D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Manbearcat]

But if the genre is mythic... Jamie Lannister isn't representative of a low level mythic fighter since he's not a mythic character at all...

I don't understand what is happening here. How are we not connecting.

In your 5e Mythic Campaign, pick a 4th level genre archetype for your Fighter. Now pick a relevant noncombat obstacle for them.

Now do the same for your 20th level Mythic Campaign Fighter.

What does this look like. Does the system architecture support this fictional framing and disparity?

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand what is happening here. How are we not connecting.

In your 5e Mythic Campaign, pick a 4th level genre archetype for your Fighter. Now pick a relevant noncombat obstacle for them.

Now do the same for your 20th level Mythic Campaign Fighter.

What does this look like. Does the system architecture support this fictional framing and disparity?

Ah, ok I think I see what you're getting at... Also these are off the cuff so just using them to illustrate the point, not necessarily how I'd rule in a real camapign.

Ok so 4th level mythic character diverts the flow of a volcano to avoid it destroying a village... STR DC 15 to push a boulder into it's path to block it/divert the lava flow.

20th level mythic character diverts the flow of a volcano to avoid it destroying a village... STR DC 15 to push a boulder into it's path to block it/ divert the lava flow.


So 4th level mythic character tries to hold the world mountain (The mountain upon which the entire world rests) upon his shoulders to stop it falling into the abyss...and auto-fails it is impossible for him to accomplish.

20th level character tries to hold the world mountain upon his shoulders to stop it falling into the abyss... STR DC 25 to hold it up over the abyss

 

[Garthanos]

Looks at description of tiers in 4e ... and then squints at the last 3 of 5e raises an eyebrow shakes head reads like an aweful lot of progression to me.

 

[Kai Lord]

Say whatever you'd like about the anti-process-sim gonzo nature of 4e...but as a martial artist and athlete my whole life...that narrative...just does_not_compute. The parity in noncombat capability between the two is far, far, far too narrow.

The guy taking on the Ancient Red Wyrm better be borderline superheroic in their feats of athletic prowess. He almost surely needs to be north (possibly well north) of Captain America and Captain is well north of a 5e endgame Fighter!

Contrast with 4e where:

5) The guy fighting the Red Dragon Wyrmling (RDW) has somewhere around a +13 Athletics...while the guy fighting the Ancient Red Dragon (ARD) has around a +38 Athletics!

One guy is well south of Captain America. One guy is north of Capatain America.

Fantastic discussion guys. I find the Captain America references fascinating if for no other reason than he's my favorite superhero. :-D

However I would argue that Captain America as seen on screen actually supports a 5E style of play more than 4E. Sure his fighting style was cranked up to 11 when he was battling Thanos in Endgame compared to his first few HYDRA opponents in The First Avenger but I don't know that I'd say his non-combat athleticism doubled or tripled in that same amount of time. A 25% increase sounds about right. In fact from The Winter Soldier on I'd say it was pretty much static with regards to acrobatics and feats of strength.

 

[Imaro]

Fantastic discussion guys. I find the Captain America references fascinating if for no other reason than he's my favorite superhero. :-D

However I would argue that Captain America as seen on screen actually supports a 5E style of play more than 4E. Sure his fighting style was cranked up to 11 when he was battling Thanos in Endgame compared to his first few HYDRA opponents in The First Avenger but I don't know that I'd say his non-combat athleticism doubled or tripled in that same amount of time. A 25% increase sounds about right. In fact from The Winter Soldier on I'd say it was pretty much static with regards to acrobatics and feats of strength.

Irregardless (and I do agree with you here) part of the process of action resolution in 5e is that the DM can determine whether an action is possible or not... You think there should be greater disparity in the athleticism of a 4th level fighter and a 20th level fighter... that's the process to make that a reality... there are certain things that are just plain impossible until you meet a minimum threshold of athleticism in game. 5e really is prettty flexible in this area.

 

[Ratskinner]

Which DCs are you talking about?

Particularly, DCs for skill checks and non-combat actions. For whatever reason that seems to be the pivot point of this part of the discussion.

I am going to post an old quote that I think is the best statement ever made on these boards about how setting DCs works in 4e. And it explains why I think the process of DC-setting is as "freeform" as 5e.

This is exactly how I have experienced the play of 4e. And I don't see how it's any different from the descriptions that are being offered to explain how and why 5e is "freeform".

With my limited experience with 4e (and without referencing the few books I have), I would say that between the utility powers, etc. It was much clearer what kinds of actions were genre-expected in 4e (mediated by tier/level) than it is in 5e. A position boisterously espoused by other 4e supporters on this thread. If not, then there shouldn't be any complaint about the loss of non-combat martial ability WRT casters (as exhibited earlier in this thread by other posters), which, in the context of 5e, is dependent on what DCs the DM sets for actions or what actions are allowed to be attempted. Allowing or encouraging the "gonzo action" style of 4e seems amenable or preferable to several of 5e DMs who have posted in this thread and is relatively easy to effect.

I grant that there are other aspects of the two systems which factor into this perception of a loss of martial parity (particularly the expenditure of resources via AEDU powers.) However, if anything, those powers enforce the expectations in 4e rather than broaden them. IMO/IME/YMMV, of course.

 

[Garthanos]

I grant that there are other aspects of the two systems which factor into this perception of a loss of martial parity (particularly the expenditure of resources via AEDU powers.) However, if anything, those powers enforce the expectations in 4e rather than broaden them.

An expectation of parity hmmm I am cool with that it pushes them upwards from expectations that without an expenditure you are only able to achieve inferior results.

 

[Garthanos]

See huge amounts from Parm confirming that inferiority expectation on this thread.

 

[Ratskinner]

Free form roleplaying has distinguishing characteristics that go beyond a lack of defined mechanisms. Free form role play has no fundamental goal beyond playing out the situation and seeing how things go. It also has no formal means of deciding what happens. Generally you rely on consent and active negotiation in place of formal systems.

I don't disagree, but this discussion spiraled off of an earlier set of posts that kinda got the word "freeform" tossed in without much definition.

For my part, I'm okay with saying that a game with open-ended descriptors (like the skills and OUT of 13th age or Fate's aspects) which require a similar type of negotiation or agreement in order to engage the mechanics as being somewhat "freeform". I prefer the term "flexible" to refer to the discussion-relevant differences between 4e and 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

Allowing or encouraging the "gonzo action" style of 4e seems amenable or preferable to several of 5e DMs who have posted in this thread and is relatively easy to effect.

The desire is not for Gonzo or Wuxia...
No its not easier to affect parity... that is bull naughty word... tell me about the Teleportation spell and how many others were just slopped into the mix which undermine dozens of survival skill use with a trivial cost