After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?

[bss]

One of the things that has me most concerned is what appears to be a return to the notion of classes as their own little self-contained systems. 4e absolutely excels at setting one codified set of rules (the core language) and sticking to it everywhere. When you say "I mark the slaad" I know what that means regardless of if you're a fighter, paladin, other class with some random feat, whatever. I (as the DM) don't have to worry about a new class throwing everything tilted because it introduces five new concepts to the language of the game, and I (as a player) can more easily evaluate classes once I've learned the language.

To me, vancian magic threatens that design, and one of the quotes from DDXP has already stated that (in their example) stunning effects would be codified in the description of the spell, not the rules --- good for modularity, bad for system cohesion.

 

[Cadfan]

To me, vancian magic threatens that design, and one of the quotes from DDXP has already stated that (in their example) stunning effects would be codified in the description of the spell, not the rules --- good for modularity, bad for system cohesion.

It also has the potential to be the death of game balance. Its virtually impossible to balance two classes together when one of them follows a uniform system of rules, and another follows whatever it happens to say in a spell text box.

 

[bss]

It also has the potential to be the death of game balance. Its virtually impossible to balance two classes together when one of them follows a uniform system of rules, and another follows whatever it happens to say in a spell text box.

Indeed. Citing balance by comparing the damage of a fireball to other options is extremely short-sighted to me. Damage itself isn't where 3.x's magic got broken, it was where the wizard could polymorph into a fighter the same level as mine... except his fighter was also a prismatic dragon.

 

[Cadfan]

Indeed. Citing balance by comparing the damage of a fireball to other options is extremely short-sighted to me. Damage itself isn't where 3.x's magic got broken, it was where the wizard could polymorph into a fighter the same level as mine... except his fighter was also a prismatic dragon.

Yeah, or even something as simple as the ability to float, or to create a magical box. Having a dozen or so options like that, combined with natural human creativity, tends to outstrip skill systems.

Still... I dunno, I don't want to get too negative. If they slew the sacred cow of the +1 sword, as they've hinted they might have done, I'll forgive a lot. It will, at least, indicate that someone at the helm knows what they're doing.

 

[Blacky the Blackball]

I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.

At the risk of sounding like I am edition warring (I'm not, honest) this gives me some hope.

I'd agree, but I think that to a large extent this may be because (disclaimer: I wasn't there, this is just from what I've heard) the playtest was largely with the most simple way of playing the game rather than with all the modular stuff turned on; and the most simple stuff is more like earlier editions and less like 4e.

I think it's definitely too early to dismiss the new edition as unsuitable for 4e fans, and my advice to 4e fans (of which I'm one, although I also like the older editions so I like what I've heard so far) is to withhold judgement until you've seen the modular stuff that's designed to appeal to you.

 

[pemerton]

it appears that they are going to try and invent mechanics to try and get the same feel as previous mechanics, which seems sort of silly.

Well, if those mechanics are to be part of a base that can support classic, 3E and 4e-style play, they're going to have to be different, aren't they? Otherwise they would just support the play of the particular edition they were taken from.

keep in mind that many if not most 1-3 edition characters could not be adequately represented by the 4e rules at all. Certainly none of the characters I've ever made. Needing to add in a few extra bonus feats isn't that big of a deal by comparison.

But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?

It won't be enough if the game requires feat taxes. Maybe it can be done via feats, but the design won't work if they're taxes.

Every edition destroys some illusions about D&D. This illusion is long past its shelf date.

Go Crazy Jerome!

 

[avin]

My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves

Same here, but I think we just heard news about the very basic version of 5E.

I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons.

They don't want to keep moving from 4E, no judging if it's good or bad here, but 4E split even more D&D and they feel the urge to try to reunite. It's a valid starting point, being a success and a failure.

In 4th edition I feel great freedom in the DM chair to create adventures, to create a campaign, exactly the way it is in my vision.

That's where experience varies. I found DMing 4E easy and relaxing. Monster Builder is what every DM dreamt about. No need to deal with unbalance was my greatest relief.

On the other hand, I didn't find this freeedom you talk about, on the opposite, I was always constrained by rules that never made sense to my players and the lackluster rules for out of combat experience.

The laziest part of 4E is what some people think it's genial, page 42... but it just me and I'm not owner of the truth here.

And we have to consider people's opinions. You think it's one step forward, I think it's one step in a 45 degrees angle (good, but in other direction that doesn't feel like what I think is D&D) and some people think is a step back.

but 4e challenged some of the prevalent D&D assumptions at the time and indeed made the game modern in rules (without impacting whatsoever anyone's ability to RP to their desires)

That's not entirely true in my opinion. 4E went on a modern direction, yes. 4E is a damn fun game, sure. But a lot of rules killed disbelief suspension for a lot of people around, so I don't think it's true to every people around that 4E didn't impact on RP.

4E is very good at combat, but lacks in out of combat games... not to mention that some less realistic rules killed immersion in my group's experience... that don't killed our fun, tho, we use 4E when we feel like having a heavy focused combat game.

TLDR, 4E impacted on RP abilities for many people.

I think it's definitely too early to dismiss the new edition as unsuitable for 4e fans, and my advice to 4e fans (of which I'm one, although I also like the older editions so I like what I've heard so far) is to withhold judgement until you've seen the modular stuff that's designed to appeal to you.

I got this impression DDN is Essentials in reverse. First you got essentials, then 4E.

Just hope that some of 4E innovations are available as options right at the start.

But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?

It's another game.

It's not 4E. If you want a 4E, stick to it. As people who want PF or 3.5.

It's another edition which aims to cater 1 to 4 playstyles... but it's a new game.

 

[Mallus]

I'm not too keen on game mechanics that give advantages to some individual players and not to others.

Any reasonably complex set of game mechanics give an advantage to players who are good with mechanics and abstract systems.

3e, Pathfinder, and 4e all fall into this category.

I prefer a more equitable system and have a strong fairness streak in me.

What's more equitable about favoring players who are good with rule systems over players who know how to talk?

This is the one thing I never understood about this position. Someone is always going to get the advantage. All we're discussing here is who it's going to be.

 

[Hassassin]

This is the one thing I never understood about this position. Someone is always going to get the advantage. All we're discussing here is who it's going to be.

In my opinion the best way is to reward one thing in some encounters and the other in some.

Traditionally, combat encounters have rewarded tactical thinking and system mastery, talky encounters have rewarded extrovert players who think on their feet, more exploration type encounters (traps, puzzles) have rewarded lateral thinking.

I don't see a problem to fix, but mixing the above a bit wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But why would a 4e player want to do that, if s/he can get the desired game right out of the 4e can?

It won't be enough if the game requires feat taxes. Maybe it can be done via feats, but the design won't work if they're taxes.

I don't take it as assumed that all 4e players will want a wizard with at-will spells and will be unwilling to play a warlock or somesuch to get them. They're talking about multiple casting mechanics to suit different tastes. Likewise, I don't think that all 4e players require recharge mechanics on their fighter or rogue. Some 4e players may be married to these concepts, but many others won't be.

I don't like feat taxes either. If a feat is required in order to play a basic character effectively, it's a tax. If a feat is required to play the specific character one individual player wants, then that's what feats are for.