D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[ForeverSlayer]

The 4e fighter itself effectively "suppresses" any style of play that does not involve use-limited powers that you have to know to be able to attempt (i.e. basically everything that you ever did with any other D&D fighter). There is virtually no action that a 4e fighter could attempt that any other one could not; the powers simply codify what you can and cannot do; mostly in the form of imposing limitations that preiously didn't exist. Removing that particular mechanical structure and replacing it with something that doesn't have those limitations is the precise opposite of suppression (liberation?). That's what will get 5e to a broader audience.

Moreover, 3e had the TOB, which had some things similar to powers. The key differences however, were that it was not in the core rules, it was not called "fighter" and did not replace the core class, and was optional. The same thing, except without being forced down anyone's throat. I certainly expect the 5e rules to have a similar approach, except without waiting as long. Maybe 5e will do a monk with use-limited quasi-superpowers, or maybe they will simply release a set of rules that imposes those limitations for everyone. Optionally. (And hopefully not under the misnomer of "tactical combat").

The 3e fighter wasn't broken, didn't unbalance the game, grind it to a halt, or render it unplayable. Quite the contrary. It was part of a better-balanced, more smoothly running iteration of D&D than had previously or subsequently been accomplished. Why then, is your preference so much more important than others?

(The other editions aren't that bad either).

Well, there's sales and then there's the opinions of the fans. 4e sales (particularly the initial sales when people didn't know what they were getting) are hardly a statement of support of the fighter or any other element; while the conscientous choice to doff it and buy a 3.5 revision is pretty clearly an indictment of it. Nor do sales perfectly reflect the player base. As they say, no one takes your books away. 4e was almost certainly never the majority of D&D games, and I doubt it was ever even the plurality. 3e may not even have been the majority in its best days; though this is far more likely. There are a significant number of players still playing every edition, even the ones that aren't available for free online and still being revised (notice how WotC hates copyright violations now; it's because they're afraid of the competition-with themselves). The broader community of related games without D&D on the cover further complicates the issue.

WotC has access to the sales and poll data and playtest responses that we don't (the sort of data they collected very little of and reportedly ignored with 4e), and they've pretty much done a 180 on the fighter and the power system. Despite the fact that many of them bet their careers on those things in the past. What does that tell you? If by appeal to popularity you mean finally giving the fans what you want, WotC and me are both guilty as charged. Not that it makes sense to apply logical fallacies to game design (where popular opinion is pretty much inherently right).

Psionics = optional. Powers = not optional (because they are the foundation of the system). Big difference.

I'm sorry I can't XP you but well said!

 

[Neonchameleon]

4e classes are a "spot the difference" picture. They're mostly the same but, if you look for differences, you'll find them. That doesn't mean they're more alike than not.

Two arms, two legs, a head, a functioning brain, a heart, a liver, some lungs. Humanoids are a "spot the difference" picture. They're mostly the same. 4e classes on the other hand behave fundamentally differently in play.

I get fighters doing cool things.
I object to them doing cool things exactly the same as wizards.

Do me a favour. Tell me when you get fighters casting fireball. Or wizards cutting peoples heads off with fullblades. The cool things classes do are cool because of what actually happens, not because of the resource mechanic.

Imagine is the base 4e fighter had been able to use basic melee attacks, if they hadn't been designed to be inherently inferiour to At-Wills. Then imagine if they had to fight so many rounds to unlock a Daily via rage. Or if their exploits were just that: reactions to enemy's tactics.

It's called 13th Age and it looks like being an awesome game.

Did you enjoy fighters prior? Were you one of the many people who saw 4e and said "finally I want to play a fighter"?

Actually I looked at the Bo9S and said that. I looked at 4e and said "Ah good. A fighter worth playing. But finally I have a wizard that isn't either largely irrelevant or going to keep the DM up nights trying to prepare for all the overpowered nonsense I can spam".

But at the cost of someone else. There are two players in my last Pathfinder game who I never want to play 4e with (and will never let play a spellcaster again). The kind of player who will find that one At-Will they like and spam it exclusively.

You know something silly? Those players have classes in 4e that would suit them down to the ground. Two types of fighter (Slayer, Knight) and two types of Ranger (Hunter, Scout). Also a Paladin (Cavalier). I've got one at my table - and the difference Essentials made to him is huge. And to be honest, it sounds as if they want to play either a 3.5 Warlock or a 4e Elemental Sorceror.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Moreover, 3e had the TOB, which had some things similar to powers.

Double standards. If you count the TOB which appeared in very late 3.5, then it is massive double standards to not count the Slayer from Essentials which does just hit things. And I've had big arguments with other 4e players who consider the Slayer a betrayal - it opens up the game.

The 3e fighter wasn't broken, didn't unbalance the game, grind it to a halt, or render it unplayable. Quite the contrary. It was part of a better-balanced, more smoothly running iteration of D&D than had previously or subsequently been accomplished. Why then, is your preference so much more important than others?

This is complete nonsense. 3.X are quite simply the worst balanced versions (3.0, 3.5, and PF) of D&D that there have ever been. In no other edition do you get the CoDzilla problem. In both editions of AD&D (I don't know about BECMI and RC) there is a soft cap at level 9/10 so you don't have the excesses of high level wizards. All the drawbacks were taken off spells, and low level wizards gained a lot of spells per day.

As for smoothly running, that would be a no. It's a massive load on the DMs; in every other version of D&D you can use monsters straight out of the monster manual and trivially tweak them whereas in 3.X every monster is designed using PC rules (I know you enjoy this but that doesn't make it smooth). Last time I touched a book that wasn't either my setting book or a monster manual in the course of play while running was over a year ago. And I've completely re-written planned sessions after sitting down to play. That's smooth running. And a good AD&D DM can do that easily enough. But with the monster design load and the fiddliness of the 3.X rules this is much harder in 3.X. The five saves in AD&D might make no sense to me - but there are only five of them.

Now that isn't to say there aren't advantages to 3.X - it is incredibly customisable in terms of character concept and development and if simulationism is something you are looking for, you may like it (or may hate it). But "smooth running" and "balanced" aren't on the list.

 

[n00bdragon]

The 4e fighter itself effectively "suppresses" any style of play that does not involve use-limited powers that you have to know to be able to attempt (i.e. basically everything that you ever did with any other D&D fighter). There is virtually no action that a 4e fighter could attempt that any other one could not; the powers simply codify what you can and cannot do; mostly in the form of imposing limitations that preiously didn't exist. Removing that particular mechanical structure and replacing it with something that doesn't have those limitations is the precise opposite of suppression (liberation?). That's what will get 5e to a broader audience.

Oh boy, now GIVING people powers adds limitations to them? I'm sure I just read some sort of justification for that but really? REALLY?

Fighters went from having no mechanical options to having just as many mechanical options as everyone else. Please run that by me again. How does that constitute limiting them or restricting what they can do?

Does giving someone money make them poorer?

Does giving someone food make them starve?

The only part of this equation is addition. The fighter had nothing taken away, only added. The 4e fighter is strictly better at what he does than the 3e fighter in every way. He fights more effectively, he socializes more effectively, and he explores more effectively. If you simply opted to never use any of his powers (which are all entirely optional) he would play similarly to fighters of previous editions.

I'm not exactly sure how you came to such a bile-filled hatred of the 4e fighter but whatever you imagine it to be does not appear in any way connected to the real thing.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This is complete nonsense. 3.X are quite simply the worst balanced versions (3.0, 3.5, and PF) of D&D that there have ever been.

And this is completely subjective. 4th edition has aspects about it that were completely broken but they were fixed. If Wizards had the chance they could have fixed 3rd edition but it stopped before that could be done.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Double standards. If you count the TOB which appeared in very late 3.5, then it is massive double standards to not count the Slayer from Essentials which does just hit things. And I've had big arguments with other 4e players who consider the Slayer a betrayal - it opens up the game.

I have seen considerable debates as to what the relationship of Essentials is to 4e; whether it is a separate edition, part of 4e, or, as you say, a "betrayal". I have not read Essentials. Since I don't know which is the case, I tend to avoid the issue and speak only to things that I know about; the intent is not to create a double standard.

That being said, if I understand correctly, these characters still work under the power structure in some sense, and still have limits that might be objectionable to the non-4e crowd.

Now that isn't to say there aren't advantages to 3.X - it is incredibly customisable in terms of character concept and development and if simulationism is something you are looking for, you may like it (or may hate it). But "smooth running" and "balanced" aren't on the list.

I assume the "IMO" is implied? My point is not that 3e is better in these regards (though I happen to think that it is). My point in that reflective post is that (as the saying goes) anything you freely assert I can freely deny. Posting something on a message board doesn't make it true. To wit:

This is complete nonsense. 3.X are quite simply the worst balanced versions (3.0, 3.5, and PF) of D&D that there have ever been.

***

Oh boy, now GIVING people powers adds limitations to them? I'm sure I just read some sort of justification for that but really?

Telling people that they can only perform a certain action if they have a power card and selected it during character creation is a limitation. Telling people they are "out of" a certain maneuver and cannot attempt it until they rest is a limitation. That's what powers are. Your fighter already had the ability to try anything you could think of; it's a make-believe game.

Giving fighters more abilities than they had in previous editions would imply a ruleset that described more things: the effects of injuries, facing and vision, combat fatigue, etc. At the moment, D&D (including 4e) just plays around with ways to move health bars up and down and impose conditions. I don't see a big impetus for change there.

I'm not exactly sure how you came to such a bile-filled hatred of the 4e fighter

Experience.

Although "bile-filled hatred" is rather an overreach. I'm simply rendering an opinion as to what works and what doesn't, and what 5e should reflect based on what we've learned from other versions of D&D. You'll see far more bile in some of the posts I've quoted from others.

 

[n00bdragon]

Telling people that they can only perform a certain action if they have a power card and selected it during character creation is a limitation. Telling people they are "out of" a certain maneuver and cannot attempt it until they rest is a limitation. That's what powers are. Your fighter already had the ability to try anything you could think of; it's a make-believe game.

Okay. Whatever. I'll roll with it. Let's see here. Level 1 encounter powers. Very first one here in the PHB: Covering Attack. It deals 2[W]+Strength modifier damage and an ally adjacent to the target can shift 2 squares. Are you saying that I if come to your 3e game and play a fighter I can do that every round as much as I want? "Hey DM, when my attack hits the weapon deals double damage and Billy slips away from the monster."

If you find me a single DM who's down for a game of 3.x like that and I'll be all over it.

 

[Shadeydm]

Oh boy, now GIVING people powers adds limitations to them? I'm sure I just read some sort of justification for that but really? REALLY?

Fighters went from having no mechanical options to having just as many mechanical options as everyone else. Please run that by me again. How does that constitute limiting them or restricting what they can do?

Does giving someone money make them poorer?

Does giving someone food make them starve?

When my previous edition fighter could attack multiple times per round at will and my 4E can only hack and hew once per encounter and rain of blows once per encounter then yes he has been limited. When you impose these limits and tell me its because its too tiring or can only be set up once per encounter and then tell me I can tide of iron over and over without tiring or set up then those limits became arbitrary and lame.

 

[Blackwarder]

How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

Chocolate chips cookies!

Warder

 

[Ahnehnois]

Okay. Whatever. I'll roll with it. Let's see here. Level 1 encounter powers. Very first one here in the PHB: Covering Attack. It deals 2[W]+Strength modifier damage and an ally adjacent to the target can shift 2 squares. Are you saying that I if come to your 3e game and play a fighter I can do that every round as much as I want? "Hey DM, when my attack hits the weapon deals double damage and Billy slips away from the monster."

If you find me a single DM who's down for a game of 3.x like that and I'll be all over it.

No, I'm saying you can hit and deal damage, and the ally can move. You might even crit and deal double damage. The outcomes (hit point damage and movement) are the same. Repackaging them as a power and is relatively trivial. Changing the time at which things occur or the amount of damage are also trivial. There's nothing truely new here that you couldn't do before; it's just a different and more constrained way of presenting the same information (movement on a grid and hit point damage).