D&D 4E An Olive Branch to 4e Fans: Some Things 5e Should Take From 4e

[drunkenmonk]

At DDXP in January they said they had been playtesting D&D Next for nine months. 4E was released on June 6, 2008 (What 31 months ago??) So if they spent 3 months designing the system before playtesting (probably a conservative estimate) then they started designing the new edition 19 months after 4E came out. (About a year and a half)

4e had some good stuff, but I don’t think 4e did all that well, if you also factor in all of the layoffs. They probably won't keep much of it in the core. I think they will keep a few at-will powers, and maybe some classes and races. There won't be much.

That said. 4E does have a fan base, and some people love 4e as their favorite edition. I think they will come out with a later “Advanced” module for 4e players to include much of what they want, but I just don't think much of it will be in the basic core game.

 

[Gronin]

I would just like to add emphasis to the removal of level drain -- hate it as a DM and (if possible) even more so as a player. One hit from a level draining monster and hears hoping you keep a charaacter sheet for every level. Huge pain in the butt and to be honest never fun for the player.

 

[RHGreen]

Heh. Let's just say that the things I dislike about 4e, I dislike alot.

[Edit] To clarify, I don't hate 4e. I've played it and had fun doing so, and if my gaming group were to decide to play it, I wouldn't refuse just because it's 4e. It's just not my edition of choice. There are some things about it I really dislike, but that's been true of every edition of DnD.

We have fanboys and grognards and a massive list of tags and slurs for people with different stances.

Why haven't people like us got a name?

I vote for D&D Agnostic. Or Dandnostic?, or Dagnostic, or ... I give up.

We could form a cult.

 

[Thaumaturge]

We have fanboys and grognards and a massive list of tags and slurs for people with different stances.

Why haven't people like us got a name?

I vote for D&D Agnostic. Or Dandnostic?, or Dagnostic, or ... I give up.

We could form a cult.

There is a name for us: D&D players. We've got the best name of the bunch. The others don't use it, because it's a positive term, not a negative.

 

[The Shadow]

First off, I agree with most of what's said in the OP. I have a few comments about alignment.

As I've said on a couple of other threads, I think both alignment and patron deities should be handled on an "if you want" basis. That is, players can optionally choose to declare an alignment/deity, and doing so should give them access to certain powers/feats/magic items/whatever that other characters can't access.

Mostly? I think alignment can die in a fire, at least as applied to mortals. It contributes virtually nothing to the game. But if it does get kept (and I think it'll have to be, to unify editions) I could agree with this. Most people do not have any huge commitment to a worldview. I'd rather see your proposed "Alignment module", though.

The issue here is DMs (and sometimes players) who insist that paladins have to be LG-stupid, something that has never been inherent in the books. The solution to that is actually quite simple: stop.

Hear, hear!

- In any realistic (or semi-realistic) world, a significant portion of the populace will show up as Evil, not just the one solitary murderer. And, indeed, the local lord and his enforcers are amongst the most likely to be Evil. So, while detect evil may well act as a useful clue, and provide a place to start an investigation, it by no means should be the end of the matter.

Disagree. I don't think "Detect Evil" should really be detecting people who cheat their customers, beat their wives, oppress the peasants, or whatever. That leads to all sorts of stupidity in the game - and incidentally has no legendary or fictional basis whatever.

I think it should be something more like, "Detect Supernatural Taint of Evil". Or "Detect EVILLE!" if you prefer. Demons? They show up. Devils? Yep. Clerics of gods committed to evilness? Yep. (Though not clerics of gods who just happen to be jerks. Gods don't have to be aligned any more than anyone else - though I grant that it's more common for them.)

A mortal demon-cultist who practices human sacrifice? Yep. The guy who cheats on his taxes? Nope. Or even the guy who murdered somebody, if there's no EVILLE! involvement? Nope.

 

[RHGreen]

There is a name for us: D&D players. We've got the best name of the bunch. The others don't use it, because it's a positive term, not a negative.

The others would probably call us fence sitters.

 

[Thaumaturge]

The others would probably call us fence sitters.

Sure. But then, I spend way more time pretending to be an elf than getting in online scuffles about the best possible way to pretend to be an elf, so I probably wouldn't hear the name calling in the first place.

I think it's clear from the alignment discussions that mechanical impact of alignment needs to be a module. I, personally, like it. The gods withdrawing their blessings because a follower has strayed is mythological, and I'd like to see it as a possibility.

I perfectly understand and respect those who don't want to play that way. It can be frustrating when you lose abilities based on what is perceived to be a poor decision by a DM.

 

[OpsKT]

Idea for magic spells vs at wills -- they have wand of ____________ that allows you to use a prepared spell as an at will. That way it still uses a spell slot but they can have options for an always on spell.

 

[OnlineDM]

I strongly, strongly agree with most of the items on that list, especially:
-At will spells (yes, yes, yes - this makes Vancian magic acceptable to me)
-No rolling to confirm crits
-Easy to use monster stat blocks

Those are all HUGE to me. The absence of level drain, too, although I didn't play enough earlier editions to really encounter it (but I don't like the concept at all).

I'm torn on alignment not mattering. I'd be okay with it mattering a little bit, and I do prefer the nine alignments over the five.

AC scaling with attack bonus... I feel like there has to be a better way. Ultimately, the whole progression of attacks and defenses, both for PCs and enemies, feels like a way of saying "you hit on an X or better against same-level foes" where X is probably 8 or 9. I know that the scaling means that a 1st level PC has no chance to hit a 15th level monster on anything other than a crit, which is quite possibly reasonable, but it feels like a lot of extra math for not enough benefit. I expect 5e to work differently, and I look forward to seeing what they do.

 

[delericho]

Disagree. I don't think "Detect Evil" should really be detecting people who cheat their customers, beat their wives, oppress the peasants, or whatever. That leads to all sorts of stupidity in the game - and incidentally has no legendary or fictional basis whatever.

I think it should be something more like, "Detect Supernatural Taint of Evil". Or "Detect EVILLE!" if you prefer. Demons? They show up. Devils? Yep. Clerics of gods committed to evilness? Yep. (Though not clerics of gods who just happen to be jerks. Gods don't have to be aligned any more than anyone else - though I grant that it's more common for them.)

A mortal demon-cultist who practices human sacrifice? Yep. The guy who cheats on his taxes? Nope. Or even the guy who murdered somebody, if there's no EVILLE! involvement? Nope.

I can conditionally agree with this.

The thing is, as-written (in 3e, and even before), detect evil isn't limited to "supernatural evils". That being the case, it should show up all those lesser evils you disregard. (And so, if the one murderer in the town shows up as evil, so should a whole bunch of other people. By and large, we're not a terrible nice species.)

However, a rewrite of detect evil so it does only show up those "supernatural evils" would be a distinct improvement, and would certainly be something I could get behind.