D&D 4E WotC, Please stop the deliberate obfuscation of 4e concepts in 5e!!

[Dragonblade]

As I have seen now via several playtest leaks and various columns and comments by WotC, they are importing ideas and concepts from 4e, but appear to be deliberating obfuscating the terminology and descriptions.

Seriously, its silly and stupid. I can only imagine that the purpose of doing so is to appease a small minority of reactionary and incendiary prior edition players, but frankly it needs to stop.

First of all, who are they fooling? Really? And second of all it makes the resulting rulebook unnecessarily obtuse, opaque, and dense. There are all sorts of legitimate and rational reasons why someone who prefers a prior edition over 4e might feel that way. But one thing that I think 4e got absolutely correct is the way it distilled down concepts and terminology into simple and concise rules.

I have seen a lot of prior edition players state they really want a simple easy to play game in a rule package that is much smaller than the hefty Pathfinder core book. Well, if thats what you want, then you should be all over how 4e vastly simplified a lot of things. And you can be on board with the conciseness of 4e and dislike how 4e worked or felt in play. Its ok.

Case in point, Opportunity Attacks. 4e simplified OA's into a two to three sentence description. 3e/Pathfinder needs several paragraphs of rules text to describe virtually the same rules.

Another example, is the recent Legends and Lore column where Rodney Thompson implies that 5e might use the concept of a 4e solo, but perhaps not keep the term. Why not? When I'm designing a monster, it helps me as DM to know immediately through that simple word how that monster works. Now if 5e comes up with a better way to describe or deal with that same thing then fine.

But if 5e gets rid of the term "solo" merely to replace it with a paragraph of dense rules text that describes this monster is designed to fight the entire party by themselves then what have we gained exactly? That same space on the monster's Monster Manual entry could be used to provide more interesting background details on the monster or its abilities. Space that is now gone because we need to describe something which could have been distilled down to a single word description at the top of the monster's stat block. Simpler and easier to run monsters is something that players of all editions should be able to get behind.

I never have to crack open a rulebook or have my PC open to a website when I run or play 4e. Thats something I haven't been able to do since 1e. It would be nice if 5e were the same way. 5e should strive for clear, simple, and concise rules. And if that means that some 4e terms are kept as is, then they should be kept as is. Trying to hide concepts imported from 4e through blocks of unnecessarily complex rewritten text is ridiculous and counter to everything 5e is supposed to be about.

 

[Grazzt]

...reactionary and incendiary...

Isn't this post both?

 

[keterys]

This type of post is not appropriate for this forum. We're not WotC here. They may or may not be listening. Send them feedback, post on their forums, etc.

More importantly, just discuss things constructively here. Your post could have gone under the L&L post already existant without the inflammatory title and prose.

Answering one bit of your question:

In a previous column they talked about how you start off fighting monsters, for example orcs, but eventually your damage is enough to one-shot them... at which point they're the equivalent of minions.

Maybe the same concept applies to solos, so they eventually are more like elites, or whatever.

I'm not sure that many of the solo innovations (status protection, save bonuses, action points, off-turn attacks, etc) can easily translate into just throwing extra of them into an encounter. For example, imagine an encounter with 5 L9 Monster Vault Beholders at 14th instead of using a pair of L14 elites or single L14 solo.

So, plus side - the monster's stats stay the same as it levels, which some people like. Minus side, it is almost guaranteed to be less good of an encounter for at least some, or possibly even all, of the level range.

 

[delericho]

Amen to that.

4e is my least favourite version of D&D, but it did a lot of things right. WotC shouldn't be shy about keeping and refining those good points - any more than they should be shy about dropping the things that didn't work.

And that applies equally to every other edition as well, for that matter.

 

[Dragonblade]

Isn't this post both?

Definitely not my intent, but its just frustrating to read WotC columns where they seem to do a tap dance around a 4e concept because they seem afraid to just say what it is. Just call a spade a spade, people!

Don't call it a "flat bladed long handled garden tool" because you are afraid the term "spade" will offend someone.

As a fan of all editions from 1e to 4e, I find it patronizing, insulting, and frustrating.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Amen to that.

4e is my least favourite version of D&D, but it did a lot of things right. WotC shouldn't be shy about keeping and refining those good points - any more than they should be shy about dropping the things that didn't work.

And that applies equally to every other edition as well, for that matter.

I agree.

However, as a person who has only played 4e since it came out (with a tiny dabble into Pathfinder), I dislike much of the jargon that goes with how they got some things right. Which means that, for me, WotC would be better off obfuscating certain things, because the lack of obfuscation is off-putting to me and, I think, many others.

One example- The Barbarian's rage in previous editions was, essentially, an encounter power. Not at first level, but in a few levels, the barbarian was raging each encounter. There is something to codifiying it as an 'encounter power' that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe the term 'power' feels too out of place, or the fact that it's the exact same mechanic as burning hands. I'm not sure what my major malfunction is, but I would hope the good designers at WotC can take good game mechanics and wrap them in a nice layer of D&D-esque obfuscation.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Alan Shutko]

As a fan of all editions from 1e to 4e, I find it patronizing, insulting, and frustrating.

Well, there are a lot of folks who aren't fans of 4e. It might be insulting to 4e fans that the language isn't carried over, but is it worth bothering the other folks who didn't like 4e?

If DDN is going to be acceptable to players of all editions, then there will be compromises from each edition. The comment that

I can only imagine that the purpose of doing so is to appease a small minority of reactionary and incendiary prior edition players, but frankly it needs to stop.

Basically says "I don't care about those people, I care about me."

 

[Dragonblade]

This type of post is not appropriate for this forum. We're not WotC here. They may or may not be listening. Send them feedback, post on their forums, etc.

More importantly, just discuss things constructively here. Your post could have gone under the L&L post already existant without the inflammatory title and prose.

My apologies. It was not my intent to be inflammatory. I edited the title to be less so.

 

[Dragonblade]

Basically says "I don't care about those people, I care about me."

*sigh*. No. Not even close.

Ok. Mods feel free to close this thread. Its only going to go downhill from here.

 

[hanez]

I dont like the jargon or the extra codifying of so many things. I understand that we need some terms (HP, Attack of Opportunity, Daily, ect) but I feel 4e went to far in simplying the content and helped make it less interesting and magical to me. For example the book was full of "encounter powers", but I rarely if ever in the PHB saw a sentence like "you can do this 3 times a day". I prefer the latter, both as a mecahnic and as written.

It reminds me of Magic the gathering, Originally they had cards like All hallows eve, that were interesting, magical, and required you to figure out how they worked. It made the game feel more interesting to me.

But then they wanted it more accessible (understandably). So they made a term for everything, and when they invented a term, every single card had to have cycling, or flanking or zen or whatever and they really overused these terms and made them feel less magical and more generic.

So I don't know, I'm not anti jargon or anything. But theres a sweet spot. For me, opening up the spell list, reading the spell, and thinking and imagining what it does is VERY important to me. This feeling was defintely lessened in the way 4e was presented.