D&D 4E What can Next do to pull in 4e campaigns?

[Scrivener of Doom]

Given what they've been acomplishing with the latest Encounters and Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle I'm also intrigued. I adapted Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle a bit and ran the first part using 13th Age, it's all looking good. I'll even be willing to try the system if they keep it up, if only to avoid the extra conversion work needed (even though customizing/creating stuff for 4E and 13th Age is a breeze).

Good points and that reminds me of something I should have added to my post.

I hated Murder in Baldur's Gate and thought it heralded more crappy WotC adventures (that's an IMO, of course: I know lots of people loved it) but then I got Legacy of the Crystal Shard and Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and was really, really happy with both. If the other Next products are like those latter two I will be picking them up even if I am running 4E or 13th Age. And - who knows? - maybe eventually the system will grow on me after a few more really good products and I won't be a Next-hater any more.

Anyway, the ball is in WotC's court to deliver solid products. Spin won't cut it; only substance will.

 

[ccooke]

Good points and that reminds me of something I should have added to my post.

I hated Murder in Baldur's Gate and thought it heralded more crappy WotC adventures (that's an IMO, of course: I know lots of people loved it) but then I got Legacy of the Crystal Shard and Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and was really, really happy with both. If the other Next products are like those latter two I will be picking them up even if I am running 4E or 13th Age. And - who knows? - maybe eventually the system will grow on me after a few more really good products and I won't be a Next-hater any more.

Anyway, the ball is in WotC's court to deliver solid products. Spin won't cut it; only substance will.

This is definitely the only way Next can truly succeed. I'm glad that the adventures they've been putting out recently are generally seen as an improvement, too - I think most of us will agree that it's not been their strong point over the last few years.

I'm already planning to use 5e and none of the groups I run or play in use pre-made settings or adventures, but even then the quality of material WotC put out will affect us; the more material of good quality out there, the longer 5th edition will last and the greater chance it'll be easy to find new groups and players.

 

[GX.Sigma]

We never did get all of the original promises out of 4E, like shadow and elemental classes

I can remember Heroes of Shadow and elemental sorcerers off the top of my head.

 

[Incenjucar]

I can remember Heroes of Shadow and elemental sorcerers off the top of my head.

A garbage book with garbage rules for ONE pure shadow class with terrible rules and an arcane class.

I'm not saying that Shadow and Elemental has to have a million builds like wizards do all on their own, but at least make them on par with Psionics.

It's a large part of why WotC lost any trust I had in them.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm not saying that Shadow and Elemental has to have a million builds like wizards do all on their own, but at least make them on par with Psionics.

Is that what they promised?

 

[Incenjucar]

Is that what they promised?

It was implied in the pre-release books that they would be power sources along the lines of divine, arcane, martial, etc.

And then things started shifting at WotC and they just kind of threw mostly-bad rules out without real effort or support. Mind you, there are some things I really really like about the Elemental book, but it has some really shoddy rules problems. The Shadow book was so bad it's one of the only books I won't pick up unless I see it in a bargain bin for $1 or something.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

In order to pull in my campaigns, Next is going to have to cover all the bases that 4e does, and equally well or better. So far, I can't cover even a fifth of said bases, which is to be expected in a new edition, so I can't really fault it for that. YET.

Also, this much-talked-about Tactical module is going to have to knock things out of the park.

I would also like it if the PR machine would tone down the anti-4e rhetoric. I'll grant that it wasn't as bad as the anti-3.x rhetoric at the end of that edition, but it still does nothing to making me want to give them my money. "You can't yell his arm back on" indeed.

 

[Lokiare]

I think D&D Next can pull in 4e campaigns that are fatigued. If your game sessions are nothing but big, long, grindy, grid-based combats (in which the PCs are never in danger). If you miss a seamless transition from exploration to encounter and think you might like ToM over Grid. If you are tired of indestructible characters with unlimited healing. And, if you have had it up to here with the dazed condition – then I think D&D Next will be a refreshing change.

If you have this kind of fatigue, I'd suggest taking a look at www.angrydm.com and his article series on creating encounters. Its a good read and a good method for any edition of D&D and it is really helping my 4E fatigue (We are at mid Paragon and my players love taking off turn actions and one seeks out combat no matter what to the horror of the other players)...

 

[Pour]

My group is currently playtesting a bunch of different systems representative of generations of my setting, the winner with our group being the rules for our next extended campaign. We've just begun 13th Age and that is going to be hard to beat. I plan on also trying Savage Worlds, Dungeonworld, Beyond the Wall, Gossamer & Shadows, DCCRPG (I know they won't choose it, but I love playing it now and then), a modified 4e (pushing the envelope and 4.5e threads have got me really interested in a tinkering of the system), and lastly 5e. So it's basically going to have to win out over those.

 

[Raith5]

I can't speak for anyone else, even within my own groups, but that Mearls quote doesn't fill me with hope.

For me, you can't "capture the best parts of 4th Edition" (even when specifically talking about the tactical aspects of combat) by providing a tacked-on tactical module that presents "basic combat options … any character can attempt".

Combat roles, along with class-specific features, feats, and power-lists that support those roles and class-specific ways of performing them contribute rather significantly to the depth and variety of tactical combat in the system.

I agree with this. When Isee WOTC (or someone else) equate 4th edition with tactical combat - I thinkthey misunderstood the game. It is not the whole point of 4th edition.

As such I think the real innovations of 4th edwere introducing: new forms of pacing (encounter powers); backing teamwork andsynergistic play with hard mechanics (roles, powers for all classes); new(quite hard) mechanics for social and exploration (utility powers and skillchallenges); hp as a limited strategic resource (healing surges); and variousforms of PC empowerment (in the form of action points, interrupting powers, thestructure of skill challenges) which meant that players had a great deal ofinfluence over the direction of combat and the game .

Also FWIW i think the system of staticdefences in 4th ed is more elegant and intuitive than the DDN system of saves.

I dont think 4th ed is perfect, combatscertainly grind and characters get too complicated in my view, but I think DDNneeds to consider ways of including some of the innovations of 4th ed if it isgoing to hook fans of 4th ed.