D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Neonchameleon]

My only question about all this pushing and sliding etc. is how often did the opposition get to do it to the PCs? How many PCs did you-as-DM ever push or slide off a cliff or in to the pool of acid?

A few. Nowhere near as often is the PCs did it to the NPCs of course - but then I don't kill PCs that often. From memory I'd say I did it with the NPCs about as often as an average PC did to the NPCs (so combined they did it four or five times as often). As @FrozenNorth said, if there was an acid pit or a thin railing there would be at least some movement from the bad guys. And quite a bit of paranoia.

I think 4e module design would beg to differ: most of the combat-intended encounters in the 4e modules I've converted quite clearly fall into the "set piece" category, on different scales.

Which makes sense, as set pieces are something 4e did well.

I think we're disagreeing in emphasis. 4e does great set pieces and I don't mean to challenge that assertion. But you do not need a huge setpiece to get 4e combat to be effective. You just need some interactive terrain

I'd rather see both in use: flat + bonuses or - penalties where they make sense, and advantage/disadvantage where it makes sense...or even a combination (yeah, you're hooped on this one: you're at disadvantage AND at -2...good luck!).

Which is what I did in my retroclone of 4e.

Every character I've ever played in my life would beg to differ!

I meant a +2 sword has never been mechanically interesting. For a character it's an obvious McGuffin.

Even though it's player-side the DM still needs to know it, if only to prevent abuse or cheating.

Not necessarily, especially with automatic character sheet generation. The player couldn't really abuse things - this is a big part of balance; if the designers do the work properly the DM doesn't have to. The calculations were carried out automatically. And if the player was getting the rules wrong in a clean system it tends to stick out like a sore thumb. So no, the DM does not need to know the feats from memory.

Missing something here.

How can you complain one system with 1500 feats is a problem and then turn around and say another system with 1500 feats isn't? It's still 1500 bloody feats the player has to sort through!

It's not a problem of anywhere near the same magnitude.

The first and most important issue is that sorting through feats is not an issue at the table. You might find there are an overwhelming number in an abstract sense - but at the table the only feats that are actually relevant are the ones you picked when you created the character or levelled up, and you did that when you had all the time in the world and it will be baked in to your character sheet (Character Builder does the math automatically). By contrast for a 3.X or Pathfinder DM you need to know a significant list of feats because the statblock will name the feat but assume you know what it means.

The second issue is that you can gate away most of the feats if you have an even vaguely competent character builder. If you're building a new character in 4e you don't need the heroic or epic tier feats because they only start at level 11 or 21. You don't need the class-based feats of any class other than your own because you can't take them (and you can also hide groups like the Channel Divinity feats if you don't have a Channel Divinity ability). I could go on. And I will say that 17 of the feats are skill training feats (one per skill). There are still too many feats if you include every splatbook and every issue of Dragon magazine - but it's nowhere near as bad as you are visualising. 3.5 never really had an authorised character builder.

The third issue is there are basically no prerequisite feats. In 3.5 there were entire feat chains like Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave or Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack/Expertise/Whirlwind Attack. You needed to plan your build out several levels in advance and this went double if you wanted to go into a prestige class. (I won't swear that there isn't a feat or paragon path without such a requirement other than in the lightweight multiclassing rules but if there is it will be in the PHB along with a couple of other design mistakes that weren't followed up on).

The third issue is that where feats are situational the situations are clearer and thus less likely to be forgotten. I can't think of any feats that provide a user-activated +1 to anything situational (+1s, yes - but the character builder can handle a +1 to fire damage even if no one takes that feat because it's obviously bad). In 3.0 and 3.5 Dodge was one of the most popular feats in the game because it was a pre-requisite to getting to the good stuff and it is (a) petty (+1 to AC vs one specific foe) and (b) situational as you had to bring it up every time you wanted to use it. 4e went away from that design philosophy - if it's a small bonus it's something that's baked in and that you get all the time, with the computer crunching the math.

And the fourth issue is that with an authorised character builder that did most of the calculations you very rarely needed to look over the player's character sheets; if they were doing something wrong it was generally extremely obvious as mentioned.

So by the end of 4e the game was staggering under the weight of having had far too many feats printed. I do not disagree with that. But what the feats were and when they interfered with the gaming table was also important.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, that's a flaw with 5e: dis/advantage is overused.

I'd rather see both in use: flat + bonuses or - penalties where they make sense, and advantage/disadvantage where it makes sense...or even a combination (yeah, you're hooped on this one: you're at disadvantage AND at -2...good luck!).

5e does have flat bonuses and penalties, they’re just extremely rare, and almost always + or - 2 or 5. Half-cover is +2 to AC, three-quarters-cover is +5 to AC. Having advantage or disadvantage on a passive check gives you + or - 5 to it. There are a couple of Feats that give +5 to something, such as Alert to Initiative and Observant to passive Perception and Investigation. There are the infamous -5 to hit +10 to damage Feats. It’s enough that I as DM feel more than comfortable giving + or - 2 or 5 when circumstances call for it, without feeling like I’m “voiding the warranty” on the system math. I still use advantage and disadvantage more often, but there are times when the flat penalty is more appropriate. I like using them for teamwork - 2-3 characters working together on a task? Have the character with the highest bonus roll at +2. 4 or more characters working on it? +5.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thank you too.

Yes, I find that far too many posters defend Paizo reflexively, maybe not even having looked at the system. It's as if you're not allowed to criticize a system, even if you provide well-reasoned arguments...

This feat "car-crash" is a good example of the design philosophy I detested in 4E and which completely blindsided me when I found it Pathfinder 2.

Again my question is the same as in the OP:

How could we end up with a situation where Paizo ended up with some of the worst elements of 4th edition while the game exhibits so little of 5th edition.

I mean, it's almost as if the fact one was a huge disaster and the other a mega smash passed by Paizo completely...!

I'm going to ask some very basic questions:

• How much 3.0 or 3.5 have you played?
• How much 4e have you played?
• How much Pathfinder 1e have you played?

Because so far as I can tell the answer appears to be not much of any of them.

3.0 was the version of D&D that introduced an overwhelming number of feats to the game and 3.5 changed almost none of the design philosophy. Feats, like Prestige Classes were something that could be churned out to produce very easy content that almost no one would look at.

4e meanwhile made feats significantly bigger and more impactful while making them a whole lot less fiddly. It wasn't a complete change (especially not in the PHB) and some of the bigger 3.5 feats, like Improved Initiative were ported unchanged while. Meanwhile feats like Jack of All Trades added +2 to all your untrained skill checks while the Multiclass feats gave you training in a skill and a useful ability based on the class you multiclassed into (you could pick only one). But that's because it was released too early - and by the time of Essentials feats like Superior Will and Alert were close to those of 5e feats (or more accurately almost exactly the power of the feats that also give a stat point - compare 4e's Alertness to 5e's Alert). This wasn't really power-creepy so much as matching things to the high end of the 4e PHB feats.

5e meanwhile made one very good design decision that in my opinion would have doomed 5e to being the Mothballs Edition if it wasn't for Matt Mercer and Critical Role becoming stunningly popular. They decided that they didn't want to produce either mounds of content (16 Forgotten Realms splatbooks, 14 Eberron splatbooks for 4e etc.) After you've sold someone a PHB what else do you then sell them? D&D Beyond wasn't a thing for three years despite D&D Insider making millions of dollars a year from 4e years after they stopped producing new content. And only about two books a year have been produced for 5e as opposed to about a book a month for 3.X.

Pathfinder meanwhile released under the tagline "3.5 Lives Thrives". When 4e went for bigger less situational stuff, Pathfinder in some ways doubled down on the simulationism and found that there were a lot of people who wanted 3.5 and its focus on details. And a big part of 3.5 and its character creation was the feat car crash. It's almost as if Paizo became the company it is today by republishing and only slightly tweaking the game that had the feat car-crash although Dodge did at least add +1 to AC under all circumstances. And then because 3.5 feats weren't small and situational enough they added traits (such as the one that adds +1 when you make an opportunity attack when unarmed) - and there are something like 1100 traits in Pathfinder 1E on top of the almost 1500 Feats.

This isn't Pathfinder copying 4e. This is Pathfinder doubling down on the decisions they made in sticking with 3.5 and further differentiating themselves from 4e. It's almost as if picking up the market of people who disliked what WotC did with 4e served Paizo well and they are doubling down.

 

[Don Durito]

Who else makes complex high crunch games these days?

They seem to be increasingly out of fashion. In particular, I think the biggest success of 5e was in streamlining lots of fiddly elements of resolution. It's interesting looking at even a simple D&Dlike game such as Castles and Crusades now, and finding some rules elements that make me think "yuck why would you do it that way (such as rating shields by the number of opponents they give 1 AC against).

So I guess the question is: are Paizo in a niche they're able to dominate because hardly any one else is there or are they just swimming against the tides of history here?

I sort of wonder if Pathfinder will end up a bit like Rolemaster. A fond memory for some people, who nevertheless don't wish to return to it, and a bizarre historical document to most of a form of gaming which seems incomprehensible in its appeal.

 

[Undrave]

This feat "car-crash" is a good example of the design philosophy I detested in 4E and which completely blindsided me when I found it Pathfinder 2.

I think you're getting a bit tripped up in nomenclature, Feats in PF2 seem to be the entirety of your character's customization. At least from what I'm getting. There's a lot of feat but that's because those feat absorbed other stuff.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Who else makes complex high crunch games these days?

Steve Jackson Games' GURPS. Mutants & Masterminds is still in print and Champions had a new edition a couple of years back. Monte Cook's Invisible Sun has a lot of crunch. Shadowrun causes people to tap out fairly regularly.

So I guess the question is: are Paizo in a niche they're able to dominate because hardly any one else is there or are they just swimming against the tides of history here?

Against the tide of history I think.

 

[Wiseblood]

I have made two characters in PF 2. I found the process....awful. PF 2 in play is good. The character creation process is just not my cup of tea. I would rather a randomly generated character than go through that IRS audit again. FWIW I used a computer program to get it done if I had been asked to cobble that together using the books or e-books I would have balked.

 

[Lanefan]

I meant a +2 sword has never been mechanically interesting. For a character it's an obvious McGuffin.

It makes me better at what I do, which is all the mechanical "interest" I need.

Not necessarily, especially with automatic character sheet generation. The player couldn't really abuse things - this is a big part of balance; if the designers do the work properly the DM doesn't have to. The calculations were carried out automatically. And if the player was getting the rules wrong in a clean system it tends to stick out like a sore thumb. So no, the DM does not need to know the feats from memory.

It's not a problem of anywhere near the same magnitude.

The first and most important issue is that sorting through feats is not an issue at the table. You might find there are an overwhelming number in an abstract sense - but at the table the only feats that are actually relevant are the ones you picked when you created the character or levelled up, and you did that when you had all the time in the world and it will be baked in to your character sheet (Character Builder does the math automatically).

OK, a few things to pull out of this.

First, the purple italicized bit: am I unusual in assuming level-up is done during the run of play at the session when you bump (or train, depending on rules used), with rolls* observed by others? If you are doing it mid-session time isn't a huge resource, as people want to get back to play.

* - 4e allowed people to take the average on a lot of things and avoid rolling, which to me is abhorrent.

Then, the bolded bit: here, and above, and below, you're assuming by default the use of something other than pen paper and dice to generate and upkeep a character, which to me is...well, just not cricket somehow.

If a game needs a 'character builder' in order to generate a character then it's already far more complicated than it ever needs to be.

The second issue is that you can gate away most of the feats if you have an even vaguely competent character builder. If you're building a new character in 4e you don't need the heroic or epic tier feats because they only start at level 11 or 21. You don't need the class-based feats of any class other than your own because you can't take them (and you can also hide groups like the Channel Divinity feats if you don't have a Channel Divinity ability). I could go on. And I will say that 17 of the feats are skill training feats (one per skill). There are still too many feats if you include every splatbook and every issue of Dragon magazine - but it's nowhere near as bad as you are visualising. 3.5 never really had an authorised character builder.

And without a character builder?

Not everyone takes a computer or laptop to the game every week.

The third issue is there are basically no prerequisite feats. In 3.5 there were entire feat chains like Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave or Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack/Expertise/Whirlwind Attack. You needed to plan your build out several levels in advance and this went double if you wanted to go into a prestige class. (I won't swear that there isn't a feat or paragon path without such a requirement other than in the lightweight multiclassing rules but if there is it will be in the PHB along with a couple of other design mistakes that weren't followed up on).

Prerequisites are to me a double-edged sword.

The good about them is that there's a certain amount of logic behind it: realistically in order to be able to do this thing B you first need to be able to do that thing A, thus being able to directly choose thing B which subsumes the ability to do thing A isn't fair to those who spent a slot on thing A.

The bad about them is, as you say, they do force and expect a mentality of planning ahead.

The third issue is that where feats are situational the situations are clearer and thus less likely to be forgotten.

Heh - in 3e I constantly forgot feats that were in theory always-on, never mind the situational ones or ones I had to choose to (or remember to) activate.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First, the purple italicized bit: am I unusual in assuming level-up is done during the run of play at the session when you bump (or train, depending on rules used), with rolls* observed by others? If you are doing it mid-session time isn't a huge resource, as people want to get back to play.

* - 4e allowed people to take the average on a lot of things and avoid rolling, which to me is abhorrent.[/quote]

I wouldn't have said unusual so much as old school. And you're confusing 4e with 3e there. 3e allowed you to take the average. 5e allows you to take the average rounded up which is just weird. And 4e simply doesn't have rolling when you level up.

But I wouldn't expect to level up right then and there with any of the WotC editions. In old school D&D the main things that change are your hit points and which line on attack and saving throw matrix you're on. From 3.0 onwards there have been far more choices. Starting with which class to level up in. Then choosing from the dozens to thousand-and-a-half feats depending how long the edition's existed for and which splatbooks you're using. There's skill point allocation in the 3.X family. There's picking spells if you're a caster in 3.X or 5e. There's picking and possibly swapping a power in 4e.

To put it simply levelling up has a lot of choices - and when I've expected to level up in a session I've had my levelled up character sheet printed in advance.

Then, the bolded bit: here, and above, and below, you're assuming by default the use of something other than pen paper and dice to generate and upkeep a character, which to me is...well, just not cricket somehow.

I'm not assuming you to do that. I'm expecting you to stick to, from memory B/X where you can. And I have a lot of sympathy; the Rules Cyclopaedia is my second favourite edition after 4e.

If a game needs a 'character builder' in order to generate a character then it's already far more complicated than it ever needs to be.

If a game needs more than a d6 it's more complicated than it needs to be. The question isn't "Can it be simpler" - but "is it more fun/[whatever value] with this extra stuff?"

And without a character builder?

There was a reason 4e encouraged people to share licenses. And I have created characters with pen and paper - it's just irritating. I've even created a character using pen and paper on a bus to a game with no reference books handy and got everything spot-on, but I don't expect people to be able to do that no matter which edition. (Most people might have the attack matrices memorised in old school but certainly don't have the saving throws all down perfectly).

Not everyone takes a computer or laptop to the game every week.

Print-outs. Oh and tablets are much easier to carry than laptops. For that matter I've used my phone for character sheets.

Prerequisites are to me a double-edged sword.

The good about them is that there's a certain amount of logic behind it: realistically in order to be able to do this thing B you first need to be able to do that thing A, thus being able to directly choose thing B which subsumes the ability to do thing A isn't fair to those who spent a slot on thing A.

The bad about them is, as you say, they do force and expect a mentality of planning ahead.

Prerequisites are to me generally a negative if you are playing a level-based system. Even a non-level based system they tend to produce overheads I don't like with very limited gain. Now synergistic trees are something else (where you can have the two parts without each other but they just work well together).

Heh - in 3e I constantly forgot feats that were in theory always-on, never mind the situational ones or ones I had to choose to (or remember to) activate.

Depends on the always-on ones. I've never forgotten e.g. a Weapon Focus because I write that into my default attack block when I'm levelling up the character. The passive abilities should be part of the final calculation. And I've been known to completely rewrite my character sheet and that for my players to make it much more usable. It's helped a lot in 5e for my two newest players.

Edit: To clarify 3.0 came with a character builder on a disk with the PHB from memory - that thing was almost useless. In place of a character builder in 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e I'm used to seeing pre-calculated spreadsheets in Google Sheets at present. I tend to use Google Docs and roll my own, using it on tablet.

Also the one time I played a Summoner in Pathfinder because I'm serious about not slowing up the table I put all the spells and all the summons I'd use into the character sheet. The thing ran to over 30 pages before I was done.

 

[Lanefan]

I wouldn't have said unusual so much as old school. And you're confusing 4e with 3e there. 3e allowed you to take the average. 5e allows you to take the average rounded up which is just weird. And 4e simply doesn't have rolling when you level up.

No rolling at all is even worse.

But I wouldn't expect to level up right then and there with any of the WotC editions. In old school D&D the main things that change are your hit points and which line on attack and saving throw matrix you're on. From 3.0 onwards there have been far more choices. Starting with which class to level up in. Then choosing from the dozens to thousand-and-a-half feats depending how long the edition's existed for and which splatbooks you're using. There's skill point allocation in the 3.X family. There's picking spells if you're a caster in 3.X or 5e. There's picking and possibly swapping a power in 4e.

We levelled up on the fly in 3e, and not all at once as we did individual xp.

To put it simply levelling up has a lot of choices - and when I've expected to level up in a session I've had my levelled up character sheet printed in advance.

I'd usually have given some thought to what I'd be choosing next level-up, but that 's about it.

There was a reason 4e encouraged people to share licenses. And I have created characters with pen and paper - it's just irritating. I've even created a character using pen and paper on a bus to a game with no reference books handy and got everything spot-on, but I don't expect people to be able to do that no matter which edition. (Most people might have the attack matrices memorised in old school but certainly don't have the saving throws all down perfectly).

In 1e both the attack matrices and saving throws are usually DM-side only anyway, so no need to memorize them.

That said, if I rolled up a character on the bus to the game I'd be fully expecting the DM to toss it once I got there anyway, as standing policy has forever been here that characters are rolled up with others present.

Print-outs. Oh and tablets are much easier to carry than laptops. For that matter I've used my phone for character sheets.

I kinda lumped tablets in with laptops.

We use tablets in my game to reference online player-side material common to all, most notably spell write-ups (I redid them all and put them online some years back) and game logs: far more efficient than passing a book or binder around, or expecting everyone to have their own; and easier to update too.

The other rule here is that character sheets stay with the DM between sessions.

Prerequisites are to me generally a negative if you are playing a level-based system. Even a non-level based system they tend to produce overheads I don't like with very limited gain. Now synergistic trees are something else (where you can have the two parts without each other but they just work well together).

I don't mind 'em that much. I just have to fight the idea, not so much of planning that far ahead, but expecting that the character will last long enough for those plans to materialize.

But using the Cleave/Great Cleave example: it's obvious that in order to Great Cleave you first need to be able to Cleave. But while GC is too powerful for low-level types, ordinary Cleave isn't; and so they were separated out.

Someone being able to choose GC without taking Cleave first is in effect getting two abilities in one, as opposed to someone who chose Cleave when they could at low level and then GC once they reached the required level.

Depends on the always-on ones.

One of my long-term 3e characters had Alertness as a feat, and I forgot it at every opportunity.

I've never forgotten e.g. a Weapon Focus because I write that into my default attack block when I'm levelling up the character. The passive abilities should be part of the final calculation.

Though it's only default for that one weapon; for any other weapon you have to knock off the Focus bonus.
I always made the base calculation the lowest common denominator with no bonuses of any kind, as so many different bonuses applied to different things and, sometimes, in different situations.

And I've been known to completely rewrite my character sheet and that for my players to make it much more usable. It's helped a lot in 5e for my two newest players.

Depends on the player. Someone reqriting my character sheet would probably get yelled at, as now nothing would be where I'd put it and thus expect to find it.

Edit: To clarify 3.0 came with a character builder on a disk with the PHB from memory - that thing was almost useless. In place of a character builder in 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e I'm used to seeing pre-calculated spreadsheets in Google Sheets at present. I tend to use Google Docs and roll my own, using it on tablet.

Never mind the official character builders can't usually handle houserules or system tweaks, where your Google ideas more likely could.

Also the one time I played a Summoner in Pathfinder because I'm serious about not slowing up the table I put all the spells and all the summons I'd use into the character sheet. The thing ran to over 30 pages before I was done.

Yikes!