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

[Mordhau]

I'm perplexed how people think getting rid of point buy prevents builds.

It's like people do this weird switch in their head where they because 4d6k3 is rolled and 3d6 in order see what you get are also rolled, they think they have the same effect. On a continuum from planned and built to completely random it's more like this:


Point Buy/4d6k3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3d6 in order.

In any case, even with 3d6 you'd still get builds. You prevent builds by having no build options (for better or worse).

 

[Hussar]

The old "it's Basic so it's kids' stuff...we're teenagers and we played Advanced D&D". But we soon were all playing AD&D...and we kept on playing AD&D until 2009ish. We skipped three-ish editions of the game. Mine is not a unique experience.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the fact that you played AD&D for nearly thirty years is a close enough to a unique experience that it's pretty out there. As in, the overwhelming majority of gamers do not share your experience.

The point I'm making is that after ten years, it's not a "fad". If you started playing AD&D after 1985, you never saw the fad years. The fad years ended a couple of years before that. By 1985, we were picking up the pieces of nearly all the people abandoning the hobby. And, even at the height of the fad years, we weren't even remotely hitting numbers like we are now.

IOW, after seven consecutive years of record growth, "fad" is the wrong way of thinking. This isn't a fad. Hell, even if half the new players abandoned the game tomorrow, the gaming population still dwarfs any other point in gaming history. We'd have to lose about 90% of gamers just to get back to where things were pre-5e. I'm certainly not seeing any indication that that's happening.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Player entitlement is probably too harsh a term to put to all this, and player selfishness is definitely too harsh; but there's no denying the general shift of player-side focus from "party and what it does" to "own PC and what it does" over the decades.

It is somewhat ironic, then, that you don't care for the recent edition that most prioritized the party and what it does--that is, 4e. Because 4e, much more than either 3e or 5e (and, IMO, more than even 2e!), critically depended on teamwork. Yes, you could optimize yourself. But the best optimization, by far the most effective thing you could do, was optimize how you fit in with your team collectively.

If you want people to care about the team and what the team does, reward them for thinking about the team. That's why I was so flabbergasted in a previous conversation when someone said (paraphrased) "Lay on Hands isn't an actual sacrifice, because you have extra resources." Like...if you want your players to do something, you HAVE to either equip them to do it, or reward them for doing it. That's probably the single, most fundamental principle of game design. If you want to see behavior X, reward it.

Forcing people into 3d6-strict (or 4d6k3-and-assign) doesn't reward the behavior you want to see. It just redirects the behavior you don't like to other parts of the system.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm perplexed how people think getting rid of point buy prevents builds.

It doesn't get rid of them; but it serves to change the mentality, or approach, away from "I have xxx already in mind and I'm going to build it" toward "let's see what the dice give me to work with before I decide what I'll build".

In any case, even with 3d6 you'd still get builds. You prevent builds by having no build options (for better or worse).

Yes, that's the next step.

 

[Herschel]

Those rules buried in fluff are a feature. You can't say I cast sacred flame without saying "I cast sacred flame" and have to deal with the fluff of it. The fluff means something so much your players have to deal with it running their characters.

In 4e you can entirely ignore the fluff. A feature to some, at least I thought it was at first.

And while it is true about the "I attack" thing in 5e it isn't nearly as bad as in 4e, in 4e EVERYTHING was "I attack with a * power". At least in 5e you often HAVE to state what ability you're using or what spell is being cast because there is NO OTHER way to refer to it.

I can't find a quote at the moment, but 4e powers were designed like magic cards, precicely because the fluff and mechanics are seperate. It was a design goal. And at first I thought it was freaking brilliant. It helped them be clear about the rules and develop them, it was a desired asset. But its downside was that the fluff had no effect on the mechanics.

However, I think we'll have to just agree to disagree.

The fluff was no more or less part of the mechanics than any other edition, the main difference being it wasn't just casters that got to do cool things. Melee guys and archers got to be vibrant and dynamic, not support putzes. Defender classes got abilities to actually help them do their job rather than being sword-swinging speed bumps. Dual Lightning Strike is at least as evocative as yet another fireball, and YAF devolves in to "I hit these guys with 36 fire, DC 16 save" even more often that Dual Lightning Strike ever did.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I don't think that WotC has been catering to old fans at all: not since the D&D Next Playtest when they were courting the Pathfinder and OSR crowds. Since then though? It seems mostly oriented towards the Critical Role crowd and the newcomers.

Primarily yes, but stuff like Warduke and Tasha shows they also want to appeal to old school fans as long as it's not alienating new fans, for as big a market as they can get.

 

[Garthanos]

Because 4e, much more than either 3e or 5e (and, IMO, more than even 2e!), critically depended on teamwork. Yes, you could optimize yourself. But the best optimization, by far the most effective thing you could do, was optimize how you fit in with your team collectively.

Definitely can be and the Warlord epitomizes that.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't get rid of them; but it serves to change the mentality, or approach, away from "I have xxx already in mind and I'm going to build it" toward "let's see what the dice give me to work with before I decide what I'll build".

Yes, that's the next step.

See, the problem is @Lanefan, unless you do some form of "in order" roll up, then you always start with "I have xxx in mind". Because, well, you know that any character that's rolled is going to have a pretty predictable set of stats (and, let's be honest here, if it's under point buy, the DM will almost universally let you roll it again).

The notion that you roll first and then decide what to play hasn't really been part of the game for a very, very long time. Like, as in 2e at the latest, and actually, with the 1e Unearthed Arcana rolling system, you chose your class first. WotC didn't start this at all. This was part of the game since the release of the 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. 3d6 in order was never part of AD&D.

The notion that I'm going to have to play this randomly determined character for the next hundred hours or more is something I most certainly don't want to ever see back into the game.

It absolutely baffles me why DM's have such an issue with a player building to a concept. It's their character. How is it in any way, shape or form bothering you how I choose what to play?

 

[theCourier]

It's not a bother, it's just a different mindset. One that is more interested in seeing what the dice give you, and making the best out of those results. And as a player, not having to worry about builds is pretty nice instead I can focus on "building" my character through the items, knowledge, and adventures they experience.

 

[Lanefan]

See, the problem is @Lanefan, unless you do some form of "in order" roll up, then you always start with "I have xxx in mind".

Only to a point; and I should also mention here that I'm coming from a background where classes are gated behind stat requirements* (which is something I very much endorse) and some of those requirements are pretty tough.

So sure, I might have a Ranger in mind (which here needs 14-14-13-13-x-x) but if the dice give me just one really good stat and the rest are bland and boring 9-to-12s then it's no Ranger for me today; I have to go to (or come up with) Plan B.

* - under the standard array (15-14-13-12-10-8, isn't it?) five classes in my game would be impossible to achieve: Ranger, Paladin, Illusionist, Bard and Monk. Paladin and Bard aren't even achievable under point-buy, unless there's an awful lot of points to spend.

Because, well, you know that any character that's rolled is going to have a pretty predictable set of stats (and, let's be honest here, if it's under point buy, the DM will almost universally let you roll it again).

Depends. My own cutoff, if it matters, is if the average of the 6 stats is less than 10 or you've nothing higher than a 12 then you have the option to reroll. That said, I've seen characters start with something like 15-12-11-10-9-6 and still do really well; at the same time I've also seen characters start with something like 18-18-17-17-15-14 and die at the first opportunity.

The notion that you roll first and then decide what to play hasn't really been part of the game for a very, very long time. Like, as in 2e at the latest, and actually, with the 1e Unearthed Arcana rolling system, you chose your class first.

A rolling system that I've never known of anyone using, other than maybe one person on ENWorld who might have mentioned it.

WotC didn't start this at all. This was part of the game since the release of the 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. 3d6 in order was never part of AD&D.

I'm not advocating for 3d6 in order and probably never would other than for one-offs or gonzo games. But 4d6k3 rearranged? All day long.

The notion that I'm going to have to play this randomly determined character for the next hundred hours or more is something I most certainly don't want to ever see back into the game.

Ah - you're assuming it'll survive for that hundred hours.

It absolutely baffles me why DM's have such an issue with a player building to a concept. It's their character. How is it in any way, shape or form bothering you how I choose what to play?

My take on such things is that a player can always choose the basics*, but anything non-basic can only be achieved by random roll; this is specifically to keep the non-basic as unusual.

* - for example, in my game even if you hit the cutoff bang-on (which would be something like 13-x-x-x-x-7 where the 4 x'es add to 40) you can choose any of the basic classes - F, T, MU, or C. But for a non-basic class you need to roll higher, in some cases only very little higher and in other cases quite a lot higher.