They were, for sure. But it just goes to show how different from 5e 4e is on a fundamental level. The idea of progression existed, but the progress -had- to be packaged in cute little boxes and bundles as often as possible, even when it was literally the same thing.
That was a 3e mindset being applied to 4e, for certain. And likely helped them to push toward the 5e model of "Save your hands from carpal tunnel by writing the ability once and letting it progress within itself rather than requiring 3-12 separate entries that do the same thing"
I don't think that was "Catering to Grogs" so much as cutting down the choices of the Cleric into a specific bundle to make character creation choices generally easier by removing some of the choice paralysis.
Yeah, fair. My sarcasm wasn't communicated terribly well!
The point was more that my biggest class was only 2 pages longer than the "Full" Cleric while being in a similar format while also taking a jab at the layout/formatting of the Heroes of the Fallen Lands book. Honestly, that layout, more than anything, indicates the Warpriest was being made for us older players with worsening eyesight. Large scale fonts really do help, and I've taken to blowing up the size of every UI element in videogames and forums!
I mean... yes?
But also there's a lot -more- of that kind of thing. Like the Barbarian needing it's own separate spell list from the Cleric. And the Fighter. And the Rogue. It wasn't just "They put a spell list in the class" it was they put a full spell list in EVERY class. You couldn't escape that level of repetition by working on a non-caster class.
Sure. I believe you. It would look more like 5e. It would probably look more like what I'm talking about doing, here.
That is an awesome video!
I don't mean 80s style D&D. I mean 80s -style-. And apply it to D&D. Play into nostalgia in that direction.
And yeah, I do get that! It's probably the bulk of -why- I'm talking about doing an 80s cartoon style setting. Where the evil Baroness Vichesse (pronounced like vicious through a French Language filter) fights against the heroes with her army of beastmen and stuff. Just go all in on some of the hammy conventions of the Ralph Bakshi style...
In theory, that's true. In practice: Without the IP/PI you literally can't do Greyhawk, and without those things Greyhawk is a generic standard fantasy game. It doesn't stand out at all, you know? It's why I'm talking about doing something with the 80s vibe without being a specific 80s product.
Yes... and no...
Every Generation of MLP has been designed to capitalize on the nostalgia of the previous generation while creating something "New" for the current audience. Gen2 died hard in the US 'cause it was a purely toy revision aimed at little girls without realizing that the Gen1 kids were now in their teens and 20s, but Gen3/3.5 ran from 2003 to 2009 before Gen4 (MLP:FIM) dropped in 2010.
Gen3 on the other hand recognized that the kids they had tried to sell Gen2 material to were becoming parents. So they went back to making animated features (movies and some TV shorts) to sell to parents to show their kids. "Oh, I watched MLP when I was a kid, and here's new MLP for my kid. I'll just grab this cheap DVD and let her watch it."
And then MLP:FIM used a different animation technology, altogether, and was created -by- one of the Gen1 enjoyers. So rather than be something Hasbro threw onto DVDs for soccer moms who just wanted something they could throw at a TV to distract their kids, it became something more. The distilled essence of what mad Gen1 good in a new package that had a lot broader appeal.
Add in the ubiquity of streaming and you don't even have to buy DVDs. It was a win-win for everyone.
... I ... yeah? Maybe... I mean I doubt it, but maybe?
S'truth. Every setting risks splintering the playerbase, like 2e did. And yet the audience clamors for new settings so they're digging into the 90s Nostalgia to pull out Ravenloft and Dark Sun and hoping that by aiming for a handful of big ones with one-off releases they can keep the majority of the playerbase bound to the Realms.
But then the Million Dollar Kickstarters come along dripping with style, and WotC can't help but look at those and think "But what if..?"
And then does an OGL1.1 about it.
Yup. I have heavily acknowledged this is something WotC probably would never do.
Yup! They probably wouldn't do this thing I'm talking about, here. If they did try to do anything like it, they'd just do it to the core classes and call it 6e. So keep an eye on the horizon for that possibility in the next 10-12 years.
Yup! And I'm kinda looking to do those. Aside from the 5 minute short rests. That's not really a thing I've considered, so far.
My current thought is that Encounter abilities should be about 2 times more effective than your at will values with a d8 guideline, early on in leveling. So if an at-will is 1d8+4, an Encounter should be around 3d6+4 to 3d8+4, or 22-28 maximum damage. This is your "Burning Hands" or "Smite" in the early game.
By level 5 that should crank up to about 3 times the effective value of an at-will. And at each proficiency mod break point get another step up there.
Dailies should be closer to 5 times the value at level 6 when you start getting them, and build steam at about the same rate, keeping them ahead of encounter powers by about 2 times at-will ability.
Now your at-will power does increase somewhat. You get 2 actions per turn after level 5, one of which has to be an at-will. But it increases not based on level, but on equipment. Magic weapons and the like directly improves your at-will with straight numbers and dice.
But after level 17, your at will is still 1d8+5 (+Magic Bonuses) where your encounters are closer to 7d8+5 (+Magic Bonuses) and your Dailies are 9d8+5 (+Magic Bonuses), so there's a big incentive to use your big stuff and Catch Breath to use it again, at that point, rather than dropping down to 2d8+10 (+Magic Bonuses) for two at wills...
But there will always be access to those two encounters in any given fight, which is still huge. The only rationing you're doing is Dailies (which you can only use once per encounter, ever, so you can't dump them all in one fight) and HP.
OF NOTE: These are the prospective values used as the baseline. Different classes will get there differently. 8d6 and 6d8 have about the same average and maximum damage, but certainly feel different in the hand, and this does not take into account different methods of dealing damage. Such as increased at-will damage for a given class resulting in weaker encounter-use abilities higher per-round damage resulting in a similar overall damage total per round.
Yeah, pretty much my thought.
Probably not doing that...
What I plan to do is have you get 2 Spell Slots per encounter and always cast at max level, like a Warlock. And then address the spells to bring their expected values in line. And then create a "Greater Arcana" spell list where the 'daily' spells go. And then provide a lot of invocation-like abilities to get spell-bundles that you can use once per encounter without expending a spell slot for things like Jump, Expeditious Retreat, Invisibility, Fly, and the like.
Really narrow up the "Spell slots are for throughput" concept.
One might!
That's one way to do it, sure. But I was looking for a more 'systematic structure' than "Give casters a special benefit that encourages them to hold onto spells a little" because then they -can- still dump everything fast, and they might 'hold out' too long and feel cheated for not dropping spells earlier when the enemy's health was higher and the spell would've mattered more.
Kinda sorta, sure.
That's waaaay more complexity than I'm trying to get into, here.
That's a nifty idea!
I walked down the length of that bridge when PF1 began its' debut in 2009. I have a sizable collection of PF1 books as a result of that journey. 
