D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[D'karr]

I also think it is possible to make an at will maneuver system, provided the penalties, bonuses and advantages/disadvantages are thought out.

This is exactly my point. What makes spellcasting "difficult", in a system like 3.x and PF? Why should martial maneuvers now have to "balance" penalties, bonuses and advantages/disadvantages?

My point is that we have been conditioned to "think" that these things are so difficult to do that the mechanical options those games provided are statistically less worthwhile than "I attack with my sword." So the system baseline "discourages" the use of the maneuver (provoking AoO, etc.) Then the system provides "outs" to make the maneuvers more attractive/possible - eliminating the disadvantages by spending feats. At that point the players has invested so many resources that the maneuver is "way more attractive" than the baseline. That is where you start to see the spamming. Which was the case with trip. The martial character becomes a "one trick pony". So the system then attempts to balance in the other direction, by making things very situational.

The AEDU structure is not perfect, but it went a long way to address the issues (feasibility of maneuver & spamming).

 

[Guest 85555]

This is exactly my point. What makes spellcasting "difficult", in a system like 3.x and PF? Why should martial maneuvers now have to "balance" penalties, bonuses and advantages/disadvantages?

My point is that we have been conditioned to "think" that these things are so difficult to do that the mechanical options those games provided are statistically less worthwhile than "I attack with my sword." So the system baseline "discourages" the use of the maneuver (provoking AoO, etc.) Then the system provides "outs" to make the maneuvers more attractive/possible - eliminating the disadvantages by spending feats. At that point the players has invested so many resources that the maneuver is "way more attractive" than the baseline. That is where you start to see the spamming. Which was the case with trip. The martial character becomes a "one trick pony". So the system then attempts to balance in the other direction, by making things very situational.

The AEDU structure is not perfect, but it went a long way to address the issues (feasibility of maneuver & spamming).

Anytime you have combat options that essentially at will, and you consider spamming a concern (which not everyone does) trade offs are a way to midigate the problem without the expense of believability. You can employ resource management like wizards have with spell to curtail spamming, but as many posters are observing, it can create believability issues if the powers are mundane. I would argue that they tried to do exactly what you suggest, and it is one of the reasons many gamers left for pathfinder and other games. So i think if they do want to give fighters more options, AEDU is not the ideal way to go if the goal is to appeal to those lapsed players. I know for me, it is essentially a deal breaker. I pretty much want a restoration of old vancian casting and a clearer distinction between mudnane and magical abilities. But even beyond that, i just find the aedu not enjoyable to play.

now with tradeoffs, the point isnt to punish any use of a maneuver so that it becomes worse than attacking with the sword. You just need to get the numbers right and bake it so that under certain conditions, a given manuever is a superior choice to attacking by just swinging the sword. But I dont think feats are the way to go. That was a big part of why it didnt work in 3E in my opinion.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

So i think if they do want to give fighters more options, AEDU is not the ideal way to go if the goal is to appeal to those lapsed players. I know for me, it is essentially a deal breaker. I pretty much want a restoration of old vancian casting and a clearer distinction between mudnane and magical abilities. But even beyond that, i just find the aedu not enjoyable to play.

So what is the goal of Next? Is it to appeal to lapsed players? Or is it to appeal to everyone? Because for me, and "many others" the very lack of what is a "dealbreaker" for you, is a "dealbreaker" for me and "many others," I'm sure.

So, are they only trying to appeal to lapsed gamers and folks who may not have such dealbreaking desires? So far, seems like, and yet, they've still failed to win over even that crowd, if you and other posters in this thread have any bearing of the community at large.

Based on what we've seen here, the only way it could possibly work for both camps (ignoring the "I don't care, I just want to play D&D camp), is to have these approaches be optional. So far, I'm not seeing anything in the playtest that tickles my fancy in that regard.

 

[Guest 85555]

So what is the goal of Next? Is it to appeal to lapsed players? Or is it to appeal to everyone? Because for me, and "many others" the very lack of what is a "dealbreaker" for you, is a "dealbreaker" for me and "many others," I'm sure.

So, are they only trying to appeal to lapsed gamers and folks who may not have such dealbreaking desires? So far, seems like, and yet, they've still failed to win over even that crowd, if you and other posters in this thread have any bearing of the community at large.

i think their goal is to bring the community back together. I do not believe mandating aedu will not do that. Hwever including it as an optional add on could work.

AEDU presents an issue, because as you point out, for you it is a requirement and for me it is a dealbreaker (and i think these are both common positions). Clearly one solution is to fold it into the game as an option. They obviously cant appease me at the expense of 4E players (who they also need).

Based on what we've seen here, the only way it could possibly work for both camps (ignoring the "I don't care, I just want to play D&D camp), is to have these approaches be optional. So far, I'm not seeing anything in the playtest that tickles my fancy in that regard.

I think we have not really seen the total system though. My guess is there will be a lot of options to better customize the game,

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

i think their goal is to bring the community back together. I do not believe mandating aedu will not do that. Hwever including it as an optional add on could work.

For the record, I have never advocated "mandating" AEDU, though I feel it will be equally damning to them if they "mandate" the boring, strictly "mundane" MoAR DAMAGE style fighter we've been shown thus far.

AEDU presents an issue, because as you point out, for you it is a requirement and for me it is a dealbreaker (and i think these are both common positions). Clearly one solution is to fold it into the game as an option. They obviously cant appease me at the expense of 4E players (who they also need).

I think we have not really seen the total system though. My guess is there will be a lot of options to better customize the game,

There had BETTER be better options for customizing the game. What we've seen so far looks like a barely warmed over rehash of 3e with a few 4e concepts thrown in and given "nostalgic" terminology in an attempt to make them easier to swallow for the h4ters. Surprisingly, from posts I've read it has been at least somewhat successful, but not enough, I suspect (whether everyone sees it or not, Healing Surges are back, but with a different name - Hit Dice).

Perhaps the options I want from Next will be forthcoming, though I will be sorely disappointed (and I fully expect to be) if they are not options presented in the core release. If I have to wait months or years to see them enter play, I will be that much less likely to give a damn at that point, as they will have squandered whatever goodwill I have left.

 

[Obryn]

So what is the goal of Next? Is it to appeal to lapsed players? Or is it to appeal to everyone? Because for me, and "many others" the very lack of what is a "dealbreaker" for you, is a "dealbreaker" for me and "many others," I'm sure.

So, are they only trying to appeal to lapsed gamers and folks who may not have such dealbreaking desires? So far, seems like, and yet, they've still failed to win over even that crowd, if you and other posters in this thread have any bearing of the community at large.

Based on what we've seen here, the only way it could possibly work for both camps (ignoring the "I don't care, I just want to play D&D camp), is to have these approaches be optional. So far, I'm not seeing anything in the playtest that tickles my fancy in that regard.

Well, I am a current customer and may very well become a non-customer. Others are non-customers that WotC hopes to turn into customers.

I don't know that there are enough possible switches and toggles to make everyone happy.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Anytime you have combat options that essentially at will, and you consider spamming a concern (which not everyone does) trade offs are a way to midigate the problem without the expense of believability. You can employ resource management like wizards have with spell to curtail spamming, but as many posters are observing, it can create believability issues if the powers are mundane.

While the believability issues are definitely significant, there are many other problems created with this approach.

Positing relatively simple maneuvers as abilities that can only be attempted by characters that select them creates a sense of exclusivity; haves and have-nots. The problem with 3e fighters is that they use feats to do that, when indeed Power Attack should be attemptable by everyone. Cordoning of relatively simple concepts into narrowly focused character abilities also creates an endless stream of supplements. Where the proliferation of feats and spells in numerous splatbooks was a problem in 3e (and one that many DMs opted out of by saying "core only" or otherwise restricting splays), the power system presents everything as core and spread the problem to everyone. The result is books with hundreds of powers that boil down to "I swing hard" or "I block" or "I say something inspiring"; an enormous amount of space (and cost, from a consumer perspective) devoted to conveying very little content.

The prospect of limiting abilities discretely by time (per day or otherwise) is likewise problematic on several levels. The amount of mental calculation required to track those abilities is prohibitive for many players, leaving some who are happy playing a resource management minigame and other who simply shoot from the hip and don't care what they have left, defeating the point of those mechanics. Classically, group #1 played casters sometimes, while everyone else didn't. Expanding the bookkeeping to everyone is exclusionary. Time-limited abilities also create bizarre situations in which players stop adventuring to regain them when there is no reason for the characters to do so (15 MAD, if you like).

Believability is really the tip of the iceberg. The whole Vancian paradigm was lousy magic system to begin with. The power system is an even worse magic system, applied to everyone. The more sensible approach would have been to take daily abilities out of the game completely, build and balance the base game in better ways, and put a Vancian magic add-on back in for the people who like the classic feel of wizards memorizing tables full of spells.

 

[Guest 85555]

For the record, I have never advocated "mandating" AEDU, though I feel it will be equally damning to them if they "mandate" the boring, strictly "mundane" MoAR DAMAGE style fighter we've been shown thus far.

i think wanting aedu is reasonable if that is what you like. But characterizing what I or others want as MoAR DAMAGE is a bit dismissive.

There had BETTER be better options for customizing the game. What we've seen so far looks like a barely warmed over rehash of 3e with a few 4e concepts thrown in and given "nostalgic" terminology in an attempt to make them easier to swallow for the h4ters. Surprisingly, from posts I've read it has been at least somewhat successful, but not enough, I suspect (whether everyone sees it or not, Healing Surges are back, but with a different name - Hit Dice).

i agree, the options should be there because there is a key group that wants them. However I dont think sneaking things in by changing language is helpful. One it assumes we are too stupid to notice (or that our concerns with 4E mechanics are purely psychological). Two, we did notice. People have complained about HD, and felt it was basically too much ike HS. If it is relatively easy to remove or changem then I will still play though.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

While the believability issues are definitely significant, there are many other problems created with this approach.

For you, maybe. This is not universal by any stretch.

Positing relatively simple maneuvers as abilities that can only be attempted by characters that select them creates a sense of exclusivity; haves and have-nots.

I guess you missed the point of Page 42.

The problem with 3e fighters is that they use feats to do that, when indeed Power Attack should be attemptable by everyone. Cordoning of relatively simple concepts into narrowly focused character abilities also creates an endless stream of supplements. Where the proliferation of feats and spells in numerous splatbooks was a problem in 3e (and one that many DMs opted out of by saying "core only" or otherwise restricting splays), the power system presents everything as core and spread the problem to everyone. The result is books with hundreds of powers that boil down to "I swing hard" or "I block" or "I say something inspiring"; an enormous amount of space (and cost, from a consumer perspective) devoted to conveying very little content.

While I certainly think that there is room for improving this model of doing business, the splat issue was much better constrained under 4e than 3.x, and if we're being honest, the problem has always existed for every class prior to that. 2e can take the blame for starting that ball rolling with the "Complete" series of floppybacks.

The prospect of limiting abilities discretely by time (per day or otherwise) is likewise problematic on several levels. The amount of mental calculation required to track those abilities is prohibitive for many players, leaving some who are happy playing a resource management minigame and other who simply shoot from the hip and don't care what they have left, defeating the point of those mechanics. Classically, group #1 played casters sometimes, while everyone else didn't. Expanding the bookkeeping to everyone is exclusionary.

Good thing that there are other options for those classes that are less of a resource-management game. Looks like this is what they're carrying forward to Next in the designs of martial classes I've seen so far. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons it leaves me cold.

Time-limited abilities also create bizarre situations in which players stop adventuring to regain them when there is no reason for the characters to do so (15 MAD, if you like).

Hm, I don't have this problem at my table.

Believability is really the tip of the iceberg. The whole Vancian paradigm was lousy magic system to begin with. The power system is an even worse magic system, applied to everyone. The more sensible approach would have been to take daily abilities out of the game completely, build and balance the base game in better ways, and put a Vancian magic add-on back in for the people who like the classic feel of wizards memorizing tables full of spells.

I agree that Vancian casting was terrible (I certainly never liked it), but I strongly and emphatically disagree that AEDU was worse. This is clearly just your opinion and not a universal truth.

I don't deny that there may be a better way to build an ability system, but we have yet to see one in D&D as far as I'm concerned. Which is, of course, just my opinion.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

i think wanting aedu is reasonable if that is what you like. But characterizing what I or others want as MoAR DAMAGE is a bit dismissive.

Sorry you feel this way. Though isn't "more damage" basically what you'd said you wanted to see in a fighter?

And is that not pretty much all we've seen in Next so far? That's all I've seen, and I've read all but the latest packet with the barbarian.

i agree, the options should be there because there is a key group that wants them. However I dont think sneaking things in by changing language is helpful. One it assumes we are too stupid to notice (or that our concerns with 4E mechanics are purely psychological). Two, we did notice. People have complained about HD, and felt it was basically too much ike HS. If it is relatively easy to remove or changem then I will still play though.

I don't think they really tried to "sneak" anything in, but clearly some of the objections were purely psychological for some, because some of the posts I've seen show a greater acceptance of Hit Dice from folks who hated healing surges. Just as I've seen some posts call it like it is - Healing Surges by another name - and continue to hate on it.