Pathfinder and 4e's love child, what I want in 5e

[BryonD]

Aside from the fact that HP don't represent physical injury, even in Pathfinder, it actually provides the exact same game mechanic.

Its just instead of having surges as an intrinsic part of the character, you carry them external to you in the form of a wand of cure spells. Mechanically the same effect is achieved, everyone "heals" after every encounter. Personally, I find the need to carry a wand around just as clunky as you find the semantics of surges.

Both games need to solve the same problem, though. How do you have multiple encounters per day, but maintain verisimilitude in terms of healing and injury?

I think surges just need to be finessed and redefined but the potential is there.

And, just speaking personally... "YIKES!!!"

I agree that HP are a weak point. I agree that 3E/PF can be played in a crappy way that is not one bit better than surges.

But the presence of surges as presented is completely contrary to the concept of what I'm looking for. And handwaving it as "semantics" is boggling.

But, the point is not to have debate number n+1 on healing surges. The point is that you are trying to tell other people what they like when you don't have the slightest clue where they are coming from.

No ding against the vast awesomeness that is your healing surge including game. Rock on dude!!! Enjoy!!!!

But you are talking about fine tuning and finessing with no concept or how or why it could be a total poison pill. And you don't need to know or care. Unless you are trying to appeal to people who see it that way, in which case it would really help to show that you grok the concept.

~ other people are discussing, you are just naysaying and pouring cold water on the discussion. If you don't stop, you'll get threadbanned. Plane Sailing, ENworld Admin~

 

[BryonD]

I thought it was more like saying fans of blue don't like red, and fans of red don't like blue, therefore everyone will love purple. But other than that, yeah, I pretty much agree.

First, using your general statement, I suspect fans of blue would agree with fans of red in hating purple. (And if I'm reading correctly I think you agree there)

But, I don't agree that this is purple anyway....

I mean, I don't "hate" 4E, but I only consider it "meh".
I could make my own list of the perfect mix of 3E and 4E elements. But I'd be crazy to suggest 4E fans would recognize it as 50/50, much less like it.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think you could easily support either hex or square. I just prefer a system that's equally adept at shifting between narrative, or mini-centric combat. Whether intentional or not, Pathfinder works well either way. 4e's tightly integrated mini-based movement powers really flops when handling combat that is not mini-based.

I did run narrative combat in 4e and it was actually really easy. Whether the range of a spell is area 20' radius within 400 ft +40 ft per level, or area burst 1 within 20, it still boils down to the player and DM determining how far away something is given the narrative. Besides the (orders of magnitude) difference in size/range, there's very little functionally different between these two, except I suppose you might say it's easier to think in terms if real world units of measure.

I just identified the five main ranges at which combat took place and determined what kind of movement it would take to move between different ranges. It took a little getting used to and some player trust, but it really wasn't much different than when we played 3e without minis.

 

[Pentius]

Those and the "powers" and saves as defenses are my biggest gripes against 4e. I agree that 5e shouldn't have the "dead" level issue but if healing surges and the "powers" systems are included then I won't purchase the products. The "automatic" healing smacks of an computer game to me. I can't think of another game system where the characters can "heal" automatically during combat without say cyber-wear or assistance of another character. Certainly not say in GURPS Fantasy/Horror or Call of Cthulhu.

I tried to ask you this last time it came up, but the thread got drowned in ugliness before we could discuss it. My objection is this. Hit Points, in every edition, are abstract. They don't just represent physical damage, but also divine favor, random luck, will to fight, and pretty much any and all plot protection. There's never really been hard and fast rules about what exactly hit point damage is representing. In any edition, a high level Fighter could take 30 hit points of damage, still have 40, and it could all be narrated as a string of lucky misses, glancing blows that maybe stung a bit but didn't leave a mark and so forth.

So, given that hit points and damage are abstract, why should healing be concrete? The hypothetical Fighter above is physically fine, why does magic(or long recovery time) need to be involved for him to regain that lost plot protection? Why not just have him shrug it off?

I personally don't have a problem with using a battlemat. But I see how nearly impossible it is to run 4e without one. So that isn't a defining issue for me. But when we used to play 1e in high school. We didnt have a battlemat or minis.

Mike

Heh, when I played 1e in high school, we had lots and lots of graph paper and a bunch of Ral Parthas.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Here's a few things that I think are probably guaranteed for 5th edition:

* If the skirmish game miniatures they produce ends up selling good to very good... there WILL be a miniature component of the game. Selling Dungeon Tiles and miniatures are good additional revenue for the company. Now this isn't to say they won't also make a version of the game that doesn't require them (a la the different 'modules' idea that Mearls talked about), but if it ends up being either/or... they're going to fall on the side that generates extra money for them.

* Options "bloat" will happen. Player options sell books and DDI subscriptions. That means some things will be 'held back' from the initial set of books for a second or third PHB, or "Power" books or whatever. They probably will include much more fluff than the 4E versions did (to partially counteract the "just wait for the info to appear in DDI" syndrome), but WotC won't make their money just selling setting material. They'll produce as much crunch as necessary so long as most people buy it.

* While some books will be printed, the focus and expectation of players will be for them to join DDI. If you choose not to join, that'll be fine... but you'll just be missing out on most of the focus and highlights of the game. The subscription model has been their probable most consistent generation of monthly revenue, and there's no way they'll get rid of it.

* There will never again be an OGL. With WotC's desire and expectation that most of their revenue will continue to be via DDI... if there is an OGL the player base will begin making demands that the 3rd party OGL content created be able to be added to the online tools like the Character and Monster Builder. As WotC will never allow that to happen... they won't even want to listen to the incessant complaints about it from the player base, and will take the financial hit by not opening up the game to the OGL.

All the other stuff like rules changes or whatever are just minor quibbles in the grand scheme of things. These things though are at the heart and soul of revenue generation for Wizards of the Coast, and thus I think are most likely to come about.

 

[Dausuul]

So, given that hit points and damage are abstract, why should healing be concrete? The hypothetical Fighter above is physically fine, why does magic(or long recovery time) need to be involved for him to regain that lost plot protection? Why not just have him shrug it off?

Because D&D is inconsistent on this question.

Before 4E, there was always a "Hit Points Are Not Physical Toughness Paragraph," claiming hit points are a mixture of skill and luck and yadda yadda yadda. And then the entire rest of the rulebook treated hit points as if they represented physical toughness and nothing but. All of the terminology, spell names, and sub-mechanics (poison, falling damage, etc.) reinforced the "physical toughness" concept. When the rules pound into you, game after game, that hit points = physical toughness, it's pretty easy to forget that one unsupported paragraph claiming otherwise.

4E was the first edition to take that paragraph seriously and integrate it into the rest of the rules. That was a major whack upside the head for people who'd gotten used to more or less ignoring it. And to make things worse, 4E kept the old terminology ("healing surge," "healing word," "cure light wounds," "damage," et cetera), so now the names are fighting the rules.

It's a perfect example of why flavor (I refuse to call it "fluff") is important. It really does matter what you call stuff and how you justify it in the game world, because without flavor, all you've got is a fairly crappy board game. 4E forgot about that and it's the source of many of my beefs with the system.

 

[DaveMage]

Frankly, I have edition change fatigue at this point.

I don't want any new edition for many years, if ever.

I'm happy with what's already out.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, someone's gotta say it, so it might as well be me:

Bleah.

So far, pretty much everything suggested in this thread would push me away from the game rather than draw me in.

What would I prefer?

Less math: lower numbers everywhere - fewer bonuses, fewer levels, fewer hit points, only extreme circumstances will ever get a stat lower than 3 or higher than 18, etc. etc. - which has the pleasant side effect of de-tuning the game math such that the difference between levels becomes much less and a 1st-level character *can* survive in a 4th level party and-or said 4th-level party can take down a Giant but is still threatened by a dozen Orcs.

Less system bloat: put the whole game in the first releases then focus on writing adventures and settings.

Clearly-defined classes that reflect fantasy archetypes.

Less focus on "wow" abilities: there's nothing at all wrong with "only being able to swing a sword" if the battle goes by quickly and you can get on with the story/delve/argument/exploration/whatever. Side effect here is faster combats due to players not spending time deciding what trick to use this round.

Randomness within reason in PC generation to reflect randomness in life.

Magic that is useful but that can also be dangerous to its users and sometimes anyone else nearby. If there's a small but constant risk to using magic it becomes wonderfully self-limiting.

Quick character generation. If it takes an experienced player or DM longer than 15 minutes to bang out a ready-to-play character, rethink. Character play trumps character build.

Physical skills - yes. Social skills - no. Those are what roleplaying is for.

And above all, make the game flexible: with minimal-to-no DM work required can it handle parties of 2 PCs? Of 12? Does it support a playable 1-year adventure path and at the same time stand up to a 10 year campaign? Can the party be of mixed levels? Do PCs level up in the field, do they need training in town, or is the game set up to handle both? Does system mastery by one player ruin the game for the rest and-or can it support a side game of character optimization (if 'yes' to either, rethink)? Etc.

And one last thing that I'm not sure how to put. Best I can do is to say please don't design the game system with an eye to making a bad DM good; because the game on its own can't do that. Instead, design tools that a good DM can use to make a great game and that an average DM can use to make a good game; and the bad DMs will either learn or they won't.

EDIT: And make the game playable without any need for a microchip of any kind.

Lan-"WotC, if you need 5e playtesters give me a call; I'll gladly put it through the wringer for you"-efan

 

[MoxieFu]

I think it is possible to make one unifying system that brings the fractured fanbase back together.

Two things are required to make this happen:

1) Modularity/Compatibility - To allow those who like 4e innovations vs. Pathfinder style traditional rules to be able to swap in or out those elements they prefer. Even better, with some finessing, you could make a 5e that incorporates everything I love about 4e, but would still be 90% compatible with Paizo Pathfinder material such as APs and modules. That would be amazing!

2) Going back to the OGL - Scrap the GSL and go back to an open game that really brings the community along for the ride.

As I think WotC has discovered and Paizo already knows, you can sell subs for add-ons such as computer based builders and tools, AP, modules, and so on, but provide your core rules for free in an easy to acces hyperlinked format.

The PRD being a free web site is amazing and an invaluable gametable resource. WotC's DDI equivalent is clunky and lacking in comparison. Not to mention its stuck behind a paywall.

If you want people to play your game, give it away. Provide value in the add-ons, tools, and accessories and fans will come in droves.

I believe this could be done as well. I would love to see a simplified synthesis of previous editions used to create a Core Module for the game.

The whole design philosophy of 4e is so different from all other versions I don't see how it could be much of a part of this. But instead of throwing 4e fans aside, why don't they keep it. It could be kept "as-is" in all of its books and splats or it could be used as the basis of a return of D&D Miniatures to exist in parallel with Dungeons & Dragons. Maybe call it D&D Skirmishes and let it focus on combat.

Just a thought.

 

[Pentius]

Because D&D is schizophrenic on this question.

Before 4E, there was always a "Hit Points Are Not Physical Toughness Paragraph," claiming hit points are a mixture of skill and luck and yadda yadda yadda. And then the entire rest of the rulebook treated hit points as if they represented physical toughness and nothing but. All of the terminology, spell names, and sub-mechanics (poison, falling damage, etc.) reinforced the "physical toughness" concept. When the rules pound into you, game after game, that hit points = physical toughness, it's pretty easy to forget that one unsupported paragraph claiming otherwise.

4E was the first edition to take that paragraph seriously and integrate it into the rest of the rules. That was a major whack upside the head for people who'd gotten used to more or less ignoring it. And to make things worse, 4E kept the old terminology ("healing surge," "healing word," "cure light wounds," "damage," et cetera), so now the names are fighting the rules.

It's a perfect example of why flavor (I refuse to call it "fluff") is important. It really does matter what you call stuff and how you justify it in the game world, because without flavor, all you've got is a fairly crappy board game. 4E forgot about that and it's the source of many of my beefs with the system.

Wait, 4e took its flavor seriously enough to actually reflect it in the rules, and this is a perfect example of 4e not taking its flavor seriously?