D&D 5E What direction should 5th edition take?

[eriktheguy]

How so? I'm not understanding what you mean here.

Surges is one factor for limiting encounters, but Dailies is another. But who wants to limit encounters anyway. There should be fewer limits on encounters per day, not more. IMO.

Okay

Without surges, money would still be a limiting factor (I know my players do not want to spend a lot on healing resources).

And, the number of heals per encounter is still limited to powers.

That could work. Remove surges completely. Wizards used surges in place of money to limit the adventuring day. The idea was that the adventuring day should be limited by the players abilities, not their bank account. But in practice the adventuring day doesn't need to be limited that much. Healing is still limited by encounter, which is great. The only issue I see is that people would find characters making complete recoveries every 5 minutes is not realistic. That's why I like the present system. If we want to encourage longer days, and less restrictions by surge, could we offer bonus surges at milestones, or do we need a new system?

3) you seem to "actively want" the game to encourage the following sequence. Characterization dropping all subtleties...

"I hit it with my sword" snooze... "I hit it with my sword" snooze
here somebody take over my character... not a problem we
can say "I hit it with my sword" in between getting to make all
the interesting choices with the interest effects... you go take a nap

That is for me a worst of from earlier versions it made game play terrible..
show time was lopsided at low levels the wizard was a one shot wonder and just about pointless... at highlevels he made everyone pointless (except his slave priest).. uber versatility and vaguely defined illusions and wish magics you are talking with such glowing terms about was the cause... of the bad element of characters being marginalized. Ultra versatile illusions are battlefield wish spells in disguise.

High count durations are annoying and easy to loose track of - and you claim to not like book-keeping sheesh... that sounds like a worst of to me. effects which last the duration of an encounter work fine.

I think we can all agree that with the present system, fighters do not spend every turn saying 'I swing my sword'. That wasn't even true in my 3e group, and certainly is not true in 4e. I don't think that Karinsdad et al. are trying to say that the current power system is bad for fighters, they are trying to say it is bad for Wizards and some other classes. I would not modify the fighter powers at this point, but I would consider overhauling some other classes, such as wizards. Giving them a few spectacular dailies that can do more than just a standard power seems within balance and flavor. A few real illusions and charms would be nice too. I didn't mind that wizards turns took longer in 3e, it gave the combat flavor. The fighters at my table didn't mind, because they knew that on their turn they would be cleaving through another 1 or 2 enemies. As long as every player feels they are contributing, I don't mind if the wizards turns are sometimes the longest and most showy at the table. The game wouldn't be Dungeons and Dragons if it didn't have its Wizards and Warriors.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't mind if the wizards turns are sometimes the longest and most showy at the table.

I certainly did and would if it were made to be true... but I guess they earned it by being sporadically contributing wimps for multiple levels right? see how balanced that was they got to pay for the show time...

I read novels where the warriors moves are interesting and vividly described... and the same is true of the wizards. (video games and some movies fall short - and over glorify magic.)

I happen to agree with some of the things in KD's post but in my eyes the things I liked were overshadowed by asking for things with very negative indicators like frequent free form illusions... and making some classes substantially less versatile purely because they arent magic.

 

[KarinsDad]

3) you seem to "actively want" the game to encourage the following sequence. Characterization dropping all subtleties...

"I hit it with my sword" snooze... "I hit it with my sword" snooze
here somebody take over my character... not a problem we
can say "I hit it with my sword" in between getting to make all
the interesting choices with the interest effects... you go take a nap

You miscontrue.

I agree that swinging a sword and only doing damage ad infinitum was bad.

Giving one class few options and one class many options does not mean that the class with few options just swings his sword. That sword swing can still push foes or whirlwind attack multiple foes.

It means that the player that is uncomfortable looking through a large stack of powers to decide which power is going to be used can instead look through a smaller stack. Granted, the player could do this anyway by just ignoring some powers and not using them, but larger stacks do present problems in campaigns where missing players have their PC played by other players like in our campaign.

That is for me a worst of from earlier versions it made game play terrible..
show time was lopsided at low levels the wizard was a one shot wonder and just about pointless... at highlevels he made everyone pointless (except his slave priest).. uber versatility and vaguely defined illusions and wish magics you are talking with such glowing terms about was the cause... of the bad element of characters being marginalized. Ultra versatile illusions are battlefield wish spells in disguise.

An illusion is battlefield control. It rarely in 3E resulted in the bad guys being totally controlled. It often had them swinging at air for a while or something, but a solid wall of stone could prevent actions from occurring in both 3E and 4E as well.

Are wall spells in 4E bad because they are one PC controlling the situation?

I agree with you that uber high level spells were bad. I disagree that nerfing the classes so that their spells last one round or even to the end of the encounter and often once per day is the best solution.

High count durations are annoying and easy to loose track of - and you claim to not like book-keeping sheesh... that sounds like a worst of to me. effects which last the duration of an encounter work fine.

High count durations (i.e. last more than one encounter) are as difficult to keep track of as low count until the end of the encounter durations.

The advantage of having other durations in the game system is versatility for the players.

The problem I have is that most durations last a round. This is the problem.

As a DM, I have to put a marker or token on the NPC and 3 minutes later, I have to remove it (or a player might do so if s/he is closer). With more longer condition durations in the game system, we would not need to do that.

A significant portion of our game in 4E is placing various condition tokens on the miniatures (bloodied, stunned, dazed, slowed, ongoing damage, etc.) and then turning around and removing them moments later.

A lot of game time is wasted doing this. It adds up.


But the problem is more a game feel problem.

Magics such as Flying or Invisibility are nerfed to the point of near uselessness. Why play a Wizard when you can play a Sorcerer because the game system is damage oriented instead of fun oriented?

Look at Fly:

3.5: Multiple times per day, 5th level, could use on allies, could put on scrolls, can only be dispelled with magic and then, not too easy.

4E: Once per day, 16th level, can not use on allies, can not put on a scroll, fairly easy to dispel by anyone except minions (i.e. make it difficult for Wizard to use minor action, stun, daze, etc.).

There is no flavor there. Fly is a footnote in 4E. It has extremely limited versatility and use. Many players of Wizards will never even get to 16th level to use it. zzzzzzz


But, the Eladrin and Warlocks can Teleport right and left at level one, often out of melee range. WT??? That's just plain bad game design.

Fly should be a LOT more common than Teleport. IMO.

 

[Garthanos]

You miscontrue.

I agree that swinging a sword and only doing damage ad infinitum was bad.

Giving one class few options and one class many options does not mean that the class with few options just swings his sword. That sword swing can still push foes or whirlwind attack multiple foes.

Its a matter of comparison...
And you claim those secondary options are meaningless elsewhere in your posts? so you are being rather inconsistant....which cake is yours? I know you want both.

Sure give wizards 5x the options then depending on which ones they pick... today Im a defender.. tomorrow Im a striker with accuracy the next day Im a striker with damage.. etc.
Does that not seem what uber versatility is about? The holy grail has some icky stuff which smells a little like stepping on everyones toes...and I think it was removed on purpose.

 

[Turtlejay]

Again, a promising discussion is turned into a '4e sucks, and this is why' thread.

One thing that 4e does well is give classes a lot of options, so that everyone can have a chance to do something cool, and shine. 5e would be taking a large step back by ignoring that or bringing back the batman wizard. I think you dismiss Garthanos' argument to quickly. Before 4e, martial classes either had to be built around a schtick (spiked chain tripper! ranged monstrosity!) or be stuck in the "i swing my sword" every round rut. Eliminating full attacks was a big step in the right direction, and giving them powers (maneuvers, tactics, if powers is distasteful) was another.

In any case, I stick to my earlier assertion that 5e will be different enough from the current edition that these arguments will largely not matter at all.

Jay

 

[KarinsDad]

Its a matter of comparison...
And you claim those secondary options are meaningless elsewhere in your posts? so you are being rather inconsistant....which cake is yours? I know you want both.

I didn't say meanless. If you are going to change what I say, it's not worth my time to talk with you.

 

[Garthanos]

I didn't say meanless. If you are going to change what I say, it's not worth my time to talk with you.

It's called paraphrasing.... dont talk if you dont want.
Here is another paraphrase .

You said they failed to differentiate powers to the degree that they resulted in for you an objectionable amount of sameness in the over all game capabilities of characters and make powers seem all about damaging.

They must not create meaningful differences in effect if tis all about damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's called paraphrasing.... dont talk if you dont want.

Paraphrasing is when you basically state what the other person stated.

I said:

The fact that one minor effect is a slide and one is a buff and one is a debuff and one is a heal does add a bit of non-homogenousness. But the damage is the primary effect here.

and

And, there is little difference between buffing an ally's to hit, debuffing a foe's defense, and sliding a foe into flank. All of these improve the chance to hit. They are merely different game mechanics to achieve more or less the same thing. Identical, no. Similar, yes.

Homogenous does not necessarily mean identical and hence totally meaningless. It means similar and hence repetitive between classes. So, please don't say that I meant meaningless when I meant nothing of the sort.


The homogenous aspect is that:

1) All PCs get basically the same number of same type powers.
2) The powers often do damage and some minor effect.
3) The minor effects often result in a similar overall game result (i.e. debuff to defense ~= buff to attack ~= shift to flank foe ~= shift foe into flank).
4) Each PC uses the same old At Will and Encounter powers day in and day out for levels on end with little variation. There is limited versatility.

The non-homogenous aspect is that:

1) Some classes do more ranged attacks, some do more melee.
2) Some classes do more area effect attacks, some do more solo attacks.
3) Some classes do different types of conditions, some do the same types.

But these non-homogenous aspects are in most versions of DND. Sure, there are a few different conditions in 4E like bloodied, but that's not that special.


Another example of homogenous effects. The Druid hits a foe with power that causes damage if the foe does not moves. The Fighter hits a foe with a mark. If the foe moves, the Fighter might do damage to him. If the foe does not move, the Druid damages him. For all intents and purposes, these effects are the similar. One causes damage if the foe moves, one if he does not.

Is this COOL that the Druid can cause damage if the foe does not move. Not really. It's damage. It's just another way of doing damage. In fact, it is merely a game mechanic added in to add another game mechanic. There is no real nice flavor there. Yeah, the foe might decide to stay put and hence it can affect the foe's actions, but meh. Where's the beef? Where's the cool factor? And why is this not overly repetitive after being used for 100 straight encounters?

 

[Garthanos]

Fly should be a LOT more common than Teleport. IMO.

Me too.. but isnt that just a flavor difference? A universe with weaker barriers between the planes versus one with more affinity to air elementals or something similar?

 

[The Little Raven]

A Fighter does indeed feel like other classes due to similarities of powers. Need an area effect, a Fighter can accomplish this.

If this is true, then this should be easy for you to prove.

Where can I find...

...an Area power in the Fighter list?

...a power that deals energy damage of some type (fire, acid, cold, lightning, thunder, radiant, necrotic, psychic, poison) on the Fighter list?

...a Fighter power that teleports the fighter or a target?

...a Fighter power that dominates a target?

...a Fighter power that creates a zone or conjuration?

...a Fighter power that heals another target?

...a Fighter power which grants or takes advantage of concealment?

Allow Wizards to Fly.

You mean "Allow wizards to fly almost immediately," since wizards can fly, they just have to wait.

Do not have a 6 delta between one PC and the next on a starting defense and then only raise 2 out of the 3 defenses with level advancement.

All 4e Defenses increase with level advancement.

Monsters have no Healing Surges.

Yes, they do.