D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[Composer99]

I don't think they'll go entirely. I think it'll be more of a hybrid. And three years is a long time from now. I think the counter spell thing is something that might cause changes. Maybe.

I think the box set coming out in the new year is meant to include some monster statblocks that will incorporate the "don't refer to PHB spells" design? But yeah, it's entirely possible that some monsters will still have MM-style (innate) spellcasting, whether in the new year or three years hence.

 

[darjr]

They were generally pretty disliked because they almost always amounted to exactly what you said in the foregoing bit I cut out. That is, you pick your strongest ability and you use it repeatedly until you've solved the problem. And that's exactly the issue with (to use the MMO term) "spammable" resource-based abilities: people will naturally drift to using the most optimal option (or two or three, rarely more than that) every single time, and ignore all other options. This would then truly make most classes "samey," since everyone and their brother would be engaging in basically the same kind of behavior--it's going to be very hard to design that many at-will abilities that can be augmented so.

And the more powers there were the worse it got. Which seems like it should have been backwards but in public play at least it wasn't. The more powers the more the good ones were basically all the same.

Oh and it was worse after folks got tired of saying the fluff for powers. Especially for long games or higher level games. Fatigue would set in and folks would drop the fluff and just state the rules. That one REALLY bothered me. It was like chewing cardboard.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

@Filthy Lucre @Composer99 I don't think they'll go entirely. I think it'll be more of a hybrid. And three years is a long time from now. I think the counter spell thing is something that might cause changes. Maybe.

I won't be back to D&D until it's more like 3.5. So, potentially never. My group switched to PF2e after being dissatisfied with 5e

 

[darjr]

I won't be back to D&D until it's more like 3.5. So, potentially never. My group switched to PF2e after being dissatisfied with 5e

And I'm super happy you have a game. I fret about a monoculture, even as I seem to be addicted to it myself. The good thing is that other games and other companies seem to be doing good.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I encourage you to check out the post I linked above. I wrote it, specifically breaking down all the points of design where I felt the two games diverge despite appearing similar (and at least a few places where 5e is more like 4e than 3e!)

My post is like a 4E power. It abbreviates a complex thing to make it short and snappy. While it glosses over many of the finer details, it gets the general point across in a few words.

Your post is like a 3E sub rule. It goes through the entire process to make sure every part of the concept is included. It does accurately show the complete point, but requires reading hundreds of words.

 

[Charlaquin]

It is because it didn't. We'd have folks show up with familiars fluffed as Gold Dragons. It really meant nothing.

No, it did not mean nothing. Maybe you felt like it meant nothing. Maybe you even treated it like it meant nothing. But objectively, it did not mean nothing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I certainly wouldn’t want to see them as they appeared in 4e. But, using a variant of the structure as a way to gauge levels of success, then I might be on board. First, get rid of the race to get x successes before y failures. The math there is really disadvantageous. Instead, set a number of checks and then lay out how much is achieved based on how many of those are successes.

So, 5e actually does have that structure, tucked away in Xanathar’s guide, in the Crime Downtime writeup. (And others but Crime is the clearest one)

Id love to see it expanded upon, and it is how I run haggling, crafting, a lot of negotiations, etc. establish number of checks, what skills can be used (negotiable), what the DCs are, and what the consequences are for 0 successes, all successes, and at least one point in between.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh and it was worse after folks got tired of saying the fluff for powers. Especially for long games or higher level games. Fatigue would set in and folks would drop the fluff and just state the rules. That one REALLY bothered me. It was like chewing cardboard.

I mean… Does that not happen to you in 5e? Players never get tired of describing in detail how they swing their axe and start just saying “I attack”? They never get tired of describing their magic words and gestures and particle effects, and start just saying “I cast Sacred Flame”?

 

[darjr]

I mean… Does that not happen to you in 5e? Players never get tired of describing in detail how they swing their axe and start just saying “I attack”? They never get tired of describing their magic words and gestures and particle effects, and start just saying “I cast Sacred Flame”?

some what yes. But never nearly as bad. They wouldn't even say the name of the power. Just "I spend my daily" or "I trigger an at will" and then either lay out a card and read the mechanics or state them. In 5e I don't think I've EVER had that happen. In 4e it would happen a lot a lot.

 

[niklinna]

Believe it or not, 4e actually tried this, with its Psionic classes, other than Monk. Those classes used Power Points (PP). ALL of their abilities were at-will effects, which had a stronger, Encounter-like version if you spent a small number of PP ("augment 1" or the like), and a much stronger, Daily-like version if you spent a larger amount of PP ("augment 3" or whatever).

They were generally pretty disliked because they almost always amounted to exactly what you said in the foregoing bit I cut out. That is, you pick your strongest ability and you use it repeatedly until you've solved the problem. And that's exactly the issue with (to use the MMO term) "spammable" resource-based abilities: people will naturally drift to using the most optimal option (or two or three, rarely more than that) every single time, and ignore all other options. This would then truly make most classes "samey," since everyone and their brother would be engaging in basically the same kind of behavior--it's going to be very hard to design that many at-will abilities that can be augmented so.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned the bit about strong powers affecting refresh rates—which is, again, when things start getting too complicated. Ah, well, looks like we're stuck with per-power cooldowns.