Aldarc
Legend
I'm now curious how 4e would fare if it was given a revamp or rewrite that properly/more naturally communicated its design principles. Though it would still be lipstick on a pig for some, it seems like it would be an "ah ha!" moment for others. The closest we may have to that end is likely 13th Age, which is not purely 4e or 3e, but certainly has a degree of familiarity for both.Oh, hey, I get that. 5e is FAR more accessibly written. And it comes paired with really excellent adventures that take advantage of the best parts of the system. 4e's biggest failure was in how it was presented. Skill Challenges are a fantastic idea, but, the first 4e DMG didn't present them that way at all. Rituals were a fantastic idea that never really went anywhere.
I suppose this is a question of what D&D should simulate.So, for some, the notion that you'd use the skill system and a "fightery" character to produce magical effects makes intuitive sense. These are fantasy heroes and legendary ones at that. Of course they can wrestle death. Of course they can hold a weapon in the forge. So on and so forth. That's what legendary heroes do.
I think that the problem with this approach - though well-intentioned it may be (as I too love the idea of emergent play) - is that players do and will frequently think about their characters long-term, often because their sense of character concept may be tied to long-term goals that cannot be realized at the point of character creation. And we can see this problem in 5e as well. I may see my character as an Arcane Trickster, but assuming that I do not take alternative routes,* it will take me until reaching rogue level 3 before I get the bare minimum to reach my character concept.The problem with things like Paragon path and Epic Destiny IMO is that they force players to think way too far ahead at or around the char-gen phase...and that they also put players in the mindset that their PCs are of course going to survive long enough to reach these fine ends.
It's an extension of the same issue I had with 3e where players would plan out their PC's whole 1-20 progression and development before the end of session 0, and then expect it to happen.
I'd far rather have these sort of things arise naturally out of the ongoing run of play, if they are to arise at all, and maybe get worked into the fiction as the game goes along. Or maybe not - not everyone's dreams come true. In the current game I play in, one of my PCs has a long-term goal of getting a Senate seat or maybe even becoming Empress (it's a quasi-Roman culture) but there's no guarantee whatsoever that any of this will ever happen...and nor should there be, and nor should there be any in-built expectations that it will.
Unfortunately, Paths and Destinies come with - or certainly imply - expectations of success that really shouldn't be there.
IME with 4e, however, most players were not pre-planning their Paragon paths or Epic destinies. They would certainly have several in mind, particularly when it comes to prerequisites, but it's generally not pre-planned. Again IME, most players in 4e were looking at their next few levels of powers that they could potentially choose rather than long-term destinies.
* e.g., magical initiate feat, racial cantrips, etc.
Sounds more like a buzzkill campaign.Two PCs left, and eventually found their way off-plane and back to the prime material (though on the wrong world, and stuck there).
The rest took on the challenge, and selected a champion from among themselves. I-as-DM set the odds somewhat in the party champion's favour (at best guess he'd win about 65-75% of the time - Hel's champion had a slightly worse AC, fewer h.p., and might have been a level lower, I forget now), and the remaining party loaded their guy up with all their best magic to further tilt the field.
And even with all that, the PC lost. End of party. Happy Hel.