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

[Parmandur]

d20 (3.x) wasnt particularly adhoc about tons of things nor was PF... I bet there is more to it.

RAW, yes, in play my experience was that we ignored a lot of the rules that got in the way. d20 was held back by not being more ad hoc, which 5E has fixed, bringing the RAW and RAI closer into line with what I experienced on the ground. Once upon a time, I thought my group was weird, but apparently not.

 

[Garthanos]

RAW, yes, in play my experience was that we ignored a lot of the rules that got in the way. d20 was held back by not being more ad hoc, which 5E has fixed.

It went a long ways for being held back, I happen to agree it went to far for my taste I find 5e too far the other direction.

 

[Parmandur]

It went a long ways for being held back, I happen to agree it went to far for my taste I find 5e too far the other direction.

Yes, it was impressive that it did so well with the problematic elements. Now that a more true-to-play version is at large, the chains are off.

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, it was impressive that it did so well with the problematic elements.

What it had to my thinking was very very open licensing (and apparently people willing to ignore complexity) ... 4e locked licensing down ridiculously attempting to recover ip, but 5e has managed a much happier medium on that front.

I am looking at Pathfinder 2 and not seeing much more awesomeness (there is a feat which bumps basic leap by 5 and lots of class abilities which interact with it so I am not sure that is actually correct) but predictably more complexity. I also had to look all over in the Playtest book to find things but who knows that may not be organized the same as the release

 

[Parmandur]

What it had to my thinking was very very open licensing (and apparently people willing to ignore complexity) ... 4e locked licensing down ridiculously attempting to recover ip, but 5e has managed a much happier medium on that front.

I am looking at Pathfinder 2 and not seeing much more awesomeness (there is a feat which bumps basic leap by 5 and lots of class abilities which interact with it so I am not sure that is actually correct) but predictably more complexity. I also had to look all over in the Playtest book to find things but who knows that may not be organized the same as the release

It is organized pretty much the same in the final release.

It is not an award-winning piece of user interface.

 

[Garthanos]

Comparing athletics awesome - in 4e... My longtooth shifter admittedly sort of cheating with a non-human (but not by very much that human could still be somewhat close with skill focus and a background allowing re-reroll might be better) gets once an encounter (23+die roll)/5 5 foot squares for a standing jump in other words hits the square across a 30 foot chasm and 10 more with an excellent roll with a standing jump call it 25 or upto 35 if it was human . This is a skill power at work and add some advancement a paragon version of the character will be doing more and its sounding more impressive than it might be because if you have a 10 foot run you will get across 20 feet .

 

[Campbell]

What it had to my thinking was very very open licensing (and apparently people willing to ignore complexity) ... 4e locked licensing down ridiculously attempting to recover ip, but 5e has managed a much happier medium on that front.

I am looking at Pathfinder 2 and not seeing much more awesomeness (there is a feat which bumps basic leap by 5 and lots of class abilities which interact with it so I am not sure that is actually correct) but predictably more complexity. I also had to look all over in the Playtest book to find things but who knows that may not be organized the same as the release

Leap represents a distance you can clear without risk. A long jump has a DC equal to the distance in feet you want to jump. Even if you fail you get your leap distance. A 5th level Fighter who is an Expert in Athletics will probably have +13 Athletics so with an average roll could jump 23 feet with a minimum of 10 feet. With a very good roll could jump 30 feet (Max is 33). If they have powerful leap that average roll means 28 feet with a 15 foot minimum. With a very good roll could jump 35 feet (Max 38).

Monks and Barbarians are better. If they are built for it add about 10 to those long jump distances.

 

[Garthanos]

Leap represents a distance you can clear without risk. A long jump has a DC equal to the distance in feet you want to jump.

Leap is standing and the long jump is with movement 5e gets you double your standing without risk ie up to your strength score (its a very realistic number in some sense actually)

4e there is athletics not as a check exactly (ie not off and on) but as a determiner of the distance. (the skill power lets you do it without movement and adds 5 to the distance.)
There is also a long jumper feat (which allows you the longer jump distance except without movement requirement if you wanted that bit all the time)

Even if you fail you get your leap distance. A 5th level Fighter who is an Expert in Athletics will probably have +13 Athletics so with an average roll could jump 23 feet with a minimum of 10 feet. With a very good roll could jump 30 feet (Max is 33). If they have powerful leap that average roll means 28 feet with a 15 foot minimum. With a very good roll could jump 35 feet (Max 38).

The powerful leap feat is sort of in the 4e skill powers boost. The feat bonus to distance is similar in effect in 4e but it generally gives it to every athletic action. The 4e skill power takes the top off the jump and allows a greater standing leap than a normal running leap but only once every 5 minutes.

 

[pemerton]

Here are two claims:

(1) System makes no difference to the play experience.

(2) Many people prefer the 5e play experience to the 4e play experience, just as some prefer the 4e to the 5e play experience.

I don't think both claims can be true.

If one difference between 4e and 5e is the degree of ad hocery, and the role that the GM playes in that respect, then it makes sense that some people should focus on that as a cause of the difference in experience. And there's no reason to think that this is about "toxic GMing". Did everyone who didn't like 4e have toxic GMs?

 

[pemerton]

The proof is in the pudding: the more ad hoc approach is what has worked for people in practice, and facilitated a broader amount of play.

Not all people. Some people. I'm also not sure what you mean by "a broader amount of play".

If the argument is that the popularity of5e is a sign of virtue either in the system or its players, I don't see how there can be grounds for complaint that those who prefer 4e want to point to the virtues in 4e as a system or in its players. Surely no one expects 4e players to infer that, because they are in a minority, they and their preference suck!