Mercurius
Legend
I just read the James Wyatt Interrogation, Part 2 with interest, such as his implication that the next setting (2011) will be a new one (or that is how he would like it). With regards to 5E, he said:
He went on to give two examples of things he would change: rituals and magic items.
This got me thinking: What are the obviously broken parts about 4E, by consensus opinion? Okay, it goes without saying that everyone might have a slightly different answer to this question and there may not be an "objective" answer, but let's try to take it beyond the purely personal or subjective into the inter-subjective.
When we look at 3E, it seems an obvious example of brokenness was high level play in general, especially the reliance on magic items and the fact that spellcasters became much more powerful than other classes (although many folks didn't mind this).
Wyatt mentioned rituals and magic items; these seem strong candidates, as do skill challenges. What else?
To be clear, I'm not asking what you don't like about 4E, but what many people have said they don't like to the point that it seems obvious that things will be different in 5E. So the list so far:
Rituals
Magic Items
Skill Challenges
Another that comes to mind is the extreme imbalance in the ratio of combat to non-combat powers, but maybe this is partially why Wyatt mentions rituals. While the idea of rituals being separate is nice, I've found the actuality to be very problematic (and I'm dabbling with house rules to bring them back into the fold, even simply making them utility powers and giving spellcasters extra slots; but I digress...).
"I wouldn’t change the big picture. There are little things I would change. The way we are approaching updates to the game now is releasing errata and rules updates all the time so the game is always growing and changing. We can tweak things as we go. Every once in a while things come that we say “oh gee, it would be nice if we could fix that but it will have to wait until 5th edition” because it is too big of a change...
He went on to give two examples of things he would change: rituals and magic items.
This got me thinking: What are the obviously broken parts about 4E, by consensus opinion? Okay, it goes without saying that everyone might have a slightly different answer to this question and there may not be an "objective" answer, but let's try to take it beyond the purely personal or subjective into the inter-subjective.
When we look at 3E, it seems an obvious example of brokenness was high level play in general, especially the reliance on magic items and the fact that spellcasters became much more powerful than other classes (although many folks didn't mind this).
Wyatt mentioned rituals and magic items; these seem strong candidates, as do skill challenges. What else?
To be clear, I'm not asking what you don't like about 4E, but what many people have said they don't like to the point that it seems obvious that things will be different in 5E. So the list so far:
Rituals
Magic Items
Skill Challenges
Another that comes to mind is the extreme imbalance in the ratio of combat to non-combat powers, but maybe this is partially why Wyatt mentions rituals. While the idea of rituals being separate is nice, I've found the actuality to be very problematic (and I'm dabbling with house rules to bring them back into the fold, even simply making them utility powers and giving spellcasters extra slots; but I digress...).