D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Lanefan]

Well, I agree that a single skill check does not a wilderness trek make. Or a dungeon crawl. Or a negotiation. I'd like a better framework for all of that and I'm sad 5E doesn't provide that. But I don't want one resolved with percentile dice, another with a coin flip, and the third with a deck of cards.

Sure, but one resolved with percentile dice, another with a d20, and another with 2d8 is fine.

I mean, you've already got all the dice in your bag anyway, why not let the system put 'em to use?

 

[Lanefan]

I find the enormous problem is that "works with a herd of cats" means teamwork is functionally irrelevant--every group can succeed without it, so why bother going to all that work when it makes no functional difference? Which is precisely my problem. D&D is and has always been a team game. I believe it should be designed as such.

Now, that doesn't mean D&D should be designed so that flawless interlocking machine-like teamwork is required 24/7. That's foolish and unproductive. But I genuinely do believe that if the group is behaving, as you say, like "a herd of cats", then they should pay a price for that. It should be hard to succeed under such conditions.

DMing herds of cats: the story of my life since 1984.

That said, I'm a herd-of-cats player at heart, mostly because I find just being a cog in a machine to be boring AF; even more so if we're just following orders laid down by some (in- or out-of-character) party leader type. No thanks.

Like, if "herd of cats" is 10% teamwork and "well-oiled machine" is 100% teamwork, I would expect the game to be balanced for a point roughly around 40%-50% teamwork. Call it "fire-forged friends" type teamwork; just because they're friends doesn't mean they always get along or have rigid discipline. Dropping down all the way to 10% teamwork is a major risk, but it's also a lot more casual. Perhaps the DMG can have advice for how to account for varying degrees of teamwork in the group. Seems like that would be right at home with the "player personalities" stuff that was present in the 4e DMG.

Good summary, and in principle I'm on board.

4e's own terminology really gets in the way, though, in naming one of the roles "leader". The minute I-as-player see that, I take it to mean that in-character I get to tell the others what to do...or the "leader" in the party gets to tell me what to do, whichever way around it might be...because that's what leaders do. And at most tables, that's just not gonna fly. Cue the arguments.

I was far, FAR, from alone in this interpretation.

On this you will never hear argument from me. Attempting to kill the OGL was the single stupidest thing 4e's creators ever did. Had they not done so--had they instead collaborated and tried to reinforce the OGL--a great many things would have gone differently.

That was one colossal error of, IMO, two. The other was their face-palm-worthy approach to marketing, which seemed intentionally designed to alienate pretty much everyone already playing any previous edition.

Given it's been nearly 20 years since 4e came out, I'm pretty sure we'd be playing 5e by now. But it would've been a 5e launched much more recently. But I do agree that keeping the OGL and letting 4e cook for like one extra year? Massive, massive differences.

I suspect 4e would also have been better received at launch had it all - or at least a lot more of it - been there up front, rather than having some parts intentionally delayed into a second (and third, if memory serves?) round of PH and DMGs.

I remember on first reading the 4e core three (first set) thinking that while there was enough there to make it playable there was also a lot missing even when compaed to just the initial core three books from prior editions (1e and 3e in particular), and I wasn't about to wait and then go and buy a second round of books just to fill in those gaps.

 

[Lanefan]

But keeping straight in my head that a +4 bonus to THAC0 from a magic weapon means my THAC0 goes from -3 to -7, and thus I can hit a target with AC of...what? Assuming I roll 10, with a THAC0 of -7, I can hit an AC of -7-10 = -17.

And every single time I have to do these mental gymnastics to get useful information out. Doubly so because, if I were actually playing at a real table, most GMs will NEVER tell you a monster's AC, so you're doing Die + [UNKNOWN] >= THAC0.

That's because you're trying to do the DM's work for her. You roll the die, add your bonuses, and stop there. Leave it to the DM to do the rest, which includes factoring in the target's AC and any other mitigating elements, and tell you whether you hit or not.

 

[Lanefan]

And much the same can be said of various other games, like 13th Age and Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

4e's influence and reach will last much longer than the hate did.

As will that of all editions.

Each edition and variant has something worthwhile to contribute to the whole; and over time the wheat tends to get sorted from the chaff.

An example is 4e's bloodied-condition idea. Pure wheat all the way. I've no doubt we'll see that again in D&D at some point, my hope is that it's greatly expanded upon and ultimately leads to some sort of body-fatigue or wound-vitality hit point system.

 

[Minigiant]

Good summary, and in principle I'm on board.

4e's own terminology really gets in the way, though, in naming one of the roles "leader". The minute I-as-player see that, I take it to mean that in-character I get to tell the others what to do...or the "leader" in the party gets to tell me what to do, whichever way around it might be...because that's what leaders do. And at most tables, that's just not gonna fly. Cue the arguments

4e was not afraid to slay some secret cows. But one issue with DND is it's as a whole, afraid to openly say it's doing so like thats.

4E didn't want to call the healing role "the healer role" for some reason, even though everyone knows the healer's role in D&D is primarily both Healing and Buffing.

It kept the controller's role as a name when the controller role in D&D was both Control and AOE.

One additional thing that I don't like about the evolution about DND it's that it became a little Punk. There's an additional word that would add. After the word "punk" but this is a family forum..

DND is quick to disrupt, but too scared to say it.

Sometimes things have to change in order to get fixed. But you have to be willing to say it in people's face. Say it with your whole chest.

But nah. D&D is this rolling sleight of hand and trying to sneak thing through other things without you knowing.

 

[Alzrius]

three (first set) thinking that while there was enough there to make it playable there was also a lot missing even when compaed to just the initial core three books from prior editions (1e and 3e in particular), and I wasn't about to wait and then go and buy a second round of books just to fill in those gaps.

Which is notable when you recall the fact that much of said missing content was held back deliberately in order to help boost sales of subsequent books.

 

[DammitVictor]

With the exception of the ranger class which I would pull over from 1e, I'd play 2e in a heartbeat over 1e. No question.

I don't joink the 1e Ranger, because I never fully understood the Aragorn connections behind its class abilities...

... but I did give Ranger improved Thief skills and improved spell access. (Starting at 4th, like I did for Paladin and Assassin). Climb Walls, Move Silently, and Hide in Shadows not restricted to "natural environments", Backstab x2 that didn't improve, and their Priest spells expanded to include Elemental (all), Travelers, and Weather. I've never liked Favored Enemy as a class feature because it just feels... too specific to be based on class-and-level and not connected to campaign events.

As a Ranger-only use for Proficiency slots, which is a concept AD&D barely touched? Would've been sweet.

( healers were not very popular choice )

One thing that I think 3.X and PF1 and 4E do not get nearly enough credit for, and which 5e again leaned away from, was letting players play healers without forcing them to be clerics. I don't want to get into why this is so important to me, but it was a big deal when 3.X and PF offered me non-Cleric primary healer options... and mildly frustrating that Bards in 5e have to struggle to keep up with even non-healing focused Clerics, and Druids are not much better (than Bards as healers, or Clerics as not-being-clerics).

Not to many people around here are anti dragonborn.

Hell you can pick phb or fizbans ones in my games.

Yeah, and I want to make a note here-- I got no problem with Dragonborn, I just don't want them or tieflings (or half-orcs or gnomes) in Dark Sun. Even if you want to reskin them as draconians in Dragonlance, I'm okay with that-- they're close enough-- but don't add them to Athas and don't try to tell me they're dray.

Replacing tieflings with genasi for the DSCS 4e book would have been dope.

 

[Yaarel]

Consider this. My D&D game prior to Covid was a take on Savage Tides in Eberron. We got half way though one of the story beats when lockdown happened. We didn't get back to playing until over a year later and when we did, we started a new game. Does the Eberron game not count as a story because it was abandoned? No ending, no tpk, no cliffhanger, just left in some the middle of the sea heading to whatever was the next part of the module was.

I think that that is right. Your unfinished Eberron adventure seems more like an "account". Not a story.

It is more like someone who describes seeing a UFO. It is an incident, an occurence, an event. But not actually a "story" structurally.

I take it, the Eberron adventure had enough to start a story (normal life of homebase, an incident to leave home, then fully enter the otherworld of adventure, perhaps a setback in the otherworld, followed by challengers and guides. ... But not yet entering innermost part to confront its ordeal, to gain its boon, then to return to homebase to fight the real bigbad there, be saved by some ethical lesson, and then use the boon to make the homebase a better place. Such a story beginning would be unfinished.

 

[payn]

4e's own terminology really gets in the way, though, in naming one of the roles "leader". The minute I-as-player see that, I take it to mean that in-character I get to tell the others what to do...or the "leader" in the party gets to tell me what to do, whichever way around it might be...because that's what leaders do. And at most tables, that's just not gonna fly. Cue the arguments.

I was far, FAR, from alone in this interpretation.

As some one that didn't like the roles becoming so distinctly built into the tactics of the game, this is a literal interpretation that is strange to me.

 

[soviet]

As some one that didn't like the roles becoming so distinctly built into the tactics of the game, this is a literal interpretation that is strange to me.

Yep. It's wilful misinterpretation. It's completely unsupported by the text. One might as well punch the other players and say 'what? it says here I'm a fighter'.