D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personally, I've had some good experience with metagame mechanics. But it's an add-on to the core D&D experience; those mechanics are best used optionally in specific situations. I think what's toxic is the mixing of metagame mechanics with those that are not, creating the impression that the entire set of rules is on a metagame level.

I think this is one of the nice things about 4e powers. They are JUST abstract enough that you can trivially consider them all to be abstract mechanics and meta-game, whereas it is pretty easy 99% of the time to also just let them be simple descriptions of in-world process too.

 

[Obryn]

Negative. This is subjective opinion, not objective fact.

That it's is different is not subjective at all. That's what makes it impossible to re-fluff into healing. It just doesn't work the same way.

That it is weaker is fairly evident, too, or at least it has been IME. We have some of both in my 4e game, but while damage mitigation is never unwelcome, it's evident during play which is stronger. Healing is immensely more flexible.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4E may have had these things in it, like I said the minion rule is a good fit for cinematic. But to me cinematic requires fast and exciting play. 4E didn't give me that. My impression of 4E combat was much more of a tactical grind. For me I would shoot for much faster combats and less fiddly powers to make D&D cinematic. I would also want a much simpler game.

There are 2 aspects of this IME, one is that while 4e has excellent mechanical encounter building guidelines DMG1 doesn't REALLY tell you to make it exciting. I mean, it should be OBVIOUS "make your game exciting" of course, but the ACTUAL way you do that isn't explained. DMG2, as usual, got closer, but of course nobody read that. The other aspect is clearly that it is not that hard for a DM to make the sort of encounter you describe, and the fastest way to do it is to just clone some encounter from a previous edition. Previous editions basically hid the crappiness of most encounters because dice always could drop you dead in almost any round of most any fight, and the more boring fights were usually mercifully pretty short.

Now imagine that your typical 4e encounter was sliding down a log flume on top of a log, dropping into a mill, meleeing a giant were-creature, rescuing a young maiden from being cut in half by the saw, and then escaping before 100's were-things closed in on the mill. That's a combat encounter. That's worthy of being a combat encounter. That's worthy of Steven Spielberg (OK, its a bit camp, but still). Ain't no boring fiddly melee rounds in there, just wow action, amazing I can use my blah power to leap over the saw! Yup, you knock him back on his haunches with a mighty blow that would have decapitated a warhorse, and he gets right back up and leaps at you with a might howl! Don't have time to get boring. That fight took a good solid hour to play, but nobody even looked at the clock or stood up to go get a snack, they were riveted to the table, lol.

I don't think 4e is at all close to perfect in this sense, it is hardish to make a fast encounter that does substantial attrition (as straight combat anyway, a one-use trap or simple SC can do it). I think they overused off-turn attacks and other similar mechanics, and should have limited buff/debuff to fewer more significant instances. Actually DDN has some FINE answers for those problems, advantage/disadvantage is a GREAT streamliner. Couple it with a slightly faster paced attrition, just a SLIGHT bit more chance, shave half a round off each combat and give every player an easy option they can use quickly or combine with improv and give out a bit less numbers of powers, you can cut the time spent easily back down into AD&D range, which IME was still consistently 20 mins plus a couple minutes per round minimum, and at high levels was basically about as fast as 4e. I'm sure you won't fix it so every combat is a dream, but you can pep it up some, keep the focus more on the table and less on the character sheet.

I can SEE it, but why am I getting 5e instead? lol. sigh.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That it's is different is not subjective at all. That's what makes it impossible to re-fluff into healing. It just doesn't work the same way.

That it is weaker is fairly evident, too, or at least it has been IME. We have some of both in my 4e game, but while damage mitigation is never unwelcome, it's evident during play which is stronger. Healing is immensely more flexible.

The different part is of course definitely true.

It is certainly possible to make mitigation as powerful as healing, it is just tricky. Healing will always go where it is needed, modulo any 'spillover'. You can also direct it at the most critical point in time and space, tactically (modulo some tactical reasons why a given heal can't be delivered to the target, this is not commonly a problem in any edition of D&D). Mitigation is generally placed before-the-fact, meaning you have no sure way to know if it will be coming into play at the critical point of the battle. The best you can do is just always toss it on the fighter "yeah, he always gets hit, it will do him some good" or somesuch. Note how 4e's shielding swordmage applies her effect to the ATTACKER, at least guaranteeing greater relevance.

In order to make both equal you'd have to either allow the mitigation to be deployed interrupt fashion to selected targets when they're hit, which IS then pretty similar to healing, or it has to be a lot cheaper. If I can't decide where to deploy my power, then either it needs to cover everyone, or be cheap to add a whole bunch of resistance to one guy and do it often. The problem then could be 'what if I nova with it'? That's easy enough to handle, be we can easily see that the design of the requisite mechanics isn't very much like healing and the whole result is more troublesome. There's a reason healing is a more popular and common game mechanic, it is pretty easy to balance it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For me one hour is way too long for cinematic combat. I definitely prefer something in the five to fifteen up to twenty minute ballpark.

 

[Obryn]

The different part is of course definitely true.

It is certainly possible to make mitigation as powerful as healing, it is just tricky.

Yep, absolutely. Which is why I've said (say) 1d8 for 1d8 is insufficient; I should have qualified my statement. Mitigation needs to be significantly stronger than healing for it to catch up in utility - maybe due to frequency or action economy, but not necessarily magnitude.

Healing is the only thing that can get a downed ally back into the fight. That's valuable and possibly irreplaceable. Mitigation has an uphill battle to catch up, as a result.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Wrong. What's keeping this debate going is people making statements based on bias and personal opinion as if they are fact.

Such as:

• DDN is X so therefore it never will be Y.
• DDN's designers do not understand 4E.
• DDN's designers are anti-4E.
• etc.

I don't have a problem with people thinking, believing, or having opinions such as these. Just stop presenting them as fact when there is no evidence that they are. State them as what they are: opinions.

I feel DDN is pointless...as opposed to "this playtest is pointless."

I haven't seen anything yet from Mike Mearls and company that they are listening to 4E players...as opposed to Mike Mearls is not listening to 4E players, and is anti-4E.



Something else that's keeping this debate going are the assumptions that are being made..

Stop assuming I don't understand 4E. I do. I do not have the level of expertise with it that you, pemerton, and others in this thread have, but I do understand 4E. As I've said previously, I do have the core books, I have read them, I have "delved" into them, and I have mined parts of it for my own games. I understand the core assumptions just fine, which is why I know it's not my preferred edition. But I do feel that 4E is a very well designed and balanced game, and does what it was designed to do very well. And I also would not hesitate to play a game using 4E if I had friends who wanted to do so, or if I was playing with another group (for whatever reason) that also preferred 4E. It's playing with the group that's most importantto me, not what game is being used. Which is another reason why I'm so looking forward to DDN. If done right (and in my opinion it is heading in the right direction), then it will be an awesome game for use in groups where using mine or others preferred rules isn't feasible, or a compromise would be more appropriate.

Also, stop assuming I don't understand how important it is to you and other 4E fans. Do you honestly think there aren't factors or elements of my favorite edition that I feel are just as crucial? Do you honestly think that 4E somehow has a monopoly on core assumptions? Do you honestly believe that there aren't fans of other editions that feel the same way about elements and core assumptions of their preferred editions? 4E fans are not experiencing a unique situation. There are no more special considerations for 4E fans as concerns DDN, than there are for any fans of any D&D edition.

The only major difference here is that I don't assume that those aspects that are crucial to me, won't be present just because they aren't present yet. I don't assume that DDN's designers are neglecting my favorite classes or races because they haven't been mentioned or released yet. I don't assume that DDN's designers are deliberately avoiding, neglecting, are alergic to, or have an aversion towards my edition. I feel that for me to do otherwise would not just be illogical, but also arrogant and entitled. So I instead choose to be optimistic, patient, and not read into things to make sure there are no hidden agendas contrary to my personal desires.




Negative. This is subjective opinion, not objective fact.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

This: "...it's because the designers have become allergic to overtly metagame mecahnics in the wake of the significant hostility to such mechanics in 4e." is a statement saying that the designers (specifically Mike Mearls) have an anti-4E bias. Whether they are doing it because they feel large portions of the fan base will have problems with it, or because they themselves don't like such metagame mechanics, makes no difference - whatever the reasons for them, what you're describing here is an anti-4E sentiment.

You said that those tweets were proof supporting the above statement.

They are not.

I really don't think that the level of open-mindedness you describe and seem to be pressuring us to replicate is warranted or necessary. I look at Next and to me so far it sucks. No need to sugar coat it. In my opinion, being overly optimistic damages the end product more than being critical.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

For me one hour is way too long for cinematic combat. I definitely prefer something in the five to fifteen up to twenty minute ballpark.

5-15 minutes is too short for anything interesting to happen. An exciting encounter should be able to develop into back and forth, ebb and flow action. If a fight is bang bang over its just dull.

My ideal would be in the 25-30 minute range.

 

[Bedrockgames]

5-15 minutes is too short for anything interesting to happen. An exciting encounter should be able to develop into back and forth, ebb and flow action. If a fight is bang bang over its just dull.

My ideal would be in the 25-30 minute range.

A lot can happen in 5-15 if the combat system is fast enough. For me it works but clearly it is a preference issue.

 

[n00bdragon]

You realize most action MOVIES don't resolve their big fights in 5-15 minutes right? Asking a board game with dice and 4-6 people trying to decide what goes on to move faster than a movie is asking for just a little much don't you think?