D&D 4E 4E is the Right Direction for 5E

[the Jester]

Sure, but there is a big difference. You are an experienced player. A new player doesn't need ALL the options. The purpose of teaching them is to get them playing, not to spend an evening looking through 40 books of options.

What if the conversation starts, "I want to use a bow and cast spells" and then the new player keeps asking about his options? "Oh, what about this seeker guy? What wizard build should I look at? Aren't there any more power options? Say, Mike over there just used a cool power- hey Mike, what is your character? So what about options for invoker with a bow? What about...?"

N.B. This is a strong argument for getting new players to make their characters before the game starts. However, I'd much rather there be 20 minute character creation in D&D for first-time players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed. Feat prereqs need to die in a hot burning fire. Either a feat is balanced, then any PC can have it, or it's not, then slapping a Str 19 prereq on it doesn't balance it either.

(That 3E was worse in that regard is not really an excuse)

I think there are good solid mechanical reasons for feat prereqs. Many times there are a number of possible good options. Stacking them all up on one PC is out of line. However if one guy has to be strong to get X and another guy can get Y by being quick then it isn't an issue. The system can offer both options without the issue of them showing up on a single PC.

Of course 5e could handle things in other ways and this could be unneeded. Feats could all be more 'fluff' kind of options or enablers, which don't suffer from stacking issues in most cases. Then the 'make me better' options can be handled within resources like themes that you inherently cannot stack, etc.

There were probably a bunch of places where feat prereqs weren't used well in 4e, they didn't seem to have a really solid handle on how to use them at first, but I don't think that HAS to make them always a bad thing.

 

[D'karr]

What if the conversation starts, "I want to use a bow and cast spells" and then the new player keeps asking about his options? "Oh, what about this seeker guy? What wizard build should I look at? Aren't there any more power options? Say, Mike over there just used a cool power- hey Mike, what is your character? So what about options for invoker with a bow? What about...?"

N.B. This is a strong argument for getting new players to make their characters before the game starts. However, I'd much rather there be 20 minute character creation in D&D for first-time players.

If it ever happens at my table I'll let you know. It's an interesting hypothetical, but I've been teaching people how to play the game with limited options for a very long time. That conversation, or anything remotely close to it has never happened.

20 minutes is not a problem if you are only dealing with one player. When you have a table full of newbies that is one hour, or more, of wasted opportunity.

At GenCon last year WotC was doing the pre-release of the Neverwinter Campaign Setting. They decided to have everyone at the table create new characters. They provided one set of player books (Fallen Lands, Forgotten Kingdoms). That was the most convoluted waste of time out of a 4 hour period I've ever seen. It was also the biggest complaint they received.

Character creation can be fun, but when you're trying to teach the game you want people playing not navel-gazing until their turn to be able to look at the book.

A new player gets the basics and grows into the options. I think I'll stick with what has worked.

 

[GreyICE]

Feat prerequisites are definitely a good idea. For instance, in 4E Polearm defenders were very good, but required 15 STR/WIS/DEX to work properly. The result was that every defender didn't go polearm, and in fact a lot of defenders weren't polearm defenders despite them having very solid performance.

If they were allowed to get Polearm Momentum/Polearm Gamble without those prerequisites, it would have been very, very, very powerful to the point of perhaps becoming the dominant defender, but as it was polearm builds remained a powerful niche build.

That's cool! In point of fact that's VERY cool. And it's something that's lost if everyone can grab every feat.

 

[ren1999]

4th edition may be complex but as I am learning Pathfinder, I find Pathfinder more complex and with more rules. I think that role players who have been playing this game for a long time find Pathfinder to be more enriching for that reason.

4E has armor class

Pathfinder has armor class, a touch defense (I think this is the ac - armor class bonus) and a flat-footed defense (the defense without the dexterity modifier to indicate surprise during the first round when you haven't acted yet).

I'm currently comparing both games to discover what I like about them and don't like.

My Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and Pathfinder Module Tester kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[The Halfling]

4th edition may be complex but as I am learning Pathfinder, I find Pathfinder more complex and with more rules. I think that role players who have been playing this game for a long time find Pathfinder to be more enriching for that reason.

4E has armor class

Pathfinder has armor class, a touch defense (I think this is the ac - armor class bonus) and a flat-footed defense (the defense without the dexterity modifier to indicate surprise during the first round when you haven't acted yet).

I'm currently comparing both games to discover what I like about them and don't like.

My Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and Pathfinder Module Tester kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

yes, but is it complex just for complexity's sake?

To take your example of AC....

AC for each is a wash.

Reflex in 4e is touch AC in 3e/Pathfinder, and in 4e covers 3e's Reflex Saves too. So one 4e defense replaces 2 from 3e. Eliminates redundancy, as both of the replaced 3e defenses boiled down to a dodge.

Flat-footed is a bit tougher, but most of the effects that used flat-footed use combat advantage in 4e.

Complexity in 3e wasn't in the stats or combat, most of those can be translated over pretty easily. The complexity came from the spells, and the nebulous and ambiguous manner in which a vast majority were implemented. Character builds were 2nd, and that was the result of how multi-classing and character leveling was implemented.

 

[ren1999]

You have a point.

 

[Zuche]

What if the conversation starts, "I want to use a bow and cast spells"...

When I'm preparing setup for several tables, my answer is, "Talk with someone about the elf after the game."

...and then the new player keeps asking about his options? "Oh, what about this seeker guy? What wizard build should I look at? Aren't there any more power options? Say, Mike over there just used a cool power- hey Mike, what is your character? So what about options for invoker with a bow? What about...?"

At the point you've described, the player is disrupting the game and should be told to table these questions until the session is over.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When I'm preparing setup for several tables, my answer is, "Talk with someone about the elf after the game."



At the point you've described, the player is disrupting the game and should be told to table these questions until the session is over.

Actually the 4e answer is "play a bard and take the archer option". Amazingly, due to AEDU design, you don't have to learn any new rules to do that, beyond "what powers and features does a bard have" which you'd have to learn in ANY game that has classes. This is one of the nice things about 4e. Very much less relearning of new stuff to play different PCs.

 

[Zhang Liao]

Here are the facts about the failure of 4th that should be addressed in the creation of the 5th.

The recipe that works is that D&D is for beginners and AD&D is for the experienced people. Don't gear the entire edition to one demographic.

The people that play this game tend towards extreme creativity. It's probably not a good idea to mess with the multitude of options.

Less complex rules are fine. Making everything feel the same to simplify the rules is not fine. (There will always be some complexity to the rules. Everyone should get used to that fact.)

Dramatic departures from Cannon will be unwelcome. Two worlds crashed together and a spell plague caused devastating problems to Toril. Eladrin (which are outsiders btw) are now magically a player race native to Toril and mysteriously somehow are a replacement of the Elves at least in part??? No thank you, I will continue to play in 1372 (Forever if I must.)