D&D 5E Are you going to miss AEDU? (And did you feel a lack in the playtest because of it?)

[Mercurius]

I ran into one of the players in my group-on-hiatus the other day and talked briefly with him about the Next campaign we're starting up in a few weeks. He was the player who attained the greatest rules mastery with 4E; he played a rogue, the only character to survive the entire three-year campaign from 1st to 17th level, and really got the whole combat advantage thing, and was always figuring out ways to optimize his capacity as a striker. Anyhow, while he's open and curious about Next, especially when I emphasized the "theater of mind" focus, I've had a tingling worry that he, and maybe one other player who attained similar rules mastery, will miss the AEDU paradigm.

I'm not sure it will be that different from the DM's side of the table and monsters will still effectively have the same "powers." But for non-spellcasters it seems like it is quite different. Of course PCs will still be able to do all kinds of things - everything and more that they did in 4E - but there won't be the same pre-made avenues of expression, i.e. powers. Except for spellcasters, of course.

So I ask you, for those switching to 5E from 4E, are you worried about missing powers? For those having played the playtest, did there feel like a lack?

 

[Neonchameleon]

But for non-spellcasters it seems like it is quite different. Of course PCs will still be able to do all kinds of things - everything and more that they did in 4E

Not proven. In fact a very long way from being proven. So far in the playtest I have seen no hint that fighters will be able to own a foe as with Combat Superiority or to have any chance of making the enemies Come And Get It. I've yet to see a thief that can just climb walls because they want to and has a climb speed (I may have missed it) or can Death From Above, climbing along the ceiling without needing to roll, and then jumping off and landing daggers point-first on the enemy. I've yet to see something worthy of the name Warlord.

Without powers (or Dungeon World style moves) it makes it almost impossible to go above and beyond basic competence without negotiating with the DM, or to have characters that truly shine where they choose to in a way they didn't without magic in prior editions.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, I already have 13th Age and my own hacked 4e system to keep powers alive, even if/when I do start a Next game.

I won't miss the strict power progression of early 4e. I will miss the utility of keywords, the definition of powers by recharge time, and the formal layout of the power's mechanical effects.

Even switching to Next, I doubt I'll go full TotM. I don't think I'll be starting Next until the combat module is released.

 

[Halivar]

The appeal of the AEDU system was tactical variation without BAB gimping. Previously, to do anything interesting you were taking attack penalties and I think this encouraged a static "I attack, I attack, I attack" paradigm that made 3.5 (and makes PF) combat stale and boring. I loved the mobility, the variance, and the cinematic action of 4E.

If 5E can give me this, then I won't miss AEDU. But if it goes back to the old model then I will.

 

[Texicles]

I liked AEDU and will miss it. I always felt like 4e combat mechanics were fun and elegant. YMMV. That said, I recognize that it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and therefor isn't necessarily the best course for D&D.

I'm quite interested in what they do as far as tactical combat modules, but I don't expect we'll see any more AEDU from the D&D brand. The volume of content involved in something like that makes me believe that an AEDU module is just too big and complex to be worth developing and publishing.

I like 5e despite the departure from 4e systems that I liked. It will most likely become my de facto RPG, and I'll just try and find a 4e game once in a while to get my fix of AEDU et al.

 

[TerraDave]

Its complicated.

Rogue is a good example of a class that could be really fun with powers. Just allowed all sorts of whacky stuff. And yes, far more balanced.

But, a lot of powers where repetitive, and the approach was formulaic. The wizard didn't like "loosing" spells at higher levels (though this is critical for the whole thing to work), the fighter did have stuff that could just be, well, annoying, and the ranger had a lot of hard to tell apart ways to fire twice at an opponent. For the DM, you didn't have classic widely used spells that helped you keep track of what was going on, but instead a blizzard of powers you might never quite wrap your head around.

If there is some option to keep cool martial moves, like, say sliding one opponent to then knock down another opponent...it will be good. The actual power structure is not so essential.

 

[Jester David]

I'm not sad to see it go.

I was not a fan the forced symmetry of classes with the same number of powers that recharged at the same rate and did roughly the same thing.
Encounter powers never sat right with me either. It was so arbitrary. It's not once every 5 minutes or once per group of bad guys but once a fight. Too gamist for my taste.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've enjoyed my time with AEDU in the two long-term 4E campaigns I've run (three, if you count Gamma World)... but I've never been beholden to it and definitely see and feel the cracks in it at this point in time. So moving on from it to Next won't be an issue for me, especially if there are many parts of Next that are evolutions of 4E mechanics that have worked well (and all signs point in that direction.)

The main crack that has widened for me over time in indeed the "sameness" of the AEDU format for all classes. Not only the levels at which each class gained its abilities... but also the abilities themselves all being the same regardless of the class that was using it. Many classes could Slow. Many classes could Immobilize. Many classes could give a -2 penalty to AC. Many classes could Mark. Many classes could Daze. Many classes could grant a +2 bonus to attack. Many classes could grant Temp HP. So on and so forth. And while they all had a different sentence or two for "fluff" that described how that ability was seen in the story... the fact remained that as far as the grid was concerned, it was just the same circle of mechanics used over and over by all the characters at the table.

Now granted... part of that was on me and how the combats were described and run. I freely admit that. But by the same token, "Temp HP" is "Temp HP" regardless how it's described. It's written down on the character sheet and removed from the character sheet in the exact same way... regardless of whether it's a compulsion to keep fighting on, a magical force barrier to block attacks, or rage-induced additional stamina. And thus using the same circle of mechanics for every ability in the game across every single class did grow a bit tiresome and repetitive for me and many of my players over time.

So while I certain still enjoy the game and am still DMing my current 4E campaign (and will be throughout the summer at the very least)... I can certainly see the joy in playing something new. Especially one that takes many parts of 3E and many parts of 4E and mushes them together along with some new stuff. And I look forward to playing THAT game for four to six years until another game after that comes around with a bunch of new things in it to try.

They're all fun in their own way. And I'll love playing each of them in turn.

 

[Sage Genesis]

If there is some option to keep cool martial moves, like, say sliding one opponent to then knock down another opponent...it will be good. The actual power structure is not so essential.

This describes me as well.

Even 4e already let go of the AEDU structure with its Essentials classes. In one of my games there's a Thief and as such is built quite differently than a PHB1 Rogue, but he still feels competent, fun, and appropriate to the class concept.

Next so far... hasn't nailed it down yet for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sad to see it go.

I was not a fan the forced symmetry of classes with the same number of powers that recharged at the same rate and did roughly the same thing.
Encounter powers never sat right with me either. It was so arbitrary. It's not once every 5 minutes or once per group of bad guys but once a fight. Too gamist for my taste.

The main crack that has widened for me over time in indeed the "sameness" of the AEDU format for all classes. Not only the levels at which each class gained its abilities... but also the abilities themselves all being the same regardless of the class that was using it. Many classes could Slow. Many classes could Immobilize. Many classes could give a -2 penalty to AC. Many classes could Mark. Many classes could Daze. Many classes could grant a +2 bonus to attack. Many classes could grant Temp HP. So on and so forth. And while they all had a different sentence or two for "fluff" that described how that ability was seen in the story... the fact remained that as far as the grid was concerned, it was just the same circle of mechanics used over and over by all the characters at the table.

This accurately captures much of my feeling.

ADEU is artificial homogeneity to me. I've no doubt that 5e can keep things interesting without resorting to this kind of meta-enforcement of mirco-balance.