4th edition: Not happy with the new direction.

[FireLance]

I'm not sure if you played 2nd edition but back then there was a book called Skills and Powers and I thought it was awesome. It was essentially classless D&D.

Skills & Powers was not actually classless, though. It offered a great deal of customization within a class (some would say to the point of brokenness) but you still had to pick a class (or a multiclass combination) first.

I think 4E could actually deliver a more balanced "classless" system by introducing a class that could take powers from existing classes.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Could you present something to talk about then? I mean besides the tired old "It all looks the same" argument. perhaps you have started some duscussion but all i have seen is "I hope 5e is different".

Why haven't you contributed anything actually constructive to the conversation? Some of us are actually trying to have a conversation about it and all you do is nudge the same old crap forward. There are plenty of people here that agree about the similarity issue.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Skills & Powers was not actually classless, though. It offered a great deal of customization within a class (some would say to the point of brokenness) but you still had to pick a class (or a multiclass combination) first.

I think 4E could actually deliver a more balanced "classless" system by introducing a class that could take powers from existing classes.

The thing I was trying to point out is that it can be done. Getting the powers balanced is where the work comes in, but the framework is there. I think maybe the problem is finding a classless system that hasn't been done.

 

[herrozerro]

Why haven't you contributed anything actually constructive to the conversation? Some of us are actually trying to have a conversation about it and all you do is nudge the same old crap forward. There are plenty of people here that agree about the similarity issue.

Okay, so you think it's too similar, we discussed this a bit back. looking similar and playing similar are two different things. you have not really responded back to the discussion back there about how while it looks similar it plays quite differently from class to class.

also this line:

Problem is there are likely more people who don't buy the books than actually buy the books and that is a problem in my opinion. Essentials hasn't done very well overall and something needs to be done.

do you have any kind of proof that the Essentials books are not selling well? I mean besides the very vocal complainers on various forums?

 

[Obryn]

I heard that Star Wars Saga was what 4th edition should have been. I also head that the system is very good.

It's problematic in a lot of ways, IMO. The main issues from a "this would work as D&D" standpoint are:

(1) Bad melee mechanics
(2) Conflation of AC and Reflex
(3) A tidier version of the 3e Action system, when I think that this is one area where 4e basically nailed it.

I had fun running it, but I'd want to clean it up a lot before running it again. I think that 4e is a mechanically better and more interesting system for D&D-like games.

-O

 

[Dice4Hire]

I heard that Star Wars Saga was what 4th edition should have been. I also head that the system is very good.

I did too. ANyone know if there was an SRD for it or the like?

 

[wlmartin]

ForeverSlayer,

With all due respect you've made 113 comments. In that time you've opened a lot of threads saying how you don't like 4e and don't like Essentials. And how you want 4e to be classless. You are opening them in the 4th edition forum and then complaining that you are disagreed with. And the way you are opening them and your supposed like of 4e reminds me of letters starting "As a lifelong Democrat, I must object to their latest policy..."

If your preferances are what you claim they are I have a simple suggestion for you: Try GURPS. It is classless. Magic has its own mechanics - as do psionics. It's flexible. It seems to be much more of what you want out of a RPG. And if GURPS fails, try Savage Worlds.

I agree
Coming into a 4e forum and complaining about how you don't like 4e is not constructive.

If this was a WotC forum and your agenda was to instruct and feedback your opinions so that WotC did something about it, it might have some merit.

The fact is that making negative posts about 4e in a 4e forum works only to poison those who do in fact like the edition.

Why don't you go to the 3.5e forum and complain about how bad 4e is, I am sure lots of people in there would have your back and it would be more relevant since you are talking about how much you like something over something else, rather than what you are doing here which is slating something over something else.

You wouldn't want to walk into a Christian forum and shout
"God doesnt exist, I am atheist, Relgion is wrong, I believe in not wasting my time praying to thin air"

You would instead be better off in an Atheist forum where such views are common place.



The raw fact of it is is, ForeverSlayer.. in any forum or social community on the net or very much in the world.. if you do not share the consensus of the group, you aren't going to get far promoting contrary opinions and probably won't enjoy yourself much.

I think this D&D group is very tollerant about such obvious flaming posts. I have been a member of other groups that even the mention of something so obviously troll spam is locked and the user kicked.

Bottom line?
I think I speak for most in saying we don't want to hear why 4e is crap ALL OF THE TIME. If you have some genuine arguments to make about why you think 4e is not a good system, feel free to make them but when the majority of the forum who do in fact like 4e (its why we are in here, duh!) disagree with you... don't get defensive and start acting like an idiot, just take it that such attitudes are not wanted here and either take the responses in a fair way or maybe try them somewhere else!

 

[malraux]

If every time I offer you a beer you complain about the hops, the maltiness, and the carbonation, the best answer isn't for me to find a non-hoppy, non-malted, non-carbonated beer, its to suggest that what you really want is to try wine instead.

 

[delericho]

It's problematic in a lot of ways, IMO. The main issues from a "this would work as D&D" standpoint are:

(1) Bad melee mechanics
(2) Conflation of AC and Reflex
(3) A tidier version of the 3e Action system, when I think that this is one area where 4e basically nailed it.

All three of these are true. The last one, though, is just a case of SWSE making some progress, and 4e completing the revision.

I had fun running it, but I'd want to clean it up a lot before running it again. I think that 4e is a mechanically better and more interesting system for D&D-like games.

The thing that most impresses me about SWSE is that it really nailed the feel of the genre, and it's a feel that I don't think would do D&D any harm at all - indeed, it's a lot closer to my old memories of the game than the 4e (or even 3e) model.

The other huge selling points (to me) are the relative simplicity of the system, the ease with which is can be played without minis, and the speed of play. For me, 4e really isn't playable without minis, and I consider that a deal-breaker, while the combat grind is simply intolerable.

SWSE certainly isn't perfect, and would have needed quite a lot of work to adapt to D&D. But I do feel a big opportunity was missed here - I would have preferred a 4e that was a lot closer to SWSE than the one we eventually got.

Or, to respond to your point in a lot fewer words: I disagree.

I did too. ANyone know if there was an SRD for it or the like?

Sadly, no. The licensing arrangements would have made that extremely problematic, and there was no incentive for WotC to provide an SRD for an engine they weren't going to use elsewhere. I don't know if there's anything retro-clone(-ish) out there.

 

[FireLance]

The thing I was trying to point out is that it can be done. Getting the powers balanced is where the work comes in, but the framework is there. I think maybe the problem is finding a classless system that hasn't been done.

And what I'm saying is that you don't need a 5th edition to do this. As I said in an earlier post, it's a natural progression from feat-based multiclassing and hybrids.

I think WotC has come to the point where there are no major balance issues between the classes. It is also addressing minor differences in balance by coming up with new options (as it recently did for Strength clerics) or issuing errata (as it recently did for PH1 warlocks and wizards).

Although it started the edition fairly conservatively with all classes pretty much adhering to the AEDU structure, it has experimented with variant approaches in PH3 and Essentials.

I think the next step could be to develop classes that can choose between constant abilities and at-will, encounter and daily attack powers. Many classes already allow some trade-off between encounter and daily utility powers, or even at-will, encounter and daily utility powers. Doing the same for attack powers would be a logical next step.

After that is done, it would be possible to unite the Weaponmaster (AEDU), the Knight and the Slayer under an umbrella Fighter class, with the player being able to choose between (say) a constant damage bonus OR an encounter attack power OR a daily attack power at various points as the PC levels up. If there are minor discrepancies, e.g. the Weaponmaster fighter does not gain an ability at 4th level, while the Knight and the Slayer do), this can be addressed in errata.

All in all, since all this can be done within the 4E framework, I really don't see why a 5th edition is necessary.