D&D 5E L&L 3/11/2013 This Week in D&D

[RangerWickett]

I love 4e, but NOT because of the power system. God I hate the power system. So precise and rigid and dull, with thousands of niggling options but the ability to only ever have a handful.

I love 4e because it's mathematically fairly simple to run, because everything has wonderful, creativity-bolstering "exception-based design," and because different characters were all fairly balanced.

And sometimes I look at Next and I see them keeping the simple math, but getting rid of the exception-based design. Getting rid of all the rigid and creativity-stifling class powers, but then making balance really weird (halfling kills a dragon in 2 rounds with sling stones, for instance). I like some aspects of this game, and am utterly dumb-founded at other ones.

I basically foresee myself kitbashing 4e and Next (and Gamma World, and Old School Hack) into my own custom game. Which I won't be able to write for, because no one else will play it. Then again, I hated 4e when it came out and kept playing it.

 

[Blackwarder]

The amount of whining by folks over there is staggering, as a 4e player I don't see what's the problem.
the only thing missing from Next to make it a 4e clone is a tactical rules module and healing surges IMO and at been stated to get added in a tactical rules module...

Warder

 

[pemerton]

Is there a subtext I missed? I'm a 4e fan who's pretty cool on next, but in this column all I noticed was some fairly innocuous stuff about spell design in relation to their new memorisation mechanics, about class design (and how their memorisation mechanics plus spell scaling based on slot level make it easier to stat out NPCs) and about accessibility to new players.

I don't think it would have hurt 4e to have level-scaling on powers (like themes have), so that players had the option of swapping in for a new higher-level power or keeping their old one appropriately scaled up. Then there'd also be no need for things like Come and Get It and 23rd level "Improved Come and Get It" (I can't remember its real name).

 

[Raith5]

The amount of whining by folks over there is staggering, as a 4e player I don't see what's the problem.
the only thing missing from Next to make it a 4e clone is a tactical rules module and healing surges IMO and at been stated to get added in a tactical rules module...

Warder

I think the problem is that some 4th ed people want more than just a tactical module. There is considerable support on the WOTC board for static defenses - including melee attacks that target something other than AC and utility powers/abilities for all classes (not just spell users etc), support for encounter style gaming etc. I think the problem is that 4th ed changed the expectations of many players more than WOTC originally thought.

But yes the debate on the WOTC is not especially constructive. I started a thread on the WOTC boards basically asking if anyone is trying 4th ed elements in the DDN playtest (and essentially advocating that I think people should try constructive things like that) and only about 5% of responses were on topic with rest being a range of fairly trivial complaints about DDN.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The only issue I had with this week's L&L, like most weeks, is that it's empty; it doesn't really say anything at all. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder what the point of L&L is at all. Compare the content from this article to the content from Rodney's most recent D&D Next Q&A. Why is that relegated to a blog instead of being on the front page? If anything, L&L should be the blog post and the Q&A should be the weekly article.

I consider myself edition-neutral; there's stuff about every edition that I thought was done well and not. However, even I've taken note of the fairly consistent passive 4E bashing that goes on in L&L. So even though this week's blog was relatively light on the bashing, at this point L&L has done a lot to alienate the 4E fan base. So it makes sense to me that they'll trash anything said in L&L. The thing of it is, I'm not really sure Mike is entirely to blame here. A lot of the stuff being said, by WotC employees and by ENW/WotC posters, is very reminiscent of the dialogue when 4E was coming out. How much of it is attributable WotC agenda, how much is natural edition-warring, how much is concern for the direction of Next? It's hard to say, but my guess would be a measure of all three (and probably more that I didn't mention).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There are certain members of the WotC forums who make a point of saying nothing in a loud and dismissive manner on every article and quite a few threads. If you can't say something constructive, I don't think you should bother.

This article seems straightforward, and hints at two things I've been clamouring for since the start: physical combat modelled on the encounter level, that is, maneuvers being managed as an encounter resource, a fatigue model; and spells that scale with level, something mentioned way back and untouched since, though the change to the way memorisation works was a first step towards this. I am dying for a new packet, I need to see what they have in mind!

 

[avin]

I've seen nothing offensive to any edition of D&D in this article.

Just hope Wotc figures out that some people will want to keep playing 3.5 and other 4E, so they keep 4E tools online and create some Compendium/tools for 3.5 as well, provideing all errata available.

People focused on edition wars should ask for sustained support for their favorite editions, instead of cursing Wotc.

I'm still looking forward to next, no matter how it turns out.

 

[FireLance]

People focused on edition wars should ask for sustained support for their favorite editions, instead of cursing Wotc.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who would prefer to curse the darkness than light a candle of any sort.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is so sad...

When I rea the article, i got a totally different impression about what mearls said than those few 4e warriors on the wizards site...

actually last week was the same... I guess at this point, it really does not matter what mearls says...

And it is funny, that some of those few people demand things that are stated as quasi done... because of the feedback (like magic systems)

I can´t understand, how you cannot undestand the difference between a playtest and a game... happens in computer games too... you get it for free, to test certain things... you have absolutely no right to attack the people who allow you to participate... it won´t help at all...

 

[D'karr]

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who would prefer to curse the darkness than light a candle of any sort.

Some of them just prefer attacking the darkness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vChEPj0dXXk