Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 7312317" data-attributes="member: 22362">As to 4e growthThere are so many things that could have been pushed further (of course, right now, I can't think of much of them... stupid brain...) but the big ones in my mind right now : <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">a further refinement of roles - especially the multi-role design of the [Berserker]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">a further integration and development of long terms afflictions by use of the [disease track]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">a further exploration of auras</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">more development of abilities similar to the [skald]'s healing aura (where the other characters expend the action)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">more integration of SC into creature design - especially for solo design</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">an exploration system where environments are built in a manner similar to a mix between a foe and an SC - actually, more like traps were</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">...certainly some other cool thing I'll think about right after I log out... </li> </ol>As to evolutionThere are many things I would have liked to be in a 5e-from-4e that are actually in 5e... But many are missing also, and quite a few important parts were killed off (they were, obviously, right to do - as their objective wasn't to create a better game, it was to create a better-liked game - and it is!)As to what I would've wanted from an evolution into a new edition: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">removal of the 'fiddly' bonuses</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">better "human-facing" action economy system (this is where 4e could make the greatest gains in time-per-round-per-player)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">integration of 2 levels of complexity for the big "in-fiction-roles" : Strong Warrior, Magic Wielder, Healer Supporter. Something like having the Fighter and the Slayer for most "characters people want to play"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">integrated consideration for TotM</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a system of base class = How, and sub-class = What (i.e. the mechanics (how), the role you're meant to play (what)). There's no need to have every class be able to do every roll, but tying the role to a secondary choice would go a long way into freeing players into having their fluff and playing it too</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">integration of companion characters into the core experience - this allows for easy integration of some 'old school' concepts, animal companions that are relevant and non-disruptive (same with summons), and helps for assumptions about NPC joining the party</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a system of exploration similar to what the SC wanted to be (I think) with "non-combat" environments getting "stats" similar to how traps work now</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">more integration of rituals and a better cost-system for them</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">re-working the magic item acquisition assumptions</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">an evolution of the 'non-combat encounters' to work with (within) the same framework (with the same resources) as the combat encounters</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a more engaging approach to defeat for the players</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">things to be kept : class relative power equivalency in all major areas of play, focus on character power over magic item power, characters do their thing from the start, tactically engaging encounters, narrative tools, ease on the DM side</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">... and something I'll think about when I log out...</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification