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

[Parmandur]

As a generalization? No - that generalization would be a vast overstatement. That'd be like saying my soda having an ice cube in it makes it overall a "frozen drink."

Do some people come up with table practice ("house rules" effectively) in which they make major use of those gaps? Sure. Does the game, as written, give much support or advice for doing so? No.

So, is the game freeform overall? No.

And that, in essence, is the point - the game does not give adequate support for this kind of play to say that the game, overall, is this way. Individual tables may produce such support, but that should be attributed to the table, not the game.

The game system is responsible for producing a system in which to play a game (tau-tau-taoolllooooogy).

5E has a system for free-form action resolution, that can be scaled to fit as desired at a moments notice, and provides the math to do so in a straightforward manner in a fashion that is free from constraint (free-form, one might reasonably say).

At any rate, it is certainly more free-form than 4E (which uses the same system but with more fiddley bits and limitations, being therefore less free in form).

 

[Parmandur]

No. It's better to limit free-forming (as in totally off the cuff, ad hoc rulings) to what someone who is designing the game can build in guidelines for. As in Page 42 in 4e. IOW, relying on "snap judgement" and "common sense" results in garbage games more often than not since very, very few DM's actually can do the math to make "outside the box" thinking worth it.

Like I said, I've seen it over the past several decades. Players have all their creativity and "outside the box" thinking beaten out of them pretty quickly once they realize that that only way they can actually do anything "outside the box" is play a spell caster.

Or do you really think it's an accident that almost all of the 5e class have spells?

I don't think it is an accident: 4E didn't have much in the way of non-magic, either, fewer really once you consider all of the non-Magic Subclass options in 5E versus the four in 4E. Non-magic abilities in a free-form system do not need a large number of delineated options.

 

[Parmandur]

Its not even a mistake that even an advocate ends up making a level 1 spell effect into an epic achievement.

To be able to replicate a spell effect all day, every day is epic, yes. Being free from resource restrictions in a resource management game is huge.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't think it is an accident: 4E didn't have much in the way of non-magic, either, fewer really once you consider all of the non-Magic Subclass options in 5E versus the four in 4E.

So you are going to consider subclasses in 5e but not their equivalent in 4e?
Fighter : Arena Training (DSCS) , Battlerager Vigor (MP) - Brawler Style (MP 2) Fighter Weapon Talent (THW or S&B), Tempest Technique (MP) , These include variations of attribute emphasis and powers and feats associated with them.

 

[Garthanos]

To be able to replicate a spell effect all day, every day is epic, yes.

Nobody needs feather fall all day long give it to a mage all day long it wont break a thing they wont be jumping for joy... it is a pile of bull excuse.

Being free from resource restrictions in a resource management game is huge.

Oh and do not give me that crap about resources when they made ritual casting free

 

[Imaro]

So you are going to consider subclasses in 5e but not their equivalent in 4e?
Fighter : Arena Training (DSCS) , Battlerager Vigor (MP) - Brawler Style (MP 2) Fighter Weapon Talent (THW or S&B), Tempest Technique (MP) , These include variations of attribute emphasis and powers and feats associated with them.

Ok my 4e is a little rusty but aren't these more akin to fighting styles? Or do they have the same weight (shaping most of your abilities) that subclasses have? Like what differentiates a Weapon Talent fighter from a Tempest Technique... is it just that one can use two weapons more effectively vs. sword and board?

 

[Garthanos]

Like what differentiates a Weapon Talent fighter from a Tempest Technique... is it just that one can use two weapons more effectively vs. sword and board?

Massively different power selections, feats and and effectiveness and even attribute differences My sword and board is a Wisdom build and the Tempest one is a Dexterity build very different than swapping out a weapon.

One could argue swapping out weapons had too much impact if you like but they play vastly different.

 

[Garthanos]

Battlerager vigor and powers associated virtually transformed the character into a CON based striker.

And the sword and board is basically the core parts of Cavalier. (plus a bit from theme)

 

[Garthanos]

Give the non-casters a resource

Heroic Effort: each point of expertise bonus once a day you can take 20 as a bonus action on performing a skill stunt in that area of expertise (give Fighters expertise perhaps at level 6) .

Shrug and stop making level one abilities prohibitively stupid with skill use... we can assume the kinds of things achievable will be analogous to spells but we are still stuck in the air by a system with no real guidelines for that.

The habit of assuming resources justify any imbalance is rampant

 

[Imaro]

Massively different power selections, feats and and effectiveness and even attribute differences My sword and board is a Wisdom build and the Tempest one is a Dexterity build very different than swapping out a weapon.

One could argue swapping out weapons had too much impact if you like but they play vastly different.

This seems akin to claiming a Dex two weapon champion fighter in 5e, who chooses to take feats, and arrange attributes to support such, is a different "subclass" than a Strength based 2-H weapon champion fighter, who chooses to take feats and arrange attributess to support such... IMO these seem more like builds in 5e and 4e than akin to a subclass... they are just more codified in 4e