Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Parmandur]

It does. Balanced systems are like that. 4e also put forth a system to broadly cover non-combat challenges beyond a pass/fail check, in a less-imbalanced way involving the whole party. Prior to that (and 5e has almost completely re-wound it), non-combat was largely the province of one or two characters making a check or few, or just pushing magic resource buttons - combat was the primary pillar in which the whole party could be engaged.

And, yes, that's another way in which da feelz changed. The game simply working more reliably, across the board.

Other than all the differences among them, every system is the same once you start ignoring it and running freestyle. The worse the system, the faster you're likely to get there. That's the whole 90s bad-rules-make-good-games Storyteller conceit. There's no good-rules-make-bad-games corollary though. ;P

The important thing to remember is whether a game is workable or utterly broken in the technical sense of it's mechanical design, it's presentation or subject matter or the attitudes of it's publisher or the GM you played it with running off the rails and doing his own thing without regard to said system or first impressions or even completely 'irrational' personal preference can mean you hate or love it or anything in-between.
That's just part of being human, and we all have every right to be that.

The whole skill challenge system was interesting, but in terms of "reliability" I wouldn't put it above or below the other editions: it was more systematized, maybe, but that's about it. 5E actually has more of 4E there than you give it credit, I wager: everyone can contribute in the skills department, whereas 3.x was wonky there to say the least (and I am still rather flummoxed as to what I was even reading in 2E).

Whether rules are "good" or "bad" depends on design intentions and user needs: I'd say all editions of D&D have been successful on the former, but for the latter YMMV.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

The whole skill challenge system was interesting, but in terms of "reliability" I wouldn't put it above or below the other editions

The early version was pretty incoherent (it actually got easier the more 'complex' the challenge) but that was corrected (over-corrected, and re-corrected, actually - the final result was quite robust). Anyway, the initial version was about on par with what other editions offered for out-of-combat resolution, in that ambitious & fundamentally flawed compares indifferently with baroque, broken, perfunctory or non-existent. Once the seemingly minor change of 3 failures instead of half as many as successes was implemented, though, Skill Challenges became quite robust. The final overhaul left them with a larger fraction of their potential realized. There was probably a /lot/ more that could have been done had the sub-system not been abandoned.

it was more systematized, maybe, but that's about it.

When you're talking about the relative qualities of a system, it helps to actually compare systems.

5E actually has more of 4E there than you give it credit, I wager

More than even the designers seem to want to admit. HD, for instance, while taking several steps back from Healing Surges, clearly owe more to them than to their early-game namesakes - but that label obscures the 4e connection. There's a lot of 'serial numbers filed off' stuff like that. BA is another one - little more than the 4e even-advancement scheme with smaller numbers.

everyone can contribute in the skills department, whereas 3.x was wonky there to say the least (and I am still rather flummoxed as to what I was even reading in 2E).

Nod. Even advancement, smaller numbers = still keeps everyone contributing, though regardless of level as well as regardless of specialization.

Whether rules are "good" or "bad" depends on design intentions and user needs

Good and bad depend on preference more than anything. Functional, clarity, balance, consistency - these are qualities that can be more dispassionately evaluated. Even 4e's harshest critics admitted it was better balanced than other editions of D&D (which is faint praise, but still), for instance. It's simply a fact. Other facts are more broadly denied, or 'alternative facts' presented (and repeated). That was the edition war.

And, ultimately, it stemmed from needing to justify something that didn't need justification: personal preference.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The whole skill challenge system was interesting, but in terms of "reliability" I wouldn't put it above or below the other editions: it was more systematized, maybe, but that's about it. 5E actually has more of 4E there than you give it credit, I wager: everyone can contribute in the skills department, whereas 3.x was wonky there to say the least (and I am still rather flummoxed as to what I was even reading in 2E).

Whether rules are "good" or "bad" depends on design intentions and user needs: I'd say all editions of D&D have been successful on the former, but for the latter YMMV.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

IMHO 5e's skill system is flawed by comparison to 4e's in a number of ways. Its not terrible or anything, but it is strictly inferior in actual play.

Being trained is of limited value, you just aren't that much better at a skill, and no amount of trying will take you numerically to the point where you can pull off stuff nobody else can. OTOH you also never get to a point where you can do most things without a chance of failure either, this is weird.

There are too many skills (and tool proficiencies, which are just back-door skills that are poorly explained). Its not too bad, the list isn't stupid long, but it exceeds what is strictly necessary and yet some critical and obvious areas are not covered clearly by any given skill. At least if 4e's list was going to be extended couldn't you fill gaps instead of creating MORE gaps?

Without an SC system there's a void in terms of how to leverage skills into encounters and just what it means to have exploration and social 'pillars' (not that I buy into that concept at all, but WotC does, yet they don't support it!).

4e also had a somewhat richer background system (its less mechanically detailed, but that actually makes it better in some ways). You can quite effectively attach a mechanically acknowledged "I know all about X" to a character, without it being a significant resource that has to be justified against some other resource, and thus become a 'skill' that required implicit incompetence for lacking it.

I simply saw no logic by which 5e's skill system was an improvement over 4e's. It doesn't do anything better. 4e's skill system, within the totality of 4e, is really quite good. Leaps and bounds better than in any other edition.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Over the years I've not seen much evidence of PCs starting with 18s - I guess there was a half elf Ranger in 2011 started with 18 DEX.

Neither Alekto nor I have ever as far as we can remember played a character with a starting 20 so you've seen quite a few of them

 

[Tony Vargas]

Being trained is of limited value, you just aren't that much better at a skill, and no amount of trying will take you numerically to the point where you can pull off stuff nobody else can. OTOH you also never get to a point where you can do most things without a chance of failure either, this is weird.

Going by the numbers, sure. But, the resolution system actually calls for the DM to narrate success/failure /or/ call for a check & set a DC. Under the former, the DM can allow a proficient character to causally succeed at skill checks he'd call for a roll or narrate failure of in the case of an untrained character.

There are too many skills (and tool proficiencies, which are just back-door skills that are poorly explained). Its not too bad, the list isn't stupid long, but it exceeds what is strictly necessary and yet some critical and obvious areas are not covered clearly by any given skill.

I agree that tool proficiencies' being open-ended and clearly less useful than skills in many cases, while having almost the same opportunity cost ( you do get a more or less 'free' one with your background) isn't great.

Without an SC system there's a void in terms of how to leverage skills into encounters and just what it means to have exploration and social 'pillars' (not that I buy into that concept at all, but WotC does, yet they don't support it!).

I totally buy into the pillars, thank you. And there is a rudimentary exploration system. And there are group skill checks.

 

[Parmandur]

Going by the numbers, sure. But, the resolution system actually calls for the DM to narrate success/failure /or/ call for a check & set a DC. Under the former, the DM can allow a proficient character to causally succeed at skill checks he'd call for a roll or narrate failure of in the case of an untrained character.

I agree that tool proficiencies' being open-ended and clearly less useful than skills in many cases, while having almost the same opportunity cost ( you do get a more or less 'free' one with your background) isn't great.

I totally buy into the pillars, thank you. And there is a rudimentary exploration system. And there are group skill checks.

In the published adventures, skill checks are called out as being only rollable for a proficient character: no lucky chances for untrained characters, and I think that's how it is meant to work...at DM discretion.

Tools make more sense if viewed as similar to languages (which Backgrounds bundle them I'm the same category): potentially useful, depending on table practice (I.e., at DM discretion).

In practice, it's very elegant. A computer can output mathematically quite rigorous music, but it ain't exactly Beethoven.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

In the published adventures, skill checks are called out as being only rollable for a proficient character: no lucky chances for untrained characters

Rather undercuts the PH system, but you can't blame a game for what module authors do.

Tools make more sense if viewed as similar to languages (which Backgrounds bundle them I'm the same category)

Meh. They act like skills but aren't skills. There's potentially any number of them. Someone pops up with a new one, there's something else you can't do. Not horrible or anything, but not pretty.

In practice, it's very elegant.

Nah, not even without the 'very.' Sorry. Haven't seen much striking 'elegance of design' in D&D since the 3.0 fighter. If 5e has a contestant in that show, it'd be Adv/Dis.

 

[cavalier973]

Rather undercuts the PH system, but you can't blame a game for what module authors do.

[qipte]Tools make more sense if viewed as similar to languages (which Backgrounds bundle them I'm the same category)

Meh. They act like skills but aren't skills. There's potentially any number of them. Someone pops up with a new one, there's something else you can't do. Not horrible or anything, but not pretty.

Nah, not even without the 'very.' Sorry. Haven't seen much striking 'elegance of design' in D&D since the 3.0 fighter. If 5e has a contestant in that show, it'd be Adv/Dis.[/QUOTE]

I consider the Four Defenses (instead of Saving Throws) to be elegant.

 

[Parmandur]

Rather undercuts the PH system, but you can't blame a game for what module authors do.

Tools make more sense if viewed as similar to languages (which Backgrounds bundle them I'm the same category)

Meh. They act like skills but aren't skills. There's potentially any number of them. Someone pops up with a new one, there's something else you can't do. Not horrible or anything, but not pretty.

Nah, not even without the 'very.' Sorry. Haven't seen much striking 'elegance of design' in D&D since the 3.0 fighter. If 5e has a contestant in that show, it'd be Adv/Dis.

Elegant *in practice* rather than in theory, absolutely: the rules facilitate really slick play, perhaps because of the oddities as much as anything.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, it works more reliably...for heavy tactical combat, but it is hard to avoid that.. Other than that, eh, any edition is about the same?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

It works more reliably for tactical combat, non tactical combat, interaction, exploration, investigation, chase scenes, crafting, improvising, hell I'd even rather do TOTM stuff in 4e than in 3.5, because we know what all the bits do and he DM doesn't have figure out every little detail as we go. Largely because powers and skills and skill challenges and the basic rules are all fundamentally reliable and balanced, so they don't need extra adjudication most of the time. The system runs smoothly, and that has literally nothing to do with tactics.