D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[adamc]

I "blame" it on, like Balesir said, the disconnection between powers and the actual world and the high gamist focus of 4E which is much more concerned to have balanced combat instead of simulating a world.

This is exactly what I like about 4e -- it works as a game.

 

[Derren]

This is exactly what I like about 4e -- it works as a game.

Different people, different priorities.

This is one of the more problematic points 5E has to solve. When 4E made the game more about balanced combat, some people loved it and some people hated it. Will the people who love it accept that this change gets partially undone to accommodate the people who don't like it? Will the people who don't like it give 5E a try even though it still places more importance on balance as compared to, for example, simulation than what they would like?

In the worst case WotC will alienate both groups when they attempt to accommodate them both.

 

[Balesir]

I "blame" it on, like Balesir said, the disconnection between powers and the actual world and the high gamist focus of 4E which is much more concerned to have balanced combat instead of simulating a world.

I don't think I said this and I actually don't agree with it; what I would say has a subtle but important difference.

What I would say is this: 4E is, as any roleplaying game is, very much concerned with simulating a world, but with the critical difference that it doesn't see the game system as being the main load bearer and primary tool in this respect.

The system is responsible for generating outcomes - resolutions - in a clear, fair and straightforward way that is easily understandable to all at the table. Those outcomes should, in general, be amenable to explanation in the game world fiction, by the players with a modicum of imagination and engagement. But the primary responsibility for building and maintaining a believable world lies with the players (including the GM), not with the game system.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is one of the more problematic points 5E has to solve. When 4E made the game more about balanced combat, some people loved it and some people hated it.

4e didn't make the game more about balanced combat. 4e balanced combat which made the game less about unbalanced combat and/or less about the GM having to eyeball balance in real-time thus distracting the GM from spending his/her mental overhead on other areas. My mental overhead dedicated to ad-hoc balancing and playing rock/paper/scissors in an arms race was freed up. The rules clarity lessened the table handling time of rules arbitration. 4e's balanced combat, outcome-based and exception-based design, thematic depth of PC build tools, coupled with non-combat conflict resolution support made for a game situation at my table, and I'm certain others, where situations are more expediently framed, and mechanically resolved (with all classes and archetypes having sway in resolution), around things other than combat.

But I do agree with

In the worst case WotC will alienate both groups when they attempt to accommodate them both.

But I'm pretty sure they've already made their choice. 5e supports a Moldvay Basic meets extremely cleaned up 2e + many of the assumptions/features of 3.x's PC build framework and resources (and Backgrounds - which are awesome and about the only thing 4e that I see in the current game). To that end, it should make an extremely good game for the crowd that is looking for that in its weekly game. The 5e chassis and default design focus are so far away from supporting 4e that I think its an extremely bad idea for them to attempt to even try at this point. It won't work and any changes to the core to that end will muddy its current elegance as a fine Basic + cleaned up 2e + 3.x PC build game. And I suspect there is a large enough contingent of gamers out there that will buy a product like that en masse. They just won't be 4e players.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

4e didn't make the game more about balanced combat. 4e balanced combat which made the game less about unbalanced combat and/or less about the GM having to eyeball balance in real-time thus distracting the GM from spending his/her mental overhead on other areas. My mental overhead dedicated to ad-hoc balancing and playing rock/paper/scissors in an arms race was freed up. The rules clarity lessened the table handling time of rules arbitration. 4e's balanced combat, outcome-based and exception-based design, thematic depth of PC build tools, coupled with non-combat conflict resolution support made for a game situation at my table, and I'm certain others, where situations are more expediently framed, and mechanically resolved (with all classes and archetypes having sway in resolution), around things other than combat.

This absolutely mirrors my experiences with D&D over the past 10-12 years.

In 3.0, I ran a game from 1-18 over the span of about 3 years of weekly games (we partially switched to 3.5 by the end). By the time levels hit the double-digits, I began to notice imbalances creeping in. By the low-teens, something was clearly wonky and I was having to do a lot more "real-time" balancing to keep the game going the way I wanted it to, and combat/NPC prep was beginning to really eat up my free time (of which I had a lot). I started houseruling, but everything I changed just had more and more unforseen consequences and didn't really fix the problems that the group was running into. By the end, saves were pretty much an auto-pass/auto-fail binary on both the PC and NPC side, making things really swingy in a way I didn't like. I found myself just having to say "screw the rules" a lot more and just heavy-handing my way through.

After that, I was pretty burnt out from DMing, and gave up running D&D for many years; I felt like I couldn't go back to AD&D, even with hacks, and I couldn't stay with 3.x. I still played in 3.x games but found it fairly unsatisfying even as a player most of the time. I moved on to running other things such as Shadowrun and Call of Cthulhu, while keeping my eye out for a "D&D replacement," to no avail. I looked at Iron Heroes, Monte's AU, Books of Experimental Whatever, and gave the Pathfinder Alpha a look. All of them seemed interesting but retained too much of what I disliked about 3.x. By this point I was vehemently and blindly "anti-WotC."

After I overcame my initial reservations about 4e, including all the "usual" complaints, I found that I really enjoyed playing, to the point where I wanted to try running it. Boned up on the rules, ran some test sessions, and that was enough to sell me on it. I have/had exactly the same experience that Manbearcat describes - not a total focus on balanced combat, but rather a complete lack of a need to focus on ameliorating un-balanced combat. All the time I would have spent on the rules mastery elements was free to be spent on the fictional element that I much prefer to spend my time on. As a bonus, I found the game system to be much more intuitive to learn and run. I gained a much clearer understanding of 4e in 3-4 years than I did in 8 years of 3.5. As a result, my DMing confidence has soared, as has, I believe, the "quality" of the games I run as a result.

The fact that the system is "balanced" in the combat pillar has the added side-benefit of making an entire genre of character archetype endgame viable, which to me, is a huge plus.

 

[Wyckedemus]

This is exactly what I like about 4e -- it works as a game.

Actually, for my group and I, the math and design no longer works at Epic levels. The characters are too powerful, have too much personal "turn time" with action points, extra actions, and number of attacks, etc. Individual players' turns can take 5 to 20 minutes. I've come to despise the codified minor/move/standard/opportunity/immediate reaction/immediate interrupt action economy. People feel they need to milk as many actions and fiddly bits as they can, and they rarely remember to do so. How many times have we moved to the next turn or even round, just to have someone remind themselves or someone else that they "forgot that ability" or "should have done this", or "meant to do this, too"? I cannot tell players not to play on their iPads or smart phones, or read a book, or talk about other things, because they won't get to act again for another 30 to 40 minutes.

Also, I am not a Monty Haul DM. But with the wish lists that were thrust upon me by the suggested rules, players are only asking for the most effective things in the books for their characters, and they are not interested in anything that is not that thing they want. They feel entitled by the system, and I feel like my hands are tied. It's almost as bad as 3E. These items let them set up their own combos because it is inefficient to try and combo with a party member most of the time, other than for the biggest, scariest tactics that they cannot ignore.

For instance, the dismissal/vulnerabity/alpha strike tactic makes it so that fights (including MM3+ solos) can barely function unless they are many levels higher than the party. Tactic: Cast Dismissal on the nasty solo (which is at least an auto-dismissal for one round). Everyone ready for the Cleric to give the bad guy Vulnerability 15 when the bad guy returns. Then everyone hits the bad guy with every last multi-attack they can muster. Result: Deal 400 to 600 damage in one round.

I cannot possibly hit the Battlemind unless I roll a nat 20, and even then the nat 20 will not be a crit unless it was from a level 29 bad guy. Really.

The game is is still broken at Epic and I honestly don't know if I'll ever want to run Epic again. I've been running Epic games for years because players want their characters to "finish". But no previous edition of the D&D game has ever gotten it right, mechanically.

And do you know why my players still love my game and have fun? Because I don't tell them how much I have to break or ignore the system in order to make it fun and challenging. I love the stat blocks for monsters because they are sooo wonderfully templated. But that does not make encounter creation a snap. That is a fallacy. The math and design conceits around encounters and the game as a whole make the game not work and untenable in my experience.

Not only that, but because the power cards are very specific and encourage the feel that they "must be used or you are not pulling your weight," our game rarely sees players acting upon inspiration, or innovating actions decsions that are not connected to power cards. The fights are power-spam slogs. It's like Final Tantasy Tactics. We role-play outside of combat, but when a combat occurs, the role-play stops and we create a battlefield, and play a board game.

I am soooo looking forward to a breath of fresh air. And as much as I enjoyed each edition of D&D because I love the story, and I love playing with my friends, I really want the old flavor coupled with the innovative reimagining and redesign I've been seeing in D&D Next. This is exactly what I am hoping for. They are designing in the right direction for me. And I will provide feedback to the very end to help it become the best it can be.

In my opinion...

 

[adamc]

Haven't played at Epic levels, but my reaction is that if it doesn't work at that level, start another campaign... Anyhow, if Next is what you want, great, hope it works for you.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One of the things I like about 4E is that the DM can say, "Yeah, no, I don't see it." Since powers aren't really reflective of what the PC is doing, I think the DM can step up and make sure that verisimilitude is respected. (I'm pretty sure that @Balesir has the exact opposite attitude!) One of the things I don't like about 4E is that it doesn't ask you to justify your actions in game-world terms. I think that, if you do that, the game becomes incredibly rich and immersive thanks to the ease of adjudicating non-standard actions.

Yeah, I think we have some different styles of generating tension and forward momentum, but I tend to agree with you on the "step up and make some good narrative or else" front. Now, mostly, I play with some extremely experienced RPers that I know well, so it is easy in that situation. I don't try to be too hard on them, and they deliver quite good narrative for the most part. I can barely remember telling them to make up something cool, but I get things like "targeting the fireball in the pool of water creates a giant cloud of steam!" etc. If you run a game for kids they'll also throw out all sorts of creative stuff, though maybe a bit less coherently. The most problem I have is with people that have played 3.x/AD&D a lot and are just switching. I find a lot of them must have been letting the game carry them a whole lot and just expecting things to work by rote or something. It takes a while to get into real narrative mode with some people. They're just really used to a certain way and often just never got exposed to other ways. 'PACE Shock Therapy' helps, though Dungeon World might be a good educational experience too (I really like that game, but it has some built in limitations).

 

[Obryn]

The game is is still broken at Epic and I honestly don't know if I'll ever want to run Epic again. I've been running Epic games for years because players want their characters to "finish". But no previous edition of the D&D game has ever gotten it right, mechanically.

FWIW, I agree. The breakdown starts to happen somewhere around high Paragon, but it's certainly there by epic.

I know of groups who've managed it, but I don't think it works as well past that point.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not going to argue with you that the ruleset doesn't work for your group at high level but I have to comment on a few of these. This is purely combat that you're speaking about so I'll just speak to combat. I don't know how many players you have in your group. I have 3 and we've run through epic tier twice now. I have my concerns about large groups at epic tier due to (i) sheer table handling time per round as numbers creep up beyond "standard assumptions" (4-5 PCs) and (ii) the impact of synergy (specifically vulernability synergy and action denial) once you move into 7 + PCs.

Actually, for my group and I, the math and design no longer works at Epic levels. The characters are too powerful, have too much personal "turn time" with action points, extra actions, and number of attacks, etc. Individual players' turns can take 5 to 20 minutes.

5-20 minutes? Per turn? Is this meant to be per round?...with a group of 8 + players? This is ghastly and is so beyond the pale of my experience that I can't even fathom it. Its akin to introducing a fish to a bicycle. My players are all optimizers (each with a varying suite of minor, move, free, no, immediate actions) yet all are efficient and decisive in their tactical decision-making. The have multiple dice for AoEs, go clockwise in their attack rolls and quickly perform their (simple) math. No turn...ever...not...once has taken anywhere even close to 5 minutes. Not ever. At Epic tier, their typical turn in a boss fight is somewhere in the area of 1 minute, shooting up to the extremely rare 2 minutes when they are deploying action points, minors et al, and resolving significant AoEs. This includes fortune in the middle fictional narration and retrofitting as required. L + 2 fights? Standard turn is probably 45 seconds and doesn't deviate much from that. 5-20 minutes? Per turn? On average? I cannot even come up with a scenario at the table where this turns out. I don't blame you for hating the ruleset. If one of my players took 20 minutes on their turn, I wouldn't be posting this because I would be in the federal penitentiary serving 20 to life.

I've come to despise the codified minor/move/standard/opportunity/immediate reaction/immediate interrupt action economy. People feel they need to milk as many actions and fiddly bits as they can, and they rarely remember to do so. How many times have we moved to the next turn or even round, just to have someone remind themselves or someone else that they "forgot that ability" or "should have done this", or "meant to do this, too"? I cannot tell players not to play on their iPads or smart phones, or read a book, or talk about other things, because they won't get to act again for another 30 to 40 minutes.

Again, this is so far outside of my experience that I cannot even fathom. I'm sure its happened to you though and I sympathize because if this was standard fair at my table...20 to life in the federal penitentiary. I have no idea how you are still a free man. You must have the patience of 10 saints.

For instance, the dismissal/vulnerabity/alpha strike tactic makes it so that fights (including MM3+ solos) can barely function unless they are many levels higher than the party. Tactic: Cast Dismissal on the nasty solo (which is at least an auto-dismissal for one round). Everyone ready for the Cleric to give the bad guy Vulnerability 15 when the bad guy returns. Then everyone hits the bad guy with every last multi-attack they can muster. Result: Deal 400 to 600 damage in one round.

As far as this goes, its an extreme corner case. All new Solos have action denial protection in the way of automatic stun, daze, dominate, etc removal either at the end of their current turn or on their next intra-round Init-10 suite of actions. In this extreme scenario, I presume you're talking about:

1 - 10 player group setup as a Radiant Mafia (everyone has a radiant attacks); If somehow, every single one of those 10 players manages to successfully land 3 - 4 attacks (perhaps 4 attacks at 75 % hit rate or 5 at 80 % hit rate), that would be 450 - 600 damage nova from the radiant vulnerability 15. There are few classes that have at their disposal a 4-5 attack nova (even in AP round). I don't know of a single one of those classes that can do it as Radiant damage; not Avenger, Paladin, Invoker, nor Cleric. The Cleric below in 3 can use a Daily Utility to give one single character a weapon that does Radiant attacks. The only ability I can find that provides an aura or zone that allows every ally to attack with the Radiant Keyword is the Sainted General Paragon Path Level 12 Daily Heaven's Warriors....and that is a Standard Action. I'm assuming there must be a Sainted General in this group that spends his Readied, Standard Action to use this ability...thus cutting the group to 9...making the landed attack requirement/character even greater.

2 - and a Cleric who has (presumably precisely for this nova setup) kept Dismissal (Level 9 Daily Prayer) in the stead of an upgrade at 19 (which in pretty much every circumstance will be a better power).

3 - who worships Selune (or a God(dess) of the Moon, etc) and has access to the Channel Divinity Life and Light as it is the only Vulnerable 15 Radiant available to Clerics and costs a Standard Action.

Again, Vulnerability cheese as force-multiplier is a known problem in 4e...that is undeniable. And Radiant Mafias are the worst offenders (made worse the larger the group). However, this setup would be more deadly and more ridiculous if the Cleric just eschewed the whole Dismissal route (which requires a successful attack for it to work) and just went Morninglord Paragon Path and inflict Vuln 10 Radiant on each successful hit. All of that being said, what you have here is an extraordinary outlier of a group setup.

And truly, this isn't even the worst of what you can do in 4e if you really just want to pervert things. You can make unhittable characters that can run 200 mph and wipe the floor with every solo in one round if you're willing to munchkinize your game and turn it into a freak show...but what exactly is the point? That says nothing about standard fair, 4-5 player groups who work off of normal assumptions and optimize under those normal assumptions. Again, my 3 players are all optimizers and we often use a metagamed Warlord (representing luck, manifest destiny and extraordinary group coordination) as a "4th character" force multiplier and nothing like what you have depicted above manifests.

The game is is still broken at Epic and I honestly don't know if I'll ever want to run Epic again. I've been running Epic games for years because players want their characters to "finish". But no previous edition of the D&D game has ever gotten it right, mechanically.

From a thematic-content perspective, it is as problematic as ever to properly deliver, I agree. There is tension in that we all seem to want to keep the mundane, familiar quality of the game but by its very nature the game turns into a superheros romp due to the potency of the players (on both sides of the conflicts) and the inevitable world (or cosmological) affecting stakes.

And do you know why my players still love my game and have fun? Because I don't tell them how much I have to break or ignore the system in order to make it fun and challenging. I love the stat blocks for monsters because they are sooo wonderfully templated. But that does not make encounter creation a snap. That is a fallacy. The math and design conceits around encounters and the game as a whole make the game not work and untenable in my experience.

Again, I don't know your group setup but you have my sympathies. I run Level + 2 as standard combats and L + 4 or 5 as boss level combats with hazards, terrain powers and all manner of mobility/forced movement and my encounters work with nearly flawless predictive power (for me), exciting dynamism and never fail to produce the genre relevant climax we're looking for. I've never had to even think about (nor would I) using GM force to circumvent legitimate mechanical resolution of conflict to make the game "work."

Not only that, but because the power cards are very specific and encourage the feel that they "must be used or you are not pulling your weight," our game rarely sees players acting upon inspiration, or innovating actions decsions that are not connected to power cards. The fights are power-spam slogs. It's like Final Tantasy Tactics. We role-play outside of combat, but when a combat occurs, the role-play stops and we create a battlefield, and play a board game.

Again...no resemblance to my table. Pretty much every battle is different from the last. Combat lasts perhaps 4-5 rounds and maybe 7-8 for boss fights. There is probably 2-3 uses of p42 in our 4-5 round fights and the boss fights are absolutely rife with them due to the setup of hazards and terrain powers; probably 2 per player in those 7-8 rounds so perhaps 6 total on average.

I am soooo looking forward to a breath of fresh air. And as much as I enjoyed each edition of D&D because I love the story, and I love playing with my friends, I really want the old flavor coupled with the innovative reimagining and redesign I've been seeing in D&D Next. This is exactly what I am hoping for. They are designing in the right direction for me. And I will provide feedback to the very end to help it become the best it can be.

In my opinion...

I can understand this given what you have described. I would have abandoned 4e long ago...primarily because I would likely have been serving life in prison for a bloody massacre of my players for a 10 player group, Radiant Mafia cheesing, 5-20 minute turn taking (yet somehow spending all of that time never improvising and just pressing encounter001 attack buttan), Final Fantasy Tactics boardgame (as you put it) monstrosity.

5e plays like an elegant, Moldvay Basic-esque evolution of 2e with 3.x PC build schemes. The action economy and tactical depth is toned down considerably from 4e, but there are still immediate actions with a reasonable capacity for all Classes/builds to make use of the supplementary action economy so beware of that (as you indicated disdain for it in 4e). I've playtested it aplenty and you won't be seeing your 5-20 minute turns, of that I can assure you. I suspect, given your description of your 4e game and your displeasure, 5e should indeed be a breath of fresh air for you.