D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok first doesn't 4e only have 30 levels so how are we setting a 35th level DC? And if we're just making up/extrapolating new & higher DC's can't we do the same in 5e? Putting that aside...

We just discussed this and unless we are speaking to consistent success then 4e and 5e both have the possibility of low level PC's able to achieve supposed epic feats according to DC range. Now if we are speaking to consistent success well then low level PC's in both games won't be able to consistently achieve the higher DC's... so I'm failing to see how your claim above holds water.

4e doesn't cap out the game system at level 30, just PCs levels. There are level 35 monsters, for instance (they are all Gods or Primordials, but they exist). So it is quite possible to generate level 35 DCs, that would be considered a maximum challenge DC for a level 30 PC by DMG guidelines. Going by RC pp 126 and extrapolating the table to 35 (the RC table stops at 30) The highest DC in 4e is a 46. Even if you stop at 30 it is a 42. This means that 'god-like' feats of skill are entirely outside the realm of heroic, or even pretty much paragon tier characters. An extreme level 20 PC (paragon capstone) might hit some of these DCs with very high rolls. That seems pretty appropriate to me.
I think the tier system itself also provides a strong basis for expectations in terms of 'color' when it comes to these sorts of tasks. Epic is clearly different from Paragon is clearly different from Heroic. 5e is a lot 'fuzzier' in that sense, and IME DMs don't seem to do a lot of re-imagining the scale of things at high levels. It just isn't clear to them at what point the game naturally transitions to a different 'mode of play'. AD&D was a bit stronger in this regard, there was a 'name level' transition. It wasn't hard and fast like in 4e, but it was definitely there (PCs getting followers and bases of operations was a big thing). Still, 4e is really the only system where things can very naturally 'go gonzo' and it is pretty clear where and how to manage that transition (though the lack of an Epic DMG is unhelpful here).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think 4e was a bit too sterile in it's approach. I think using a bit more natural language was inevitable. Something like this could have seen the game presented a bit more naturally without changing a single thing about how the rules actually worked.

I'm not a fan of the muddy power format used here. The official 4e power format is really a strong presentation and has a number of advantages. For me personally, the rest of the wording doesn't seem exceptionally more evocative than the actual PHB1 ranger write-up, though I agree it flows a bit differently and it would have been a perfectly OK style to use.
I'm not generally of the camp which thinks things at this level of detail are where 4e "gets it wrong" though. Not in any critical fashion. I still feel it is more in terms of only taking its reinterpretation of D&D halfway, and then the developer's failure to really understand the sorts of adventure formats which would work with it, and picking one that was a miserable failure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A trick is an exploit largely dependent on surprise and can thus only be performed if your enemy hasn't seen your trick this recently. Encounter powers are not necessarily about fatigue ...and similar things can be done with other power sources too. After performing this spell you have to make a one minute purification ritual to repeat it.

Yeah, I don't have too much problem with that, though I tend to feel that it would be better to SUGGEST some set of narrative options. When you just state that the reason is X there are a LOT of players out there who will pedantically fix on that one specific explanation and rebel at the thought of all other ones (we can all probably name a few people who have posted a lot on Enworld who would fall into that category without a lot of trouble). In the case of 'magic' (kind of a slippery term in 4e) you might be a bit more prescriptive though without much trouble.

 

[Garthanos]

accidental post

 

[Parmandur]

accidental post

There are no accidents, just plans other people haven't told you about.

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, I don't have too much problem with that, though I tend to feel that it would be better to SUGGEST some set of narrative options.

sure 4e is about allowing people to visualize it their way not about locking in only one

 

[Garthanos]

In the case of 'magic' (kind of a slippery term in 4e) you might be a bit more prescriptive though without much trouble.

Druid: This magic draws on a subset of the environmental energies where it is cast once you use the magic you must significantly move to a new area this may be as near as a 5 minute walk or allow approximately

10 minutes time for the environment to recover the energies. Getting specific allows for flavor I will give it that

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Druid: This magic draws on a subset of the environmental energies where it is cast once you use the magic you must significantly move to a new area this may be as near as a 5 minute walk or allow approximately

10 minutes time for the environment to recover the energies. Getting specific allows for flavor I will give it that

I guess what I mean is, the flexibility is more in terms of the immediate narrative with 'martial' powers, in general. That is "how did I achieve this specific thing?" and giving a single answer is rarely satisfying. Thus one can ask "well, if using Power X is too tiring to do more than once, how come I can use Y, and Z and not just use X again?" will come up soon. If instead we simply flexibly narrate the action such that NARRATIVELY there aren't really an explicit X, Y, and Z that happen once each per fight, then the problem is non-existent, but the example description of ranger powers with this "exhaustion mechanic" as THE explanation built into the flavor works against that (you can of course ignore it). 4e generally tends not to present things that way, presumably for this very reason.

OTOH 'magical' powers and spells (both 4e and other editions) tend to be a bit more formulaic and its easier to swallow rationalizations, so they put less of a crimp in people's narrative style. Not to say that reflavoring is unimportant here either, but just maybe not as critical in the same sense. Of course 'magic' IS a fuzzy concept in 4e, so there is that as well.... (I mean you could simply flavor your fighter power "Come and Get It" AS an explicitly magical ability and this has no rules implication in 4e).

 

[Garthanos]

OTOH 'magical' powers and spells (both 4e and other editions) tend to be a bit more formulaic and its easier to swallow rationalizations, so they put less of a crimp in people's narrative style.

Understood completely just thought I would show a bit more of possible flavorings. You are right its easier to do magic.

 

[Garthanos]

There are no accidents, just plans other people haven't told you about.

Or thoughts in progress...