What did Wizards learn from Essentials?

[SensoryThought]

Recently my 4e group of 4 split the party - a long term campaign split due to differing goals. As a result I am running the two groups in parallel (3-4 sessions then swap). I took the opportunity for the players to create 4 new essentials characters to join the long running PCs for the off weeks.

The players took as assassin (executioner), bladesinger, hexblade, and slayer. All commented they feel like they have a relative lack of abilities, despite being the same or higher level. The slayer finds the class particularly boring but is enjoying being a revenant and his backstory. The bladesinger likes her powers but is also enjoying being a little more morally grey. The executioner is having fun, even if all he does is garrote people. The hexblade is relatively new, and I think the essentials character makes a better introduction than the standard 4e warlord she started with.

Personally I like the flavor of Essentials, but I don't know if Wizards learned anything other than D&D players will always find ways to gripe about something new. Scratch that - if the learned that lesson they wouldn't be attempting 5e.

 

[Remathilis]

In my view, the distinction between "fluff" and "crunch" is silly. Notice how the posters above can't agree on which parts of 3E fireball are the fluff. The way I see it, the entire description is rules text; some of the rules are laid out in precise detail, others are looser and more colloquial, but the glowing bead and the low roar are every bit as much rules text as "1d6 per caster level." That's why they get all mixed together in spell descriptions from older editions--because they're all part of the same thing, which is the description of the spell effect. The "statblock" portion of the spell is merely providing certain data which are common across most/all spells.

4E's decision to split up "fluff" and "crunch," and put the former in italics and away from the main block of the power--doing everything they could to signal ignore this stuff, it doesn't matter--is what I object to. I don't mind having spells and powers be short and to the point. In fact, I approve of it; the 3E spell description is almost comically overwritten. (I'm tempted to insert something about how the glowing bead is neither running nor tarrying as it flies to its destination.)

Likewise, I don't think we need class descriptions to run on for pages and pages. I do, however, want to erase the "fluff-crunch" divide as much as possible. Putting all the "fluff" in a block at the front does not help with this.

I agree with you, there is also a bit of poetry/prose distinction going on as well. The 3.5 fireball is descriptive at the cost of being quick to reference (though the top material is still pretty functional; all it lacks is the effect in summary). The 4e one feels like a jumble of code and jargon; making perfect sense to those who can read it and looking like html to those who don't. It is efficient, but lacks a strong feeling of what its supposed to be (which is a boon to re-fluffers, but terrible at explaining exactly what a fireball is/does.)

That's one example. The text about continuing past a barrier if that barrier is destroyed is another. Chareolis gave you some more.

Really, the /whole/ area you blued could, depending upon interpretation, be rules of one sort or another. I just pointed out the clearest example, one that used game jargon.

For that matter, a bit of the red area could be fluff.

Because 3e made no distinction between fluff and crunch, the whole text description of the spell is potentially either or both. It's open to interpretation. For instance, 'low roar.' Is the fact that it's 'low' meant indicate that it's less likely to be heard from a distance, or does 'roar' mean it's loud and 'low' merely pitch?

If it were done with separate fluff and crunch, the crunch might give a DC (probably quite low) to hear the detonation, with distance and intervening barriers making it possible to miss it, and the player would be free to have a fireball that detonated with something other than a roar (just in case it mattered to him), or, indeed, didn't detonate at all, imploding or swirling about, for instance.

I hate (with a furious passion) the iron fence made out of radioactive tigers that separate fluff/crunch in 4e. There is some good fluff that seems utterly divorced from the rules that follows, and there are rules that I cannot find a justification for (why do wizards use spellbooks, but sorcerers/warlocks don't? Why do all tieflings have anger-management issues? How DOES an eladrin teleport? Why do all monsters blindly charge a fighter using CAGI? And don't even get me started on the first Monster Manual, which was so utterly devoid of fluff I needed the 3.5 MM to describe the monsters in it!)

D&D needs both fluff and crunch. It needs in-game rationale for things, and descriptions beyond keywords and die-codes. As an experienced DM, I could compensate for the lack of good fluff with old edition knowledge; heaven help me if I was a first time DM here...

I re-coloured the text, but still had trouble. The text uses long sentences to describe rules/effects.

Better (and more accurate, vs my "here are the number parts vs. here is the text/description part), but I could debate you the last sentence (the melts gold one) as fluff since there is no rule given for it, merely a suggestion of a rule (such items should save or just feel destroyed, depending on circumstance and DM interpretation, not a hard/fast rule like the damage die or touch attack).

 

[Hassassin]

I agree with you, there is also a bit of poetry/prose distinction going on as well. The 3.5 fireball is descriptive at the cost of being quick to reference (though the top material is still pretty functional; all it lacks is the effect in summary).

The summary is in the spell list, which makes sense, since that's what you look at when picking spells. You only look at the spell entry if you need to check a detail, in which case chances are it wouldn't be part of the summary in any case.

 

[Remathilis]

The summary is in the spell list, which makes sense, since that's what you look at when picking spells. You only look at the spell entry if you need to check a detail, in which case chances are it wouldn't be part of the summary in any case.

I thought about that after the fact. Some spells actually can be run decently with that effect line, most are too vague to be helpful. Still, it was a good idea to describe the spell effect in a sentence, something that should return if all spells are clumped in one chapter again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

why do wizards use spellbooks, but sorcerers/warlocks don't?

Because wizards gain their acane skills from careful study and knowledge, while warlocks bargain with fell powers beyond mortal ken and sorcerers are just born with them.

Why do all tieflings have anger-management issues?

Because they're part devil.

How DOES an eladrin teleport?

He steps out of the plane he's on and back into it an instant later. Typically, for natural world to feywild and back, but obviously the reverse when in the feywild.

Why do all monsters blindly charge a fighter using CAGI?

They don't, they're pulled. Charging would mean provoking OAs and getting to attack at the end of the movement. Fighters are highly skilled combatants, it's hard to get away from them or manuever to advantage against them. CAGI models the ability of a fighter to gain and hold the attention of enemies in battle - as with so many exploits the details would vary with the opponents and the situation. One reason it's nice to have fluff separate - so it can be reflavored to make more sense in a broader range of circumstances.

And don't even get me started on the first Monster Manual, which was so utterly devoid of fluff I needed the 3.5 MM to describe the monsters in it!

Well, or you could show everyone the picture. One of the supposed selling points of the MM was that there was a pic of every monsters. I didn't care for it, either, to be honest, but whatever.

D&D needs both fluff and crunch. It needs in-game rationale for things, and descriptions beyond keywords and die-codes.

It still has both. It just has them separated, so the crunch is easier to understand and the fluff is easier to tailor to suit your campaign.

As an experienced DM, I could compensate for the lack of good fluff with old edition knowledge; heaven help me if I was a first time DM here...

Heh. First time DMs, on balance, have been having much better experiences with 4e than with prior eds. Clearer rules are no small part of that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Heh. First time DMs, on balance, have been having much better experiences with 4e than with prior eds. Clearer rules are no small part of that.

Wait, what?

I hate (with a furious passion) the iron fence made out of radioactive tigers that separate fluff/crunch in 4e. There is some good fluff that seems utterly divorced from the rules that follows, and there are rules that I cannot find a justification for (why do wizards use spellbooks, but sorcerers/warlocks don't? Why do all tieflings have anger-management issues? How DOES an eladrin teleport? Why do all monsters blindly charge a fighter using CAGI? And don't even get me started on the first Monster Manual, which was so utterly devoid of fluff I needed the 3.5 MM to describe the monsters in it!)

D&D needs both fluff and crunch. It needs in-game rationale for things, and descriptions beyond keywords and die-codes. As an experienced DM, I could compensate for the lack of good fluff with old edition knowledge; heaven help me if I was a first time DM here...

It is indeed very important that a beginner be able to learn how to translate game mechanics into common language and vice versa. There really needs to be a paradigm shift to make sure that the game is written so it makes sense for beginners and experts.

 

[Number48]

Here's the answer they won't tell you. "We learned that if you have the brand of Dungeons and Dragons, which is not just the most recognizable but often the only recognizable roleplaying brand, and you are only the 2nd top-selling game of your genre, and the top-selling game of your genre was built from what you threw away, then you are very, very lucky to still have a job."

 

[Remathilis]

Because wizards gain their acane skills from careful study and knowledge, while warlocks bargain with fell powers beyond mortal ken and sorcerers are just born with them.

A badly worded example. I meant "why do wizards get to use a spellbook to swap dailies, when other arcane classes don't." All other classes seem to get magical innately without any tools beyond an implement, but the wizard's spellbook should be very important, yet it warrants a paragraph at most.

ADDED: "If you replace a spell because of gaining a level or through retraining, the previous spells vanishes from your spellbook and is replaced by the new spell."

Is it written in invisible ink? Is like a spell scroll? So much for searching for lost arcane lore; it only lasts while the wizard keeps the spell slot open...

Because they're part devil.

Devils were never known for their rage, they were the methodical, calculated evil. Either way, all we have is one line of text that refers to a "furious nature" but none of the other two-page spread discusses why, or even really mentions tieflings having anger issues.

He steps out of the plane he's on and back into it an instant later. Typically, for natural world to feywild and back, but obviously the reverse when in the feywild.

Again, it doesn't say that anywhere, it just says "...you vanish from one place and appear in another." It doesn't mention if you do this by going to the feywild or back, stopping time for 6 seconds, or having the Enterprise beam you up and down again. Why can they do this? Biology? Magic? IT DOESN'T SAY!

They don't, they're pulled. Charging would mean provoking OAs and getting to attack at the end of the movement. Fighters are highly skilled combatants, it's hard to get away from them or manuever to advantage against them. CAGI models the ability of a fighter to gain and hold the attention of enemies in battle - as with so many exploits the details would vary with the opponents and the situation. One reason it's nice to have fluff separate - so it can be reflavored to make more sense in a broader range of circumstances.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!!! "You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget." It basically tells me my fighter can scream "Get over here" and anyone (mages, bloodied foes, or Orcus) walk over and get their beating.

Well, or you could show everyone the picture. One of the supposed selling points of the MM was that there was a pic of every monsters. I didn't care for it, either, to be honest, but whatever.

Even the picture (which I dislike holding up my book and say "you fight this") it doesn't give me anything on a.) what these monsters do when not fighting PCs and b.) what differs an goblin cutter from a goblin dogsmasher beyond numbers?

It still has both. It just has them separated, so the crunch is easier to understand and the fluff is easier to tailor to suit your campaign.

It gave a a nod to description, but cares more about stat blocks. The preview books had wonderful fluff, and little of it made it into the core books. This was the biggest failure of 4e.

Additionally, I never had problem using 3.5 spells to make new ones, or refluffing a hobgoblin to be a new monster.

Heh. First time DMs, on balance, have been having much better experiences with 4e than with prior eds. Clearer rules are no small part of that.

Clearer bland rules are no substitute for rich, slightly confusing rules. The 1e AD&D DMG invoke a helluva lot more on the world, the rationales, and the belief behind the game, even if the initiative rules were unusable as written.

 

[Hassassin]

Because they're part devil.

Devils were never known for their rage, they were the methodical, calculated evil.

I thought tieflings could have any type of fiendish blood in their veins? It would make more sense if they had a trait depending on that type. Anger issues might work with demons.

 

[SensoryThought]

Remathilis, I like a lot about the mechanics of 4e, but I would definitely concede the point about the core rules being dry and low on fluff. I'd actually have preferred less powers but greater scope to tweak those powers (ie have wizards be able to cast 'elemental bolts' of which they could chose cold, fire, acid etc) as well as greater flavor.

Ultimately, as an experienced DM I don't mind the lack of fluff in the core rules as I can make up the flavor based on past gaming. It comes down to the question, are the core rules a resource for experienced players and DMs to get the numbers or a method for engaging the imagination, drawing new players in, and teach them how to role play?