D&D 4E What I want from 4E DnD in 3 simple steps.

[Incenjucar]

Regarding Trap Options: These are absolutely a problem. R&D should not be dropping these into the game as often as they do. We should frankly have never had a reason for people to make feats to de-trap certain at-wills. That said, a prior failure should not be a justification for a failure to improve. Ideally, all trap options would be fixed, but then the anti-errata crowd would throw a tantrum.

Regarding Synergy Power Creep: There have always been synergies between some sets of options, while other options have lacked that synergy. In most cases, new synergies don't really add power creep to the game so much as they bring more options up to the original high-end synergy power level. WotC has been pretty good about cutting powers down when they creep too high.

Regarding Savvy: Any game of any complexity will always favor people who spend more time studying it. Thing is, rather than forcing everyone to play the same character and making the flexibility-loving people angsty, WotC can very easily just put out well-designed thematic reccomended builds from which people can diverge when they grow more savvy. The example 1st level build packages all the way back to the PHB1 prove that at least someone at WotC is terrible at this, but there has to be someone who works there who is both good at math and knows the game. And if not, hey, Freelancers. There's no reason to hobble the advantaged when you can just give the advantage to everyone.

 

[Riastlin]

I don't even see the runepriest as ending up being much different from the cleric in terms of mechanical effect. I get that there's a lot more to it than that (OK, I could maybe keep that in mind a bit better sometimes, I guess), but I'd really like to see more stuff that actually behaves differently at the table.

I can accept that players like customizing their characters, and I'm sorry (and this goes out to Incenjucar too) if I've been marginalizing that. Good new options are, well, good too; albeit I'd like to see them better organized and I think maybe the powers books where a bit too much all at once. But I really am somewhat distressed at what I see as an emphasis on "meaningful choices" while alone in front of the CB over "meaningful choices" at the table. You only get to play one character at a time, once you sit down at the table I don't think a pre-gen is really much more a "lack of options" as a character you spent hours working on. Maybe it's just the people I've been playing with, but 4e doesn't seem to encourage collaboration in character generation much (or even as much as it seems it should, given possible synergies, etc.). And I'm just old-school enough to at least want to say that "if it didn't happen at the table, then it doesn't matter".

Well, having played both the runepriest and the cleric, I can say that they are definitely quite different in my opinion, though that is a topic for a different thread. Suffice it to say that I think one of the biggest problems the runepriest has is the inclusion of "priest" in its name which has lead to many of the beliefs that it really should just be a sub-class of the cleric. To be fair though, I think it could be legitimately argued that just about all of the classes could be designated as a sub-class of about 3 or 4 different base classes. Again though, I think that's an issue for a different thread.

As to your comment about meaningful choices in front of the character builder vs. meaningful choices at the table, I actually agree to an extent. As important as I think having meaningful choices in the character building phase is, I believe that meaningful choices in play (or at the table as you describe it) are far more important. In other words, I see choices at the table being a railroading issue, and generally speaking, railroading should be avoided.

Your collaboration comment is interesting. I think the "issue" with 4ed is that it really is set up so that you no longer need to have certain classes or roles in the group. That is, its certainly possible for a group to survive without a leader (harder in some instances perhaps, but possible). Same with the other roles. This, I think, is a bit of a shift away from past editions. Previously there were times where you absolutely needed an arcane caster, and life without a healer was next to impossible and could lead to the 5 minute work week. In fact, I remember the common joke at one time was "Last one to the table has to jump on the cleric grenade". A cleric was seen as essential, yet boring. As such, I think this is actually a strength of 4ed in general, but I do see what you are talking about.

Getting the group together is often seen by DMs (including myself) as the responsibility of the players. In other words, its up to them to decide why they are adventuring together. Add this to the fact that it was "known" that you would have a cleric and a wizard (for instance) in the group and it made it pretty easy for the guy building the fighter to put in some background that would create interesting interactions for the group. The fighter could, for example, say in his background that he has always hated clerics for what the church did to his sister, and leave it at that. You knew there would be a cleric in the group and now there's the potential for animosity. Now, its not even guaranteed that there'll be a caster in the group. On the one hand, it makes it a bit easier to create a character because you don't necessarily need to worry about what the rest of the group is doing, but you are right in that it also I think can lead to less of a group identity, which is kind of ironic since 4ed is far more about teamwork than prior editions were.

 

[IanB]

I am under the impression that there was some kind of dispute or problem with the 3rd party developer that was doing the software for them that is part of why they ended up moving development for the character builder/adventure tools in house and having to start over?

I can't really imagine why they would have thought it was a good idea to have to start from scratch unless someone felt they 'had' to because of something like that.

 

[P1NBACK]

My thought: WotC is gearing up for a 5E. Enjoy 4E for what it is, while it lasts.

 

[Herschel]

Yeah, I totally read this as a Seeker specialized in using humans as thrown weapons.

Now THAT would be totally sweet. At-Will power: Battlefield foepile

Target: one adjacent enemy
Attack: Wis vs Fort
Hit: Target is grabbed. Push target up to STR modifier squares, can push in to secondary target's space.
Secondary attack: Wis vs. Reflex
Hit: Both targets take d6+Str modifier damage.
Effect: All targets hit by attack are knocked prone.


Part of what annoys me in Essentials is not only the human/elf/dwarf/halfling/fighter/cleric/mage/thief/ranger thing (which is a huge turn off) but that they gave what would have been good seeker powers to the mot$%#$^%#$^%# ranger while still leaving no other options for the throwing version. I really like the flovor of the thrown weapon version, but it seems most of my favorite stuff is getting shafted by the more"generic" stuff. I suppose I could rebuild my character, but I don't want to have a throw & stab striker, I want a controller. That was why I chose the thing in the first place.

Sorry, I try not to get pissy but the Essentials stuff is really turning me off any more.

 

[Ferghis]

3. Smart phone character sheet apps that track HP and power usage.

iPlay4e does exactly that. The author hasn't solved how to track item powers, and power points still have to be implemented, but it tracks everything else I know of. Surges, death saves, hp, used powers, milestones, AP, xp, and what have you.

And it supports dnd4e character files as well. And is optimized for mobile devices. Even tablets.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is an attitude that seriously worries me. The idea that there's no way to actually mitigate power-creep to the point that it isn't going to ruin the game and require a complete re-boot every couple of years.

Well, every 3-10 years, depending on the pace of publication. The reason for the 'attitude' is mere impiricism. It's always worked that way. Even 4e, which finally bucked D&D penchant for class imbalance, didn't quite buck the power-creep problem.

4e's actually done fairly well in terms of older options hanging in there, except for the "math fix" foolishness.

4e did a little better by putting a lot of options in class and race 'silos' so the cross-pollenation effects (unintended synergies) didn't multiply quite as rapidly. It also did well in being more robust by using a common structure for all classes. (It's easier to balance dailies against dailes than at-wills against dailies - much easier - really, the former is possible, the latter impossible to do dependably.) Between 'siloing' and the common 'AEDU' structer, 4e was much more robust than prior versions of AD&D, and could handle more new material with less power creep. Then, of course, they put out crunch-heavy suplements for it at a tremendous rate. So, we were right back to it needing a re-boot after only 3 years.

I'm really, really bummed out that the Character Compendium is online-only, because I don't want to have to explain to another new player why some options aren't any good, or try and get them hooked up wih the errata...

? You mean the Compendium or the Character Builder?

 

[kaomera]

Regarding Trap Options: These are absolutely a problem. R&D should not be dropping these into the game as often as they do. We should frankly have never had a reason for people to make feats to de-trap certain at-wills. That said, a prior failure should not be a justification for a failure to improve. Ideally, all trap options would be fixed, but then the anti-errata crowd would throw a tantrum.

Well, personally, I feel that using feats to fix trap options is worse than the anti-errata crowd complaining... But that is just my opinion. And what's key here (for me) is that I want players to be able to create their characters to the best of their ability and, despite differences in that ability level, all play together and have fun. I agree that WotC has so far done a fairly good job of this, but I have seen some players who where less savvy (or perhaps more specifically, less well-informed) make some really huge blunders. Like several LFR characters made by first-time players that just couldn't perform to the point that it was just painful to watch.

And I don't mean to come off like I don't want to see new feats (Well, OK, I kind of don't because there's already too many to pick through) and powers and stuff. I just don't think that's enough, and I see a possibility that we could end up just throwing "support" at classes that need more than that to be really good. It may be that I'm just being paranoid... And I would ideally really, really love something to make me actually like the mechanical concept of the runepriest more. But I don't really expect that will happen... As is I'm just not interested in playing a class that fiddly, and while I'd like to be glad that it's there for those players who do want that extra complexity, I'm kind of worried that it would "rub off" enough that it wouldn't be any fun to play in a group including a runepriest.

As to your comment about meaningful choices in front of the character builder vs. meaningful choices at the table, I actually agree to an extent. As important as I think having meaningful choices in the character building phase is, I believe that meaningful choices in play (or at the table as you describe it) are far more important. In other words, I see choices at the table being a railroading issue, and generally speaking, railroading should be avoided.

Well, what I mean by "at the table" is, in part, that if you actually tell the other players "hey I picked up power X" and what it is and why you picked it up (and even better if you can fold it into the story) that means a heck of a lot more than just having it on your character sheet. With the speed at which 4e PCs level, most players seem to have enough on their plates keeping up with their own characters, without actually trying to figure out what everyone else's characters can do. RPGs are games of communication, and if you aren't communicating then IMO you really aren't playing the game. And, yes, I do kind of expect that to extend to collaboration, at least to the point of caring what everyone else is doing and making choices that take that into account. If it's the players' responsibility to "get the group together" the they should not be creating characters that don't / can't / won't fit together. (And I consider it part of my responsibility when I DM to help with this and also to create a space for the party to fit into within the world.)

I am under the impression that there was some kind of dispute or problem with the 3rd party developer that was doing the software for them that is part of why they ended up moving development for the character builder/adventure tools in house and having to start over?

Initially, back in early 2009 (IIRC?) that was the case. The more recent changeover from offline to online versions of the tools is the big issue right now. I think there was a particular reason for the change, but I'm not sure exactly what it was, if it was ever stated (for VTT compatibility?).

Part of what annoys me in Essentials is not only the human/elf/dwarf/halfling/fighter/cleric/mage/thief/ranger thing (which is a huge turn off) but that they gave what would have been good seeker powers to the mot$%#$^%#$^%# ranger while still leaving no other options for the throwing version. I really like the flovor of the thrown weapon version, but it seems most of my favorite stuff is getting shafted by the more"generic" stuff. I suppose I could rebuild my character, but I don't want to have a throw & stab striker, I want a controller. That was why I chose the thing in the first place.

Well, I never really dug the concept of the seeker, but I can sympathize to at least some extent. I think the thrown-weapon seeker should be fixed, and while I'm not convinced that more powers and feats is the best way to go about that it would be better than not fixing it at all. Now if WotC is actually not planning on ever touching on the seeker again, it would be appropriate (at the least) for them to say so, but I don't think that's actually the case. I do think that we might be more likely to see a thrown-weapon version of the hunter first. Which would be neat for me, but I can see where it would kind of suck if you just don't like the essentials stuff...

The thing is, I don't actually see where the seeker is getting "shafted" here, or at least no more than any other class. The product schedule is based on a lot of things, and it can't actually cover everything. There was never a Primal Power 2 on the schedule (and actually, with the stuff in HotWS, it would seem to be more appropriate now than before essentials), and HotWS wasn't ever going to have stuff for the actual seeker. So it doesn't seem more reasonable to me to complain about lack of "support" for the seeker than to complain that the publication of the other power books instead of just martial power 3, 4, 5, etc. "shafted" the fighter.

Well, every 3-10 years, depending on the pace of publication. The reason for the 'attitude' is mere impiricism. It's always worked that way. Even 4e, which finally bucked D&D penchant for class imbalance, didn't quite buck the power-creep problem.

Well, the big issue I see is the expertise feats. When they came out I argued that they where feats, and not simply an errata of some sort, for a reason and it wasn't just a goof-up on WotC's part. Well, even if that was true it did turn out to be a goof-up, because they've become mandatory, and now the second round of them in essentials has just mucked things up even more.

I agree that there needs to be an acceptance that power-creep exists, but more in the sense that I believe that it can be dealt with and that it's worthwhile to try and extend the life of the system as long as possible.

? You mean the Compendium or the Character Builder?

Class Compendium, actually.
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Warlord)

 

[Aegeri]

I honestly believe the game is better balanced now than it ever was on release. I still can't fathom power creep arguments, because the game was god awfully imbalanced on release by epic. The stuff even reasonably optimized PCs could do just with PHB options still makes me twitch to this day. I would never run an epic tier game with just the original PHB and MM ever again. It was amazingly stressful and difficult to say the least. I'll take all the current "power creep" any day.

Well, personally, I feel that using feats to fix trap options is worse than the anti-errata crowd complaining... But that is just my opinion. And what's key here (for me) is that I want players to be able to create their characters to the best of their ability and, despite differences in that ability level, all play together and have fun. I agree that WotC has so far done a fairly good job of this, but I have seen some players who where less savvy (or perhaps more specifically, less well-informed) make some really huge blunders. Like several LFR characters made by first-time players that just couldn't perform to the point that it was just painful to watch.

I have to 100% agree with you. I like to think about what Matt James wrote in another thread on themes a lot lately. Particularly when you could bake things like expertise right into themes and eliminate them from the game. Not only are you doing so in a rules element that doesn't feel tacked on - themes integrate beautifully with 4E - but it would remove the "feat tax" issues entirely.

I also would like errata that improves and fixes broken elements as well and by broken I don't mean "Overpowered", I mean just plain crap options. Nerfing things is fine, but I wouldn't mind some fluffy and interesting things get a buff to actually make them viable mechanically. Furious Berserker for example is a really neat Barbarian PP with a great amount of flavor, but nobody will ever take it due to the ridiculous stunning mechanic (and that you can get yourself into a minion tarpit and do functionally nothing for a considerable amount of time).

But as Wizards have said they are unlikely to fix elements of stuff that was broken before (unless you're a wizard class /sarcasm), this isn't likely to happen unfortunately. It's what I would like to see happen, because there are many things that if changed slightly - not massively but slightly - can be just as fun and viable options as stuff people already are taking. Many of the problems with things in 4E are small mechanical things (though this isn't always true). You don't have to take a sledgehammer to many things to actually fix them - just small tweaks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And I don't mean to come off like I don't want to see new feats (Well, OK, I kind of don't because there's already too many to pick through) and powers and stuff. I just don't think that's enough, and I see a possibility that we could end up just throwing "support" at classes that need more than that to be really good. It may be that I'm just being paranoid...

No, that's a real phenomenon. One thing they can never do is go "OK, the game is just wonderful as it is, we'll stop adding to the rules now: just adventures and settings from here on out." That'd just be hell on sales.

Well, the big issue I see is the expertise feats. When they came out I argued that they where feats, and not simply an errata of some sort, for a reason and it wasn't just a goof-up on WotC's part. Well, even if that was true it did turn out to be a goof-up, because they've become mandatory, and now the second round of them in essentials has just mucked things up even more.

Yep. I was amazed by that. WotC heard, loud and clear, that Expertise 'feat tax' was not well received, so they made them /more powerful/, so they're even more 'must have?'

Class Compendium, actually.
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Warlord)

Ah. So you were dissapointed that the book was cancelled. Me too. It would have made the PH1 classes "Essentials+" and Encounters-legal. I could've be playing a Warlord instead of a Mage, right now.