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

[Garthanos]

Certainly you could do something else entirely with resolution. Strike!, for instance, makes the same realization you do and resolves all rolls on a d6 appropriately, taking into account only whether you have an applicable skill. However, I think the D&D audience is pretty locked into a d20 roll at this point.

not thinking swapping out core randomizer was suggested actually.

 

[Garthanos]

I missed the memo when we became the parkour blog! Dude, I am so going on Ultimate Beastmaster. "Hi, I'm a part-time parkour instructor ..."

LOL the non-trained Parkour expert - hey neither of those in the discussion supported elevation of non-trained status

 

[pemerton]

I think you're arguing the other definition of "freeform" with me. Locking in those genre expectations is precisely what I was talking about. The DCs are reflective of genre expectations.

Which DCs are you talking about?

I am going to post an old quote that I think is the best statement ever made on these boards about how setting DCs works in 4e. And it explains why I think the process of DC-setting is as "freeform" as 5e.

I think this has to do with the relationship between colour and the reward system in 4E. How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

This is exactly how I have experienced the play of 4e. And I don't see how it's any different from the descriptions that are being offered to explain how and why 5e is "freeform".

 

[Garthanos]

Personally, I don't take the spells into consideration when making DC adjudications (outside of those set by the spell itself). YMMV, obviously.

To me you are ignoring the elephant in the room of instant auto success and over estimated limits.

5e also describes tiers of play (PHB p15.), but it is (much) less stringent/specific on what exactly those encompass in the expectations of specific actions, instead only defining them by the scope of what kind of problems the characters will face.

Almost identical descriptions in tiers but 5e lacks the follow through. That is the difference I see.

 

[Garthanos]

No follow through on how one might achieve any sort of parity between out of combat abilities for those not using spells and those who can obviate the need to use dozens of skills ... with one spell cast.

 

[Kai Lord]

It would be like if they announced 6e last year, which seems a ridiculous notion.

Not to derail the thread but is it believed that there even will be a 6th Edition? I thought I read a few years back that going forward WOTC wanted D&D to be like Monopoly, a game that is sold for decades and decades without constant revisions to the core rules.

Which would be quite refreshing IMO, especially since I'm really loving 5E.

 

[Garthanos]

Not to derail the thread but is it believed that there even will be a 6th Edition. I

Culture evolves ... D&D is more not less dependent on it than games which are not about story - like monopoly so I suspect that might be a problem if they try to be the evergreen product.

 

[Parmandur]

Not to derail the thread but is it believed that there even will be a 6th Edition? I thought I read a few years back that going forward WOTC wanted D&D to be like Monopoly, a game that is sold for decades and decades without constant revisions to the core rules.

Which would be quite refreshing IMO, especially since I'm really loving 5E.

Monopoly has editions, too: there will likely be a 6E, but probably not advertised too heavily, and backwards compatible.

 

[Garthanos]

Monopoly has editions, too: there will likely be a 6E, but probably not advertised too heavily, and backwards compatible.

It has tons of make overs which could correspond to genre support books

 

[Imaro]

This is exactly how I have experienced the play of 4e. And I don't see how it's any different from the descriptions that are being offered to explain how and why 5e is "freeform".

4e has examples of what certain DC's mean... while not as exhaustive as 3e it still locks in a chunk of that color to specific DC's.

As an example...Climb has DC's listed as follows...
DC 0 Ladder
DC 10 Rope
DC 15 Uneven Surface (Cave Wall)
DC 20 Rough Surface (Brick Wall)
DC +5 Slippery Surface
DC +5 Unusually Smooth Surface

EDIT: Also these are player facing, being located in the PHB, so this isn't a case where majority of players won't see these... it's a case where the designers are very much letting players know what the expected color is for DC's in the game.