the two non-combat pillars in more structured ways, so DMs have tools for exploration and interaction comparable to those they have for encounter design.
- expansion of interaction and exploration utilities and features for all classes, so classes remain balanced & contributing regardless of which pillar a story or campaign emphasizes.
- expansion of martial practices and other ritual-like options for sources that rituals don't fit

and, of course:
- an OGL, with emphasis on the O, so lots of other games could be developed using the 4e-isms like surges, action points, powers, &c that would work /so/ well in such a range of heroic genres besides fantasy.

 

[Emerikol]

It has room to appeal to classic D&Ders, causal 3e & 4e fans, and indie types. If you're dead-set against non-magical healing or targeting REF/FORT/WILL instead of forcing saves (the two clearest 4e-isms in 13A), you can reject it out of hand as some sort of 0-tollerance policy, but it strikes me as an over-reaction.

I was thinking more about the lack of narrative mechanical unity as Bawylie would say. The widespread use of damage on a miss. The dissociative mechanics in various places.

I agree with you though that not all 4e players will like 13th Age. I just believe that if you really hated 4e you likely won't like 13th Age unless what you hated about 4e was something off the beaten path. For example if you love 4e except you wish you could do ToTM. Not sure how many such people exist but surely some.

I figure the three biggest reasons for 4e's rejection were dissociative mechanics, martial Healing, and slow play. I'm actually going to the term non-NMU because it includes things like damage on a miss which dissociative does not cover.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
It has room to appeal to classic D&Ders, causal 3e & 4e fans, and indie types. If you're dead-set against non-magical healing or targeting REF/FORT/WILL instead of forcing saves (the two clearest 4e-isms in 13A), you can reject it out of hand as some sort of 0-tollerance policy, but it strikes me as an over-reaction

I was thinking more about the lack of narrative mechanical unity as Bawylie would say.

So mainly the non-magical healing, then, not so much the targeting.

The widespread use of damage on a miss.

OK, the targeting, too, since that's what turns all those half-damage-on-a-save entries into mathematically identical half-damage-on-a-miss.

The dissociative mechanics in various places.

Dissociation, to put it as politely as humanly possible, is in the eye of the beholder.

I just believe that if you really hated 4e you likely won't like 13th Age unless what you hated about 4e was something off the beaten path.

I get that you feel that way.