Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
But there is no such power. There is only a power that lets the player decides, once per a combat encounter, that such a thing happen. But neither the player nor the character can do it all the time, nor whenever they wish!
Predict the Future: How will what we have today EVOLVE INTO 5th Edition?
- Thread starter joethelawyer
- Start date
But there is no such power. There is only a power that lets the player decides, once per a combat encounter, that such a thing happen. But neither the player nor the character can do it all the time, nor whenever they wish!
Ydars
Explorer
Let me clarify what I said; I didn't mean that the D&D ruleset has no flavour of its own. It does have some flavour, it just isn't very strong and is easily ignored; like vanilla.
What I was trying to say was that D&D is USED as the generic Fantasy ruleset for people to create homebrew campaigns. This almost HAS to be true because most RPGers have apparently never played anything but D&D so the idea that people go to GURPs for generic fantasy is nonsense.
Even WoTC's and TSR own market research suggests that most people use D&D to create homebrew worlds/campaigns. Hence I will re-state that I think D&D is USED as the ruleset for creating homebrew settings. I am also not saying that D&D has ever been the best game to do this, just that it is a fact that most people use it this way.
The only point I was trying to make was that 4E fulfils this function much less well than previous editions because it has many more assumptions as part of the playstyle. This stems from the healing and power mechanics.
Someone said that 4E damage is not real damage and is just bumps near-misses etc; but the designers don't agree with you; look at how they describe damage in the promotional movie detailing the mind-flayer combat. The way they describe it is certainly physical damage and therefore the healing that takes place in 8 hours was intended as a "superpower" and so my point stands.
Don't get me wrong; I like alot of 4E but ultimately you have to look at what D&D is used for; it is used as a ruleset to tell the DM's story not WoTCs, not anyone else's. 4E constrains the DM much more than past editions because it has a series of assumptions built in that can't easily be removed. The flavour of the core mechanics of healing and fighting is much stronger than D&D has had in the past and can be a problem for certain playstyles. If you accept how D&D is used then the conclusion is obvious that this was a mistake because it goes against D&D's core purpose.
Hence I believe that D&D should and will migrate back towards less of its own flavour and be more about supporting homebrew and DM choice. Maybe the designers can find a way to keep some of the great mechanics and jettison the negative flavour.
Oh and statements like "the schism is not real" are just wishful thinking. No-one knows how deep it runs and unless you have hard data it would be wiser to say "In my view........." or "I believe........."
What I was trying to say was that D&D is USED as the generic Fantasy ruleset for people to create homebrew campaigns. This almost HAS to be true because most RPGers have apparently never played anything but D&D so the idea that people go to GURPs for generic fantasy is nonsense.
Even WoTC's and TSR own market research suggests that most people use D&D to create homebrew worlds/campaigns. Hence I will re-state that I think D&D is USED as the ruleset for creating homebrew settings. I am also not saying that D&D has ever been the best game to do this, just that it is a fact that most people use it this way.
The only point I was trying to make was that 4E fulfils this function much less well than previous editions because it has many more assumptions as part of the playstyle. This stems from the healing and power mechanics.
Someone said that 4E damage is not real damage and is just bumps near-misses etc; but the designers don't agree with you; look at how they describe damage in the promotional movie detailing the mind-flayer combat. The way they describe it is certainly physical damage and therefore the healing that takes place in 8 hours was intended as a "superpower" and so my point stands.
Don't get me wrong; I like alot of 4E but ultimately you have to look at what D&D is used for; it is used as a ruleset to tell the DM's story not WoTCs, not anyone else's. 4E constrains the DM much more than past editions because it has a series of assumptions built in that can't easily be removed. The flavour of the core mechanics of healing and fighting is much stronger than D&D has had in the past and can be a problem for certain playstyles. If you accept how D&D is used then the conclusion is obvious that this was a mistake because it goes against D&D's core purpose.
Hence I believe that D&D should and will migrate back towards less of its own flavour and be more about supporting homebrew and DM choice. Maybe the designers can find a way to keep some of the great mechanics and jettison the negative flavour.
Oh and statements like "the schism is not real" are just wishful thinking. No-one knows how deep it runs and unless you have hard data it would be wiser to say "In my view........." or "I believe........."
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I suspect it's because a lot of people here, having (relatively) recently watched the game get completely redesigned for 3e, tweaked significantly for 3.5, then completely redesigned again for 4e, are paying more attention than we were before to - and showing more interest in - elements of basic RPG framework design; never mind the old-school kitbashers like me to whom such things are meat and drink anyway.
Short step from there to lots of "how would *you* design it" discussions; and as the next big thing to be designed is logically enough going to be 5e, that's the obvious focus.
Lanefan
What about at wills? You always know the chances you have to achieve what they are describing so you can decide whenever you wish to pull them off (chance and effect is always the same).
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Are there any at-wills for which this is automatic? I think not, but I haven't received Martial Power yet.
Most At-Wills require a hit to generate any opponent-affecting effect, so you have your "beat some defense to force your opponent doing something" request fulfilled.
By automatic I guess you mean that your chance is 100%. No need to be automatic for my argument. Hits have always the same chance, you know this chance and the effect is always the same. So your decision is based only on the various effects of the different powers. It seems like something that you can activate and then you check your marksmanship (which is always known) to see if you hit the target and thus have the effect happen. This, in a melee situation seems like super powered to me.
In melee you do not know before the fight with an adversary your chances to pull an effect such as pushing him back with your shield -it may happen that you have a good chance to pull this off or that you only have a good chance to strike and hit him.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I do think it's a bit worse than it was when 3e came down the pipes, especially because 3e still has vague "support." I think that a clever 5e will harken more back to earlier editions.
Pathfinder will probably be a modest success. I think Paizo would be the first on board if a 5e comes down the intertubes that they like, though, so I don't think Pathfinder would stand in the way of 5e.
In 10 years, it probably won't look so bleak. This could actually contribute to the longevity of 4e: "Look at sales now! They're much bigger than they were in '09!"
3pp's will be more fringe this time around than they were. I expect a lot of PDF's, and no big sexy hardcovers.
I'd say the 3pp print market is on it's way out in the next decade. The PDF market should be okay, though, given the lower cost of doing business.
Blip on the radar. It won't hurt D&D any more than it has hurt the music industry (that is to say, it'll change the model, but it won't ruin a smart business).
DDI, I'm guessing, will be pretty successful. Online support will remain key in 5e. I think the idea of gathering friends together is going to be at the core, though. What could change this is if the online game table gets more subscribers than the books get sales. Then 5e might be more about online play, with book support, than vice-versa. I don't think that's very likely to happen, but ya never know.
DDI's success probably helps them create a longer edition treadmill, too.
If the minis sell well, they'll still be an integral part of 5e (sadly). If they don't, 5e will still probably attempt to integrate them, but might also provide for more abstract combat.
If powers provide buying incentive for minis, then 5e will probably integrate them. If they don't, I would hope and expect 5e to dismantle the powers system and put up something quicker and cleaner.
I'd doubt that this move would be cemented. There may be moves toward it, but there are already moves toward it in 4e. Only if these moves are insanely successful will they dominate 5e.
The GSL is an albatross. Even a "better" GSL won't win over 3pps that are already jaded and who may have realized that they can put out 4e compatible products without paying one bit of attention to what WotC says (or who have gone their own direction). A good enough GSL might win over some really good 3e 3pps to 4e, and thus improve 4e, but I'd think 5e would want to get this better from the start (maybe even going more open, if they're smart).
Different market, mostly.
If 4e fails on this count, 4e will be a rather large failure in the eyes of most of WotC, I imagine. 4e is supposed to be the populist edition! The edition that brings it out of the basement, into the living room! If 4e fails to do this, the 5e we see will be EVEN MORE SIMPLISTIC, probably. If 4e succeeds, 5e will probably retain about the same level of complexity.
3pps are going to be hurting for the next 10 years, whatever happens. If they're involved in Pathfinder, it might go marginally better. If the GSL revision actually makes publishing for 4e appealing, it might go marginally better. But the greatness we saw during 3e is probably over.
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
3pp's will be more fringe this time around than they were. I expect a lot of PDF's, and no big sexy hardcovers.
I'd say the 3pp print market is on it's way out in the next decade. The PDF market should be okay, though, given the lower cost of doing business.
The GSL is an albatross. Even a "better" GSL won't win over 3pps that are already jaded and who may have realized that they can put out 4e compatible products without paying one bit of attention to what WotC says (or who have gone their own direction). A good enough GSL might win over some really good 3e 3pps to 4e, and thus improve 4e, but I'd think 5e would want to get this better from the start (maybe even going more open, if they're smart).
I agree with most of this, and I think that for any edition going forward, established 3pps will be very wary of doing anything (presuming a free license even exists for 5e and beyond) on a large scale.
At this point, I doubt even a better GSL will do much for 3pp support of 4E. It may allow some companies to do a product here or there, but because of the delay, most of the better 3pps of 3.x that haven't already gone 4E have moved on to other things (or simply gone dormant).
Pathfinder's release will be interesting to watch.
What Paizo does when 5e comes out will be interesting to watch.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Huh? Bullrush or Grapple and Move are superpowers?
Why some people usually refer to 3e comparisons when someone notes his 4e criticisms? Anyway, to answer your question, yes grapple and move and bullrush implementations feel a bit like paranormal but perhaps less so. The whole idea of I go you go and taking turns seems paranormal or super powerish or whatever. OTOH maneuver rolls, risk or threat exposure and opportunity chances are not that hard to implement. But strap off powers in a balanced system that uses them as balance tools is a different matter.
Similar Threads
