Dear Mike & Monte

[Dragonblade]

I like your post and agree that they shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what they should do is evolve, mature, develop "the baby." This means taking the power structure--which is an awesome idea--and notching it up a bit by differentiating power sources. Right now they feel too homogenous, with what I was calling a "too transparent sub-structure." In a way there are only four classes: Strikers, Controllers, Leaders, and Defenders; that makes sense from a combat/tactical perspective, but what is missing is distinct and unique flavor and qualities for the different power sources. An arcane striker and a martial striker should be very different, and not just in terms of fluff; I'd like one to be able to do things that the other can't.

Right. I'm ok with going back to a model that uses different mechanical subsystems for all classes. As long as each class is balanced. I don't like the prior edition method of having a weak low level wizard, that far outstrips melee warriors at high level. And I don't like the notion that complexity should be baked into the classes. Fighters always simple and Casters always complex. Every class should have a base simple version and a complex version for those who like such things. Or better yet, variable complexity to suit the player.

In that sense, I'd like to see arcane powers be more like spells from previous editions; looking over the wizard power list in 4E just doesn't have the same evocative feel that it did in previous editions with the never-ending spell lists.

Right, lots of spells is cool. But I'd prefer not moving back to a Vancian slot system. And casters should always have a level-scalable base magic attack. No caster should ever be pulling out a crossbow because they are out of magic for the day. I hate that trope with a passion. I'm glad 4e killed it.

I also think that the Feat system is clunky to say the least. There are just too many feats, and too many useless ones (I've often wondered if there are some feats that have literally never been chosen by any D&D player anywhere). I'd like to see Feats scrapped and replaced by something akin to Talents or Traits, or even a Virtues and Flaws or Advantages/Disadvantages system that provides a wider variety of capacities and flavorings to add to a character (although the problem with Virtues and Flaws is that it is another opportunity to min/max).

I liked how Essentials built level scaling into each feat. I also don't mind the feat system because it offers further ways to customize a PC. I'm not a fan of disadvantage/drawback based systems. My PCs shouldn't be blind in one eye, have a peg leg, and require a gluten free diet just to be cool and take all the feats and powers I want.

Finally, while I think 4E is generally a blast the main flaw remains the "grind" or, specifically, the point at which a combat is essentially decided but still goes on for another few rounds. I can't tell you how many times I've ad hoc reduced monster HP just to end a grinding combat. To put it another way, 4E combat is great for the first half of a given encounter, not-so-great for the second half. Maybe the implementation of a deadlier mechanic, like "When first bloodied, make a saving throw or fall to 0 HP and unconscious" (or maybe an adjusted CON check instead).

I think grind is easy to fix and there are a number of house rules out there that do the job nicely (such as bloodied creatures all take max damage, or monsters have 1/2 HP but do double damage, and so on). I'd like to see a toolkit approach where WotC offers them all up as options.

But yeah, the core of 4E is great and (IMO) an improvement and evolution from 3.5. That should be the basis of 5E, not a return to 3.5, nor something completely different. Most of the issues that lapsed players have with 4E isn't, afaict, about the core but the general vibe and the details and/or secondary systems.

Agreed.

 

[Dragonblade]

Are there any regular WotC contributors on this site? It seems that Mike Mearls used to stop by occasionallyl, and of course Scott Rouse. Isn't there a "WotC Trevor" that posts here and on RPGnet?

There is a striking difference between Paizo and WotC interactivity on this site. Whenever a conversation comes up about Paizo as a company, it seems that Erik Mona or Lisa Stevens or Jason Bulmahn end up showing up. But I can't say the same for WotC, at least since Rouse departed.

Before he became a manager at WotC, Mearls used to post quite a bit. I also see Rodney Thompson post from time to time. Matt James and Ari Marmell post quite a bit and do a lot of work for WotC. I hardly ever see Monte post on EN World.

I also see Keith Baker on here from time to time. And Baker is on another much smaller than EN World mailing list that I'm on, though he mostly lurks. (Hi Keith! )

 

[tuxgeo]

Dear Mike & Monte,

Here are my wishes, in no particular order:

1. Repair multiclassing as "Dual-Classing":
- (a) Get rid of the Novice-Acolyte-Adept Power feats: the act of Dual-Classing should be enough by itself to let you take one each of Encounter, Utility, and Daily powers from your second class (instead of a power of same level from your primary class) prior to Paragon Tier without having to spend any more feats to do that.
- (b) Skill choice: if a character that has Training in the Arcana skill Dual-Classes into some other arcane class, that character should be able to choose any trained skill from the second arcane class, not be limited to doubling up on Arcana. (Likewise with Religion for divine classes, Nature for Primal classes, etc.)
- (c) My pet peeve: Wizards learn Cantrips as the first thing they learn when becoming wizards, right? Then newly Dual-Classed wizards should do the same thing, learning Cantrips before anything else. (Hybrid Wizards already do this.) (Let newly Dual-Classed wizards get implement proficiency through a separate feat, if they so desire; the game has been moving in that direction anyway.)

2. Decrease the numbers. Drop the half-level bonus to stuff, and change the monsters to fit that. Make +1 to +6 magic items give the user anywhere from 1 to 6 daily uses of a power, not an increase to attack rolls. (Or limit the numerical bonus to damage rolls only, not to attack rolls.) Paragon characters could be greater than Heroic characters through their advanced powers and their improved hit points and equipment and stats; they shouldn't need the half-level for that. If this creates problems, include the half-level in Skills only, but leave it off the to-hit numbers.
(I'm trying to eliminate the "Inherent Bonuses" option by effectively making it the default for everybody, by removing the need for it.)

(If the half-level is needed for some kinds of playing style, have a way for groups to add that back in as an option, along with ways for the DM to adjust encounter difficulties to match.)

3. Make clear definitions of "adjacent" and related words in order to allow for estimates of position that can be adjudicated in a person's head without having to refer to a battlegrid. For example:
- (a) "Adjacent" might mean that creatures would not need to have Reach to make melee attacks against each other without moving.
- (b) "Nearby" might mean that creatures having Reach could make melee attacks against each other without moving, whereas creatures that lack Reach could not. A simple Close Blast could also hit.
- (c) "Spread" might mean that creatures would need to have "extended" Reach in order to make melee attacks against each other without moving -- because having (ordinary) Reach by itself wouldn't be enough. However, a Close Blast could still hit.
- (d) "Apart" might mean that neither Reach nor "extended" Reach would allow melee attacks without moving; and that Close Blasts would miss, but "extended" Close Blasts could hit.
- (f) "Distant" might mean that even Reach, "extended" Reach, Close Blasts, and "extended" Close Blasts would miss, so only Ranged and Area powers could be used to hit without moving.
[++ This kind of (A-N-S-A-D) thing could take the numbers out of the positioning, and let non-numerically-minded players avoid counting squares. ++]

 

[catsclaw227]

This may have been mentioned already (didn't read the full thread yet), but making the core game too simple will undoubtedly tick off a lot of people because their favorite class, race, monster(s), magic item(s), etc.. isn't included.

There's only so much that can be launched in a simplified core set, unless of course they release the core and a set of optional books all at launch.

I recall a very vocal minority going all nerd-rage because they had to wait TWO OR THREE WHOLE MONTHS for their favorite X to come out in a supplement.

 

[catsclaw227]

2. Do not "bring the magic back" if that means that a magic user is stronger than a fighter. I wish for balanced classes.

3. I wish for mechanics that can do without certain +x items built into the system. I would like to see magic items with special powers, yes. But my Battlemind should not need a +5 armor or a certain +x-to-attack-feat at a certain level just to be able to compete with a monster.

4. Rely on digital technology to make the game easy to prepare for all players, including the GM. Being able to make characters and monsters in just a couple of minutes is a good thing for me, because I have a job, a family and several other hobbies.

I agree with these things, especially #4. I am a very busy person - job, family, etc.. - and I DM 90% of the time. In 3e I used DM Genie all the time, and in 4e I use Adventure Tools and a couple of 3rd party tools to help with creating encounters and running the game at the table. Don't be afraid to give us tools for out tablets and laptops that we can use at the table, not just for online play.

 

[Morrus]

I recall a very vocal minority getting going all nerd-rage because they had to wait TWO OR THREE WHOLE MONTHS for their favorite X to come out in a supplement.

Goodness, yes. I still remember the Gnome-rage. That was insane.

You're right. They can't start simple and leave anything out without people publicly wishing extreme misfortune upon them. It's quite sad.

Man, I remember people up in arms because of the way the gnome was portrayed in that short series of animations they made; it was as though WotC was portraying them themselves. I wonder if those people actually thought that they were gnomes in real life and that WotC hated them?

 

[catsclaw227]

Goodness, yes. I still remember the Gnome-rage. That was insane.

You're right. They can't start simple and leave anything out without people publicly wishing extreme misfortune upon them. It's quite sad.

It's almost as if the PR team needs to release an upcoming supplement short list to let people know from the beginning things like:

"Before you all start to become concerned, Gnomes and Half-Orcs are planned for Supplement-A in March, Frost Giants will come in Monster-Book-2 in April. But don't worry, we'll get all your favorites out eventually, and as we get the schedules hardened, we'll keep you informed."

Man, I remember people up in arms because of the way the gnome was portrayed in that short series of animations they made; it was as though WotC was portraying them themselves. I wonder if those people actually thought that they were gnomes in real life and that WotC hated them?

Oh man, you'd think that someone threw a flaming dog-poo on their doorstep. It was a cartoon -- a caricature -- for lord's sake.

 

[Rechan]

Anyone remember the "Golden Wyvern" business?

I still have nightmares of those threads.

 

[GreyLord]

Hiya.

I'm not going to go into detail, so here it goes:

-3- Only hire people to work on 5e who are actively playing the f'ing game!, and have been for at least *10 years*. I'm talking a personal, weekly, "D&D" game (be it BECMI or 4e or anything in between). If they don't have a weekly game going...no. Don't hire them. Just don't.

Those are my key ideas for how to get 5e off on the right foot.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

On irony.

3e creation doesn't fall within the realms of your rules. In otherwords, those who created 3e may have been active RP'ers, but a couple of them actually had been more invested in other systems (like Rolemaster).

3e was pretty successful on release. OVER a million books sold in the first year.

4e probably did have those actively playing D&D at the time...many of them for over 8 years at least (so longer than some key figures in 3e's creation)...

Though (and I know many will take issue with me on this) I think 4e has been just as successful on it's design as 3e...but you'd have to realize that some of the financials in the economic goals were not exactly strictly dealing with selling in print items.

In fact, the in print stuff is only to spur the other REAL financials onwards to keep them making a profit...

IMO. of course.

 

[darjr]

Please include something along the lines of the 'Do something awesome' power/card house rule with lots of concrete advice for DM's on how to deal with it on the fly.

In fact I'd almost wish all powers were really tweaks to this one power.