D&D 4E 4E combat and powers: How to keep the baby and not the bathwater?

[1Mac]

Irrelevant semantic nitpick: The OP and others keep using the word "gamist" to describe elements of the game that remind the players it is a game. That's not what "gamist" means in the Ron Edwards, GNS sense. "Gamist" means a "stance" where the goal is for your character to be rewarded for being the best. Any game with XP and treasure rewards for killing monsters, which is to say most versions of DnD, is gamist.

I know that people now use "gamist" in this other sense, but I'd rather not lose the original meaning of the word. I prefer "gamey", as in "4e is arguably the most gamey edition of DnD." (Venison is also gamey, unless it's properly smoked or seasoned.)

 

[jshaft37]

But they have to realize if they produce a "modern" game, their success may be limited to the "success" of 4e...which must have been less than stellar based on the quick turn to 5e.

I believe that the biggest chunk of players that would have played 4e are playing Pathfinder instead. Those players still playing B/X, 1e, etc are probably going to continue playing those systems.

Pathfinder is still a "modern" game, in fact its design goals aren't that different than 4E, they just went about them by streamlining 3.5 rather than overhauling the system. They still attempted to take on balance, 0-level spells, no dead levels, balanced xp, fixing exploitations, pared/consolidated skill list, etc.

 

[keterys]

Eh, let's say that in a particular group of 100 RPGers (not necessarily all, just this group),
10 want something like BECMI D&D (OSR clone, D&D Cyclopedia, houseruled OD&D, whatever)
10 want something like AD&D (OSR clone, 1st or 2nd, etc)
10 want something only vaguely recognizable via the d20 srd (Blue Rose, etc)
40 want something 3e-ish (3.x, PF, Trailblazer, whatever)
30 want something like 4e

WotC wants to capture in theory all, but let's say as many of those as is possible. Some of which won't be purely because WotC is making the game (but might be interested if Green Ronin, Paizo, or even White Wolf made the same product).

They've got their work cut out for them, but if they can't find something to appeal to old editions, 3e-ish, or 4e-ish... they'll lose around 1/3 of their customers right at the opening cut. Possibly 2/3.

Certainly, no one gains anything by being edition warry about it. That's precisely what they're trying to address. The fact that people even feel a need to edition war, when it's just all D&D.

 

[Ratskinner]

People needed a page in a book to tell them to allow something if it's cool?

Pretty sure we've been pushing people off cliffs, into fires and such since 1e via DM "that's a great idea, here's the number you need to hit to accomplish it" rule.

That's the one of the basics of roleplaying isn't it?

It certainly isn't/wasn't for many of the more "antagonistic" DMs I knew from days of yore.

 

[BobTheNob]

I haven't seen much mention of essentials in this thread. The post-Essentials materials for 4E is superior to the earlier materials and should be the blueprint for 5E. As much as WotC wants to appeal to legacy players, they need to realize if they don't produce a "modern" game, their success is going to be rather limited. There are definitely some issues with Essentials that can be improved (reliance of battlegrid, too many conditions and triggered actions, etc), but certainly Essentials should still be the starting point for 5E design.

Wow. Im just trying to find a place on this planet that is completely opposite to this statement. I absolutely and without any reservation, completely disagree with this.

At least try to say "this is my opinion" or something like that. Trying to state something like this as fact when its pretty obvious your in a place of discussion where people have already clearly expressed many divergent positions it sorta...wrong.

Dont get me wrong, I share your position that essentials was superior to original 4e (though I wouldnt state that as fact, simply opinion, and I know alot would disagree with me). I do not however for a second believe its a blueprint for 5e.

 

[Janaxstrus]

It certainly isn't/wasn't for many of the more "antagonistic" DMs I knew from days of yore.

Everyone has had at least that "one dm" haven't they? Sadly, a page in a book won't change the mind of many of those types regardless.

 

[Ratskinner]

Everyone has had at least that "one dm" haven't they? Sadly, a page in a book won't change the mind of many of those types regardless.

Not one page, maybe. How many pages were feats + combat actions in 3e and powers in 4e? I think part of the point of feats in 3e and the power descriptions in 4e was to simply nail that coolness in and "protect it" from prejudicial DMs. I've played under "magic loving" DMs and under "Fighter Loving" DMs with old-school rules. Its really swimming upstream, either way.

That being said, I miss some of the variety that the older rules allowed for. I just wish they gave more language so you could be warned what the heck you're getting into as a player. I can't believe the variety of things that people call "standard" old school D&D.

 

[Hussar]

People needed a page in a book to tell them to allow something if it's cool?

Pretty sure we've been pushing people off cliffs, into fires and such since 1e via DM "that's a great idea, here's the number you need to hit to accomplish it" rule.

That's the one of the basics of roleplaying isn't it?

Player: I want to jump up and grab the chandelier, swing across the room and nail that guy in the middle.
DM: Ok, gimme a Str check to jump up and grab the chanelier (if you fail, your attack fails), now gimme a Dex check to swing across (if you fail, your attack fails and you wind up taking damage), now make an attack at -4 for being off balance, now gimme a Dex check to stick the landing (if you fail, you fall and take damage).
Player: Ok, Str, succeeds, Dex, no problem, attack, yeah, Damage 3, Dex... oh damn... failed that last check.
DM: You slam down 10 feet onto the barroom floor, take 7 damage. Oh, and the bad guy's three buddies now attack you while you're down...

THIS is why you need guidelines.

 

[Hussar]

Of course it was both limiting and somewhat limited. That's part of its job, to provide access to cosmic powers but in a measured and regulated way. But I would also argue that it was more flexible (and thus less limited) than the 4e powers because, for example, I could rearrange and double up on the spells I had prepped to a much greater degree.

So what? Yup, you can cast three magic missiles per day. The 4e mage is doing it all day long.

Never mind that most abilities are not dailies, which means, while I might not be able to fireball twice in the same encounter, I can certainly do it many times per day.

And, I'd point out that your "more flexible" only applied to about half the classes. Everyone else was quite obviously quite a bit less flexible.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Player: I want to jump up and grab the chandelier, swing across the room and nail that guy in the middle.
DM: Ok, gimme a Str check to jump up and grab the chanelier (if you fail, your attack fails), now gimme a Dex check to swing across (if you fail, your attack fails and you wind up taking damage), now make an attack at -4 for being off balance, now gimme a Dex check to stick the landing (if you fail, you fall and take damage).
Player: Ok, Str, succeeds, Dex, no problem, attack, yeah, Damage 3, Dex... oh damn... failed that last check.
DM: You slam down 10 feet onto the barroom floor, take 7 damage. Oh, and the bad guy's three buddies now attack you while you're down...

THIS is why you need guidelines.

Actually,

Jump check to jump up and grab it (its already in 3.5, no need for any extra rules)
If you grab the chandelier with your jump check, I would count the swinging as your movement, no need for a check.
Finally, an attack at no negative, because it's cool, and a tumble or balance check (already in the rules) to stick the landing, or be prone, no damage. Unless the chandelier is over 15 feet up, it wouldn't be a 10ft fall.

That is how I would run it