What will happen to 4th edition?

[Imaro]

Obviously there are just as strong opinions on this subject as there ever were at the heart of the recent great Edition War. Just remember, many of the people here were participants, and now its interesting when criticism of the game is met with such unhappiness! Obviously nobody wants to start a flame war and go back to the dark days of 2010 though...

And yet here we go with the same old spiels from 2010 and earlier...

Still, I don't see anything like a 'power structure' in 5e.

Well I think I agree with you there, of course I see it as an advantage...

The 4e powers system's beauty was that you had one set of rules to learn, AND that ever other subsystem of the game only had to reference one power system and could thus apply to any PC of any class.

Ok, maybe I'm not parsing what you're trying to say here correctly so I'll just ask... Are you speaking to the basic rules of the game... or to the power system? Because one was pretty simple while the other was filled with alot of fiddly bits like keywords, class, what kind of action it was, whether it was a stance, targets, type and so on...

Still, I want my rules to be structured explicitly so I can make flexible use of them, and 5e doesn't do that.

I find 5e's rules to be pretty flexible... how about I adopt the tactic you use in the bolded lines below and tell you why it's not the game rules being non-explicit that are at fault for the inflexibility you experience with them but instead it's your failings... if you just understood how to make rulings as opposed to following rules better and were more adept at applying DM authority and blah blah blah then you'd find 5e's rules some of the most flexible out there... I mean we've all had to make rulings at some point or another so it should be second nature.

I had no problems with presentation of 4e's classes, and I didn't see that arise in play either. If you play strongly, in a way that emphasizes the narrative of the game and with strong imagery then you aren't really worried about fighters and wizards all having powers. Heck, they all have hit points, nobody complains about that because its an old convention!

Don't really want to comment on the above since I did that mostly in the preceding paragraph but I did want to point out an inconsistency in your logic... hit points (by RAW) =the same thing for every character... Powers (by RAW)= totally different things (mechanically and in the fiction) depending on what each character is. The example you gave doesn't really make the point I think you were trying to make.

As for the 'gritty low levels' thing. I dunno guys, all I saw from 2e players after they'd been through the mill a couple times was "screw this, lets just get to 4th level quick, eh?" and while I always thought there was a lot of good low level material for AD&D it was also a lot more limited than what was out there once you hit mid levels. So again this is one of those hypotheticals where lots of people gnashed their teeth about it online, but its hard to find people that actually wanted to play whatever part of the game 4e missed.

Ah, now we've hit the "my anecdotal evidence is more realer than yours" phase with a side dose of "People who like low level (pre and post 4e)D&D don't actually exist because I haven't met them(Funny that E6/Paizo low level adventures/Pathfinder Beginner Box and so on are so popular then... Oh and just for some more anecdotal evidence there were plenty of posters on the Paizo forums using the PF BB to run campaigns because they liked the playstyle and feel of low level D&D but they probably aren't real since you didn't personally meet them )

Personally I think the problem wasn't the mass of players out there, who were perfectly OK with the game when they had good adventures and a DM that was cognizant of the strengths of the system. It was more a problem of people in places like enworld, 'thought leaders', who seem to now be largely 'thought anchors' since so many don't want change. I know I'm annoying EVERYONE in this post and I'll get lambasted for every word, but we endured a lot of crap for the last 6 years, a LOT.

So you're claiming that a handful of people on the internet were able to force WotC to end their current version of D&D and publish another version of D&D to their preferences... Uhm... ok... makes perfect sense to me...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok, maybe I'm not parsing what you're trying to say here correctly so I'll just ask... Are you speaking to the basic rules of the game... or to the power system? Because one was pretty simple while the other was filled with alot of fiddly bits like keywords, class, what kind of action it was, whether it was a stance, targets, type and so on...

I'm saying that the rules are consistent across the whole game which means that other rules and subsystems can just refer to 'powers' and work with or on any class. For instance it would be really easy to make a 'power drain' in 4e, but you couldn't do any equivalent thing at all in 5e.

As for 'fiddliness', are 4e powers ACTUALLY any more fiddly than most of the similar elements in 5e? I think 5e spell casting is basically just as complicated, if not more so, than 4e power use. Especially considering it has various exceptions and differences across a lot of spell-casting classes already. I don't see that the various inherent abilities of other classes are really simpler either, they have just as many rules, overall.

I find 5e's rules to be pretty flexible... how about I adopt the tactic you use in the bolded lines below and tell you why it's not the game rules being non-explicit that are at fault for the inflexibility you experience with them but instead it's your failings... if you just understood how to make rulings as opposed to following rules better and were more adept at applying DM authority and blah blah blah then you'd find 5e's rules some of the most flexible out there... I mean we've all had to make rulings at some point or another so it should be second nature.

OK, how in 5e do you make a check to determine if your bard's performance on the lute moved the king to [do whatever]? I'm sorry, but when the designers of the game cannot tell you basic stuff like that it isn't 'flexibility', its obtuse mechanics.

Don't really want to comment on the above since I did that mostly in the preceding paragraph but I did want to point out an inconsistency in your logic... hit points (by RAW) =the same thing for every character... Powers (by RAW)= totally different things (mechanically and in the fiction) depending on what each character is. The example you gave doesn't really make the point I think you were trying to make.

I think most people would not believe that the hit points of the 9th level fighter with 52HP and the 9th level wizard with 19HP exactly mean the same thing in AD&D. The fighter uses his to dodge and parry, the wizard pretty much just hopes his luck holds and nothing vital gets punctured. Ironically some of the troubles that adhere to D&D might be alleviated by making them all have identical hit points and then treat other systems differently. This way for instance a wizard would take a lot of damage in combat (because for instance he wouldn't have any DR) and both the wizard and the fighter would fall from a ridiculous height and probably walk away because at 9th level they are both just that bad-assed.

Ah, now we've hit the "my anecdotal evidence is more realer than yours" phase with a side dose of "People who like low level (pre and post 4e)D&D don't actually exist because I haven't met them(Funny that E6/Paizo low level adventures/Pathfinder Beginner Box and so on are so popular then... Oh and just for some more anecdotal evidence there were plenty of posters on the Paizo forums using the PF BB to run campaigns because they liked the playstyle and feel of low level D&D but they probably aren't real since you didn't personally meet them )

Now now. First of all at best your's is no more conclusive than mine is. Yes, sometimes people like to play low level, but that doesn't mean they like to spend a lot of time being first level PCs. Its an experience most players are OK with now and then and its fun at first, but it wears thin for most of us. If you were to take a poll I think you'd find most players would be happiest at say 5th-9th level in a 2e or 3e game for instance. IME playing 4e is like being 3rd level and on up, with a nice long middle ground.

So you're claiming that a handful of people on the internet were able to force WotC to end their current version of D&D and publish another version of D&D to their preferences... Uhm... ok... makes perfect sense to me...

I'm saying there are some people who have a lot more influence over the tone of the discussion about a game than most others and yes when they start crapping on something it gets picked up on. It only takes 20% of the players out there deciding they'd rather steer clear of something, or even less when it is DMs, and it makes a real significant impact on who's playing what. I saw that first hand with 4e where if people would PLAY they were happy, but you constantly run into these people that have never even cracked a book and its hate hate hate we'll never play. Where did they get that? It wasn't from reading the game, or playing it, or talking to their buddies, it was online.

 

[Imaro]

I'm saying that the rules are consistent across the whole game which means that other rules and subsystems can just refer to 'powers' and work with or on any class. For instance it would be really easy to make a 'power drain' in 4e, but you couldn't do any equivalent thing at all in 5e.

Why can't I create a class ability nullifier zone in any version of D&D? 5e: No class features work in this room... that was pretty easy...

As for 'fiddliness', are 4e powers ACTUALLY any more fiddly than most of the similar elements in 5e? I think 5e spell casting is basically just as complicated, if not more so, than 4e power use. Especially considering it has various exceptions and differences across a lot of spell-casting classes already. I don't see that the various inherent abilities of other classes are really simpler either, they have just as many rules, overall.

I never made the claim that any other edition was simpler. I'm asking you whether you were speaking to powers being simpler or the basic rules being simpler... why not just answer the question? See this is one of those things that happens alot in 4e discussions and perpetuates edition warring, let's just discuss 4e on it's own merits. I think it's powers are fiddly , do you?

OK, how in 5e do you make a check to determine if your bard's performance on the lute moved the king to [do whatever]? I'm sorry, but when the designers of the game cannot tell you basic stuff like that it isn't 'flexibility', its obtuse mechanics.

If it's something the king would never do (give you his kingdom) it would auto-fail... If it's something that is clearly beneficial for the king then he auto-succeeds, otherwise...

1. I'd assign a DC from the general difficulty table to have the music influence the king

2. I would use the King's Insight (+roll) as the contested roll to persuade him... the king gets adv if it's not necessarily in the best interests of his own goals or disadv if it's more favorable to his own goals.

3. Have the bard roll a d20 charisma check with performance/instrument prof bonus vs. the music DC and if successful get advantage to influence the king, if failed no advantage and I'd also houserule a 1 gives disadvantage.

4. Have the Bard make a Cha(persuasion) roll contested by the King's Wis(Insight) roll (taking into account the previous steps for adv/disadv) to determine the resolution.

Of course another way would be for the DM to assign a general DC and allow the Bard to use persuasion/perform or musical instrument proficiency to roll greater than to influence the King...

Or The DM could use the kings passive Insight instead of rolling...

See that's flexibility to me... I know how I would do it but there are tons of ways others may prefer to do it... and IMO that's a good thing.

I think most people would not believe that the hit points of the 9th level fighter with 52HP and the 9th level wizard with 19HP exactly mean the same thing in AD&D. The fighter uses his to dodge and parry, the wizard pretty much just hopes his luck holds and nothing vital gets punctured. Ironically some of the troubles that adhere to D&D might be alleviated by making them all have identical hit points and then treat other systems differently. This way for instance a wizard would take a lot of damage in combat (because for instance he wouldn't have any DR) and both the wizard and the fighter would fall from a ridiculous height and probably walk away because at 9th level they are both just that bad-assed.

Tell me what the definition for hit points is in 4e... is it the same definition for all characters? Now how you choose to interpret them, reskin them, etc. is on you but the book has a particular definition of hit points that applies to all... powers are different depending upon their source, keywords, etc.

Now now. First of all at best your's is no more conclusive than mine is. Yes, sometimes people like to play low level, but that doesn't mean they like to spend a lot of time being first level PCs. Its an experience most players are OK with now and then and its fun at first, but it wears thin for most of us. If you were to take a poll I think you'd find most players would be happiest at say 5th-9th level in a 2e or 3e game for instance. IME playing 4e is like being 3rd level and on up, with a nice long middle ground.

So now we've shifted the goalposts to only first level... as for a poll it doesn't matter what most would enjoy if you can grab a larger market and those people who want to can still start at a higher level
why not do it?

I'm saying there are some people who have a lot more influence over the tone of the discussion about a game than most others and yes when they start crapping on something it gets picked up on. It only takes 20% of the players out there deciding they'd rather steer clear of something, or even less when it is DMs, and it makes a real significant impact on who's playing what. I saw that first hand with 4e where if people would PLAY they were happy, but you constantly run into these people that have never even cracked a book and its hate hate hate we'll never play. Where did they get that? It wasn't from reading the game, or playing it, or talking to their buddies, it was online.

Yeah and I saw just as many people including my own group invest time and money into 4e and still end up not liking the game... again anecdotal evidence and unsupported theories are well... anecdotal and unsupported.

 

[neonagash]

Yeah and I saw just as many people including my own group invest time and money into 4e and still end up not liking the game... again anecdotal evidence and unsupported theories are well... anecdotal and unsupported.

I actually LIKED most of what i heard about 4e and the ideas they talked about UNTIL i played it.

Then I was quickly so turned off I texted my girlfriend to call with a fake emergency so I had an excuse to leave early and not insult my friends.

Turns out I shouldnt have bothered, most of the group hated it too and only tried 2 more sessions before giving it up for warhammer 2e.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

So, what will happen to 4E?

Will it just be a few of us 4E fanboys keeping it alive (my guess) or will there be a renaissance of interest once certain problems in the 5E ruleset - as there are in every ruleset (IOW, I am not slagging off at 5E) - reveal themselves?

 

[TrippyHippy]

So, what will happen to 4E?

Will it just be a few of us 4E fanboys keeping it alive (my guess) or will there be a renaissance of interest once certain problems in the 5E ruleset - as there are in every ruleset (IOW, I am not slagging off at 5E) - reveal themselves?

Whatever faults 5e may have (and there has been flaws in every edition of the game at one level or another), it is still recognised by the bulk of the gamers to be an authentic experience of D&D. This was not how a lot of gamers felt about 4e, and besides what committed fanboys choose to do, it’s unlikely to be missed much by a large swathe of D&D players. There is 13th Age as closest thing to 4e design features, however.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As for the 'gritty low levels' thing. I dunno guys, all I saw from 2e players after they'd been through the mill a couple times was "screw this, lets just get to 4th level quick, eh?" and while I always thought there was a lot of good low level material for AD&D it was also a lot more limited than what was out there once you hit mid levels. So again this is one of those hypotheticals where lots of people gnashed their teeth about it online, but its hard to find people that actually wanted to play whatever part of the game 4e missed.

Same here; I've never met anyone IRL who wants to play through the early might-as-well-be-apprentice levels. Well, I did have a DM who started his 4e campaign by having us make homebrewed 0-level PCs, but he wasn't playering through it with us. And if I had gamed with him after that, I'm sure he'd agree that it went horribly, for much the same reason that low level play outside of 4e can go horribly.

Likewise, I've never met a RL player who said "Ugh, powers? Can't I just roll a d20 and a damage die forever?" The 'fighters don't need nice things' is another sentiment that I've only seen come up on the forums, and even then it seems to be a theoretical world-sim concern rather than a concern resulting from actually playing the game.

Mind you, I'm sure there are a few of players out there who do want these things. But such people are outside of my experience.

 

[prosfilaes]

So, what will happen to 4E?

Will it just be a few of us 4E fanboys keeping it alive (my guess) or will there be a renaissance of interest once certain problems in the 5E ruleset - as there are in every ruleset (IOW, I am not slagging off at 5E) - reveal themselves?

I don't think any edition has had a huge resurrection after it's been dropped. Those who loved it will continue playing it, and most of the books are cheap enough used, but it's a hard sell to new players. When the online support disappears, that'll hurt a lot, given how big it was for 4E.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I don't think any edition has had a huge resurrection after it's been dropped. Those who loved it will continue playing it, and most of the books are cheap enough used, but it's a hard sell to new players. When the online support disappears, that'll hurt a lot, given how big it was for 4E.

Yeah, those are my thoughts as well.

I wish I had the skills to build my own tools....

 

[Sunseeker]

Why can't I create a class ability nullifier zone in any version of D&D? 5e: No class features work in this room... that was pretty easy...

I don't want to get wrapped up in you guy's big old debate too much, but I saw this line and found it to be an interesting statement.

Yes, in any edition you as the DM can always wave your hand and say "X doesn't work here" and when people ask why, you say "because I said so." But I believe that with a particular setup like this, 5E sets a higher bar than 4E in terms of "why doesn't this work."

While I didn't find them fiddly, there was a certain universiality to 4E power sources and keywords. Shadow powers don't work in the church of Pelor. It's simple and the bar for suspension of disbelief is low, you're on holy ground, therefore dark magic doesn't work. Or lets say, keyword thunder. You are in a zone of no sound, therefore thunder can't exist. These limitations can apply just as equally to warlocks, paladins, fighters and any other class, thanks to keywords.

In 5E, the bar for suspension of disbelief is higher because the "class features" and spells lack this universal connection. It's one thing to create an anti-magic zone which disables spellcasting. There's no magic to draw from or any magic attempting to be drawn is instantly dispersed. On an individual basis, that's fine. But for something like an "anti-class feature" zone, what underlying connections do fighter, bard, cleric or rogue class features have?

Their training has no common ground. The actions their class features allow them to take have no common ground. The only thing they have in common are metagame categorizations as "class features".

In 4E, the categorizations, the keywords, the power sources; these were NOT metagame. Your lightning bolt granted to you by the thunder god had the electricity and thunder keywords because that's what it is. A powerful electrical blast that creates a small shockwave in the air granted to you by the thunder god. It's not a metagame categorization.

So I guess to sum it up, as always the DM can wave their hand and do whatever they want, sure. But I think the tags in 4E provided an underlying connection, not to the rules, but to the game world. 5E lacks that underlying connection. Without it, the disbelief bar for how an anti-feature zone functions than an anti-keyword zone.

When the online support disappears, that'll hurt a lot, given how big it was for 4E.

It would be nice, if now that the edition is "complete", Wizards would wrap up their character builder and monster tools in a nice little package and offer a final, complete, total rules/creator pack for some price. There's no reason they can't, the silverlight programs are just simple scripts that access simple databases. I'd pay a fairly good price for one that I can keep forever, without worrying about updates or licenses ever.