Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Garthanos]

That seems to be something that really bothers returning players, choosing power instead of weapon. An alternate option might be more than two, but all sorted by weapon or weapon type. So when you 'choose you weapons' at chargen, like a traditional fighter, you're also transparently choosing your power. Either way.

I even kind of like that... there is a this game called

Guild Wars II

 

[Garthanos]

Call the Slayers Knights etc attacks ummm simple attacks ... they are then something else not basic attacks

And make stances enhance those.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Problem was a stance-enhanced basic attack was the equal (often nearly precisely so) of an at-will, but at that point, an at-will all the cheap/cheasy only-amp-basic-attacks-so-no-big-deal items and whatnot could add to. Then, of course, the nature of Power Attack meant that they were basic attacks you could upgrade to encounter-attack damage. All pretty whacked, really.

'Need?' Does a game need consistency? What's the payoff for the added complexity of making them arbitrarily different?

Sounds, to me, like the simplest, most consistent, lowest-overhead way to do that would be to just same structure. :shrug:

I just lost a post responding to this.

But thats ok because I've thought of a better response.

Have you noticed that the 5e warlock is built on very similar lines to the 4e class structure?

i sure have! It's straight up AED(U). The U is in parenthesis because you can pick all combat "powers", or mostly Utility, so the U is on a sliding scale.

Instead of getting powers every level, you get at wills, encounter powers, and some class features at level one, then some more features and encounter powers at levels 2 and 3, and various other levels, and at regular intervals, you can choose features that either give you new at wills, new dailies, or new passive features. Some have level requirements. Then eventually you start getting regular daily powers.

It is very much like my ideal 4.5.

That is, you get a feature, from a list. Of those listed features, some provide powers, some provide passive features. Some powers are new at wills, some are dailies, and some class features work via boosting basic basic attacks.

In general, many encounter and daily powers would be simpler and cleaner if they were more: "make a basic attack, this stuff also happens", with a general rule that only one power or feature can modify a basic attack at one time.

Each class has some class feature choices, like both 4e and 5e. Some are bigger difference than others, just like 4e and 5e. Including stuff like fighters all marking targets, with variants that use the mark to defend, to strike, or to control. And even lead if someone can think of a model for that. And stuff like your Surprise Attack that replaces Sneak Attack.

I'd prefer for most 4e powers to be non level specific, and if needed scale their damage numbers by level, with minimum level requirements where necessary. And be able to use the same encounter power as many times as you have encounter slots, like a simplified 5e spell slot, or how Ki powers work. You have X encounter slots, and Y daily slots. Or you have a resource like Surges, and encounter powers cost 1, daily powers cost 2, and some features spend Surges to different things.

Anyway, imo something along those lines would allow for essentials style characters and 4e style characters, and would run just fine. Most of the potential issues with hacking 4e into this come from things that is like to kill in a 4.5 anyway, like many sources of stacking bonuses. Building a 4.5 from the ground up with this, and some corrections learned from 4e and Star Wars Saga Edition, and you might have my perfect RPG.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I even kind of like that... there is a this game called

Guild Wars II

HoML (currently at least) has various boons, like 'Flail Master' that defines several powers you can select. Kinda gets the same job done.

I personally never saw the reason why most of the various E-Class beyond-level-one feature choices couldn't have just been regular powers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Call the Slayers Knights etc attacks ummm simple attacks ... they are then something else not basic attacks

And make stances enhance those.

That doesn't sound complicated, at all.

I'm really thinking hidden compatibility would've been the thing. A couple of 'attack powers' that are defined by weapon choice, not chargen or declared, that can be used in place of a basic attack, blah blah, but don't bother /saying/ all that crap in the class write-up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

HoML (currently at least) has various boons, like 'Flail Master' that defines several powers you can select. Kinda gets the same job done.

I personally never saw the reason why most of the various E-Class beyond-level-one feature choices couldn't have just been regular powers.

I think a lot of regular powers could just as easily be presented as class features, but I don't think either is a better format for all options. Some "read" better, and grok more easily, as one or the other, IMO.

Like Lethal, from the executioner, could be a power, but I definitely think it feels more right written as a passive ability.

OTOH, things like stances just don't work unless you make them an at will power, but that just feels needlessly more complicated than presenting them as they are presented. A passive bonus that applies any time you do the thing. Same with Wilderness Knacks.

 

[S'mon]

You keep citing the need for an option for people that don't want to wade through powers, ignoring that allowing slayer players to use regular encounter powers instead of power attack would not interfere with that. You just don't present regular encounter powers in the heroes of x books, and design the CB exactly as it was. Ie, options from pre-essentials 4e only show up if you click a drop down.

I'm not saying they needed to be AEDU. I'm saying there were many points where they restricted them for no good reason, in ways that doing otherwise would not have increased complexity for players that want a simple option.

And more importantly, the non magical guys shouldn't be the simple options, whilenthe magic guys are complex. That is lazy design that restricts play styles to no benefit.

I had a player play a Slayer with use of Power Swap feats. His PC was by a long way the most
powerful in the game. Without the feat cost it would have been even more OTT. So I'm not sure
how free swapping would have worked.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I had a player play a Slayer with use of Power Swap feats. His PC was by a long way the most
powerful in the game. Without the feat cost it would have been even more OTT. So I'm not sure
how free swapping would have worked.

It would be really easy to solve that problem, without restricting power choice for slayers, by rewording the slayer's stances. To get into details, I'd have to boot up my computer and pull up the CB, or dig my essentials books out of a box, which I'm not gonna do right now, but my point is that compatibility should have been a priority when building those classes and designing their class feaures.

 

[S'mon]

It would be really easy to solve that problem, without restricting power choice for slayers, by rewording the slayer's stances. To get into details, I'd have to boot up my computer and pull up the CB, or dig my essentials books out of a box, which I'm not gonna do right now, but my point is that compatibility should have been a priority when building those classes and designing their class feaures.

I guess restricting Slayer benefits to Basic Attacks would have helped a lot.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

So I have some sympathies (even though if I ran a 4e game for him he would want to build a time machine so he could travel back to 2008 and slap the out of himself!)

While I have no doubt I would thoroughly enjoy the engaging, character-focused, action/adventure game you ran on its own merits, I would enjoy it for what it is as opposed to the sword and sorcery, survival-focused, indifferent world, highly exploratory game I generally crave when I want to play/run D&D! (That and as you say, the edition matured a fair bit from when I picked it up. Some of the maths improved to the point where if the DM works to understand them, the subsystems can provide the experience advertised and the advice/play guidance came into focus to fit the game engine).