Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Badapple" data-source="post: 5962479" data-attributes="member: 71811">The Rule of SixI’m going to call this post “The Rule of Six”. I call it that, because a first level D&D 4e character, whipped up in the online character-builder, has six different options they can do in a round of combat that is stronger than a basic attack. So, to address the original topic of this thread, “what would you like to see in the new edition, coming from the perspective of a 4th edition player?”, here goes: I like 4e because of the options. My first level human fighter has 3 at will attacks, one strong attack that I can use once per battle, and one really powerful attack I can use once per day. I can choose a background that gives me an additional encounter power. That is six different options that I can do in a given round of battle that either do more damage than, or do an additional effect on top of, a basic attack. That’s just at first level. Every level I gain gives me one new power. Sure I have a six page character sheet, but it’s six pages full of juicy choices that I get to make (with all the rules on the character sheet so I never have to reference a book to play my character). I get that not everyone likes this, that it makes combat longer, and for many it is the single biggest dealbreaker of 4th edition, but it’s something I do like and as a 4th edition player something that Next will have to approximate in order to draw me in.From what I have seen of the core of Next, martial characters don’t even begin to achieve this level of complexity. Since this “simple is more” paradigm is popular, this will likely be the core, and modules will need to be released that add additional character options for those like me that want the complexity. But a tactical module, or a suite of “maneuvers” alone will not cut it. The complexity will have to come from the character generation itself. In order to entice 4e players like me, a module is going to have to be released beyond a “tactical” module that simply includes 3e style attack options like trip/disarm/sunder that are a trade-off for a basic attack. For me, that is simply not enough. If I can only trip instead of a basic attack, or I have to take a penalty to my basic attack in order to trip, then I might as well just basic attack. There is going to have to be some sort of character generation module that loads up a core character with additional manageable resources and attack options that let me “surge in power” on some rounds of combat beyond simply basic attacking and these need to be available at the same rate of acquisition as a typical 4th level character (ie 5-6 attack options at first level and one new one each level thereafter) I’ve come to be used to this and find that I like it. Call it “power gaming” if you like, but I like choices. I like seeing a battlemap full of figures that are being booted around the place, knocked down, or someone going crazy and attacking multiple opponents in one round or using a limited use attack because his target is especially vulnerable or the situation is dire and a surge is needed. For me, that is heroic gaming, and it doesn’t impinge on the story and the roleplaying for me to have chaotic, enhanced, combats and lots of choices to make in a given round, when the game goes into a combat. The pitfall for 5e designers is that such a character using this “character enhancing” module is going to wind up drastically more powerful than a character using core rules. These powered up characters are going to destroy encounters balanced for core characters so the DM will have to get a module that increases the power level of the monsters. Or the DM will need to scale up encounters somehow (meaning extra DM work). Published adventures will have to split their precious limited pages putting in sidebars or alternate stats to cover the spectrum of rules modules campaigns may be using and that will limit the page real estate dedicated to the actual adventure. Not to mention the problems that happen when one player shows up at the table with a OE style core fighter and another player shows up at the table with a 4E style souped-up fighter using modules. And if a module soups up the martial characters then the spellcasters (that are designed to be balanced with core martial characters) will need a module as well. I don’t want 5e core simple fighters to be balanced with 5e module enhanced complex fighters because that (to me) is lame. I’m not a particular fan of D&D Essentials. I don’t want core fighters to (hypothetically) get +6 to attack, roll d10+15 for damage while a “complex” fighter gets +4 to attack and d8+12 to damage but gets to trip/push/surge for extra damage and a couple times a day can bust out extra damage whoopass. Because then everyone busts out their calculators and char ops, and inevitably one or the other choice winds up being optimal over the other. And if the core fighter is found to be optimal than playing a complex fighter that will make me feel like I’m missing out. It’s possible 5e will pull this off with their modules, but they have a huge challenge ahead of them. So that’s it for me, in a nutshell, what I would like to see in 5e coming from the perspective of a 4e player. The “Rule of Six”: Give my first level D&D character six different options in a given round of combat that are either more damaging, or have an extra effect on the battle, than a basic attack.</blockquote>

Verification