D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Knaight]

Seriously, show me one example of an ACF that provides a complex subsystem in place of a simple feature. It isn't something that actually happens in game design, and there are reasons for that. It may be more elegant to make the simple the baseline, but it isn't something that will actually work well in practice.

I can point you at several systems, of varying base complexity, which have entire subsystems that can be bolted on. GURPS is the most obvious example, but it is by no means the only one.

[Seerow]

I can point you at several systems, of varying base complexity, which have entire subsystems that can be bolted on. GURPS is the most obvious example, but it is by no means the only one.

I haven't played GURPS so I could be wrong here, but as I recall was not a class based system, but was instead made with the intent you could bolt anything on to anything (sort of like the Generic Classes 3.5 variant, but more in depth). In that sense, everything was optional for a given class, but no given subsystem would be published that is going to be considered just optional.


It's like apples and oranges when compared to trying to take a system, and make it optional just for a single class in a D&D-style game.



Edit: The other point to consider is balance. Remember, options > not options. Sure there are rare exceptions where every single one of your pile of options is crap (truenamer), but I don't think anyone desires to see Wizards and other classes with options nerfed to that point. It is much easier to balance everyone at the baseline with a similar number of options. You can choose to make that point "No options" where the Wizard gets Magic Missile and the Fighter gets sword swing, or you can make that point lots of options where Wizards get lots of spells and Fighters get lots of cool maneuvers. Making one class inherently much weaker than another is not an option that is going to fly for a game that wants to be balanced, even if balance can in theory be achieved through other optional modules. Whatever baseline the game chooses to go with, it needs to be consistent in following that, not having classes all over the place.

[Knaight]

I haven't played GURPS so I could be wrong here, but as I recall was not a class based system, but was instead made with the intent you could bolt anything on to anything (sort of like the Generic Classes 3.5 variant, but more in depth). In that sense, everything was optional for a given class, but no given subsystem would be published that is going to be considered just optional.

Most of the given subsystems are just optional. Strictly speaking, the entire combat subsystem is optional, and certainly the various things you can bolt on to it (e.g. the subsystems introduced in GURPS Martial Arts) are optional. Magic is even more blatant, as there are several different magic systems that one can choose to include or not include. The system is modular from the ground up, as are several other systems.

[kyoryu]

Most of the given subsystems are just optional. Strictly speaking, the entire combat subsystem is optional, and certainly the various things you can bolt on to it (e.g. the subsystems introduced in GURPS Martial Arts) are optional. Magic is even more blatant, as there are several different magic systems that one can choose to include or not include. The system is modular from the ground up, as are several other systems.

The difference is that the game really works when the game as a whole either has the modules bolted on, or doesn't.

The most obvious example is basic/advanced combat. It wouldn't work well to have half of the players in a game using the Basic rules, and half using the Advanced rules. Which is kind of what 5e is promising, if I'm correct.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The difference is that the game really works when the game as a whole either has the modules bolted on, or doesn't.

The most obvious example is basic/advanced combat. It wouldn't work well to have half of the players in a game using the Basic rules, and half using the Advanced rules. Which is kind of what 5e is promising, if I'm correct.

That's not it at all. Players don't choose what rules they're using, the DM does. Everyone at the table plays by the same rules in 5E.

[1337 b4k4]

I see people giving reasoning like this a lot, but game design is not programming.

So pick another analogy. A business that is lean and modular is better able to handle changes in the industry, even if it means more up front work getting the module to work together.

Computer hardware has long since been about offloading specific tasks to modular devices rather than doing it in a monolithic master (see GPUs, Sound Cards, dedicated FPUs etc), even if it means more hardware cost.

Or as noted, just look at GURPS, a system who's every single aspect is more or less a module, with hundreds of optional source books. And GURPS as a whole (just the core rule book) is a massively more complex system than D&D has ever dreamed of being, even including everything 4e tries to do.

Incidentally, this also makes GURPS a lousy first choice RPG if you don't realize it's all optional. GURPS never really makes it explicit up front that everything in the book is more or less optional, and you can ignore any one part and it doesn't make a lot of difference. So if D&D is to succeed with modularity, and especially given their plans to include a bunch of modules right out of the box, they need to be explicit about the modularity in the beginning of the book.

What is the base and what is optional does matter, because optional things by necessity won't get the support necessary to maintain a complex system.

This just simply isn't true by default. If it take X resources to manage and support a complex system, there is no law of nature which prevents the application of that same X resources to supporting a simple system and the bolt ons. Now it does mean that an unpopular or DOA bolt on is likely to be dropped sooner rather than dragged kicking and screaming along with the system (AD&D psionics for example), but that's not a bad thing, because if it turns out the idea of that bolt on was popular enough, the resources that were being spent on that one can be turned towards forming a better replacement, rather than patching something already broken.

Yes, for a given level of complexity, it will take less resources to maintain a single monolithic complex system than it will to maintain a flexible modular system, but that goes back to the number of built in assumptions, that then cause the whole thing to break down when you start slicing out chunks.

Just to give something else to think about, imagine if Vancian Spellcasting was an optional module in 3.5. Can you imagine having one system that covers 2 chapters and 40-50% of the page count of the book, being optional?

Not only can I imagine it, I would love it. To have a simple workable spell system up front, with lots of options for customizing the spell system would be great, a thousand times better than requiring anyone who wants to be a cleric or a wizard to parse half the rule book to understand their spells.

Do you think if it was optional, and covered only 10 pages or so instead, it would have gotten half the later supplemental support? Heck no.

Given how much people complain that casters in 3.5 were so vastly overpowered (and how the splat books just made it worse) it seems to me this would have been unequivocally a good thing.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Wow, that was longer than I thought. Reply spoilered for length.

Spoiler

Show

So pick another analogy. A business that is lean and modular is better able to handle changes in the industry, even if it means more up front work getting the module to work together.

Computer hardware has long since been about offloading specific tasks to modular devices rather than doing it in a monolithic master (see GPUs, Sound Cards, dedicated FPUs etc), even if it means more hardware cost.

To continue with the computer metaphor¹, it's not the case that a complex game system is a monolithic computer and a simple system is a bunch of modules, and it's hard to make the monolith modular but easy to make the modules monolithic. Obviously you don't want to couple different parts of the game so tightly that you can't swap out modules, and I don't think anyone's suggesting that "complex" should mean "very interconnected" and "simple" mean "very independent." Rather, the simple/complex division being talked about in this case--being able to take the variables in the Combat Superiority system and just "set and forget" them to simple values--is closer to customizing an operating system.

Let's take Windows for an example. There are a ton of people who don't muck around with Windows settings, or even install anything themselves; they're the "email and Google only" users who might maybe possibly have someone change their desktop backgrounds for them but otherwise leave everything on the factory defaults. On the other extreme end are power-users who tweak everything from colors and appearance to registry settings and everything in between. It is absolutely trivial to take the incredibly complex, incredibly customizable Windows OS and make it simple enough for your grandmother to use²--in fact it requires literally zero effort to do so once it's installed--because you can hide all of the complexity and difficulty "under the hood" so as not to scare off the less tech-savvy.

However, if you want to start with a nice, simple, one-size-fits-all interface and try to bolt on complexity as you go, there is no way in Baator you can start with a grandma desktop and end up with a hardcore gamer rig with any reasonable amount of time or effort. What's more, if you really do want to streamline the base experience, you're not leaving any API hooks to build from, so you really can't expect to go from a grandma desktop to really anything else without massive amounts of rewriting.

For a more explicitly D&D example, take the matter of falling damage, lava, and other hazards. There have been a few bazillion-page threads on EnWorld about whether such hazards should deal scaling or static damage, have saves, etc. or just be "death, no save" traps. Most people over there are arguing based on "realism" or balance or whatever, but what we're concerned about is extensibility. If you start off with a certain baseline like Lava does 2d6 damage on contact, 20d6 per round for immersion, or something a lot more complicated based on saves and level and distance and all, or even something basic like "lava does a bunch of fire damage when you're close to it," you can go a lot of places with that. You can add damage, decrease damage, change from flat to scaling or proportional damage, change the range it works at, add more thresholds, and a lot more. You as a DM have a good handle on how lethal Xd6 damage is, how hard it is to make a DC Y save, etc. for your party and can adjust accordingly. In fact, if you want to make it insta-death, it's trivial to do that, and you can tell what kind of effects your change will have.

If you start with "lava and falling kill you automatically," though, not only is that a lot harder to tweak (you can't make damage as gradual, differentiate effects, etc.) but it gives you nothing to work with. Is falling more or less deadly than lava, thematically? Are there any protections that work against lava? Are superhuman creatures less susceptible to the effect? It's a version of the "human scale" problem in 3e, where a bunch of rules are written assuming Medium creatures (using "Large" instead of "one size larger" in some cases, assuming 5-foot spaces for 5-foot steps, etc.)--the less granular or precise your rules, the harder it is to adapt them to unusual cases, and in a world where there are things made of fire, being able to tell how they interact with lava is kind of important.

As well, there is an important difference between an "everything is modular" system like GURPS and a "modules are variant options" system like D&D³. If everything is modular, the game doesn't assume that you're using a particular magic system, for instance, or even that you're using any magic system at all; everything is self-contained and interchangeable. However, in a D&D-style system where you have a certain assumed baseline explicitly stated by the designers that includes things like "the wizard is Vancian" and "the rogue relies on skills," you can't hot-swap other systems in to replace Vancian casting or skills as easily because the assumptions tie those subsystems more tightly into other parts of the rules. Anyone who has tried to run a psionics-only game has probably had to deal with the kind of effects you lose out on without Vancian casters; trying to use a 3e-style skill system in 4e or vice versa isn't a plug-and-play venture at all.

So if you're going to have those default assumptions and baselines (and every system does, even GURPS has a core mechanic and consistent attributes and health and such) and want to make it modular, you benefit from a more complex base system because there are more hooks for new modules and variants and it's either to drop or ignore things than to make up new things. If you have to choose between the 3e or 4e alignment system⁴, starting with the 3e version gives you several benefits: you can use CG, CN, LN, and LE mechanically, as with the many variant paladins; you can map the 3e alignments to the 4e alignments without much loss of generality; you have more granularity in the options ('apathetic' TN encompasses Unaligned, but Unaligned doesn't encompass the 'strongly balanced' TN); and so forth. If a 3e group wants to use 4e alignments, they can just decide that, for example, CG = G, LE = E, LN = CN = U, and go from there, but if a 4e group wants to use 3e alignments⁵ there's a lot more tweaking and decision-making involved to split their 5 alignments into 9.

So, tl;dr⁶: I completely agree with Seerow that, given the choice between either making a simple base system for the players who like simple classes and trying to bolt on complicated subsystems for players who like complex classes later or making a (reasonably) complex base system with newbie-friendly "default options" to try to accommodate both from the start, the latter approach is both better from a modular design perspective and more sustainable and elegant from a game lifespan perspective.

¹ Not trying to conflate software design and RPG design or anything as Seerow suggested, I just like the metaphor.

² No offense intended to any computer-literate grandmothers reading this. Please don't pwn me.

³ Yes, the devs claim that absolutely everything will be interchangeable, but (A) certain things like classes and levels and such can't really be changed out or it stops being the same game and (B) given their articles I have little confidence in their understanding of modular design.

⁴ I know some people don't want either one, but for the sake of argument we want to use one of the two.

⁵ Setting aside for the moment that 4e alignment doesn't do anything mechanically; just assume we're trying to implement similar mechanics and flavor for each system.

⁶ I'm using footnotes in a post on RPG design. I need serious help.

[huttj509]

That's not it at all. Players don't choose what rules they're using, the DM does. Everyone at the table plays by the same rules in 5E.

That's been my impression as well. Something like where 2E's "variant rules" blocks might be gathered into a lump called "gritty module" or something, instead of being spread out. The idea being to make it clear "if you want to add _______ to your game, or change its style to _________, use these rules." An example of this could be a module designed to add more tactical combat rules, while the base rules work better for "theater of the mind" play than something with opportunity attacks galore.

This is why I really want to see some actual examples of how it would be presented, to make sure we're all thinking of similar things when discussing.

[Zombimode]

A simple look at the MM could tell you how little that sort of guideline helps when designing monsters. It completely leaves out all manner of tactically important concerns: big damage attacks, save or dies, spell levels, immunities -- the list goes on. Trying to design monsters along these "rules" and you may as well be designing them without.

Which, rather, was the point of my previous post

Uhm, do you have seen the table ? Because every single point you raised is on this table. Big damage is +1; save or dies range from +2 to +3, depending on the specific type; spell levels are worth +1 for 1st and 2nd level, and +2 for anything above (which is bullcrap, but hey, its there); different kinds of immunities are listed separately and range from +1 to +2 and there is a generic "special defense" for +1.

Figuring out the XP value for any monster using those guidelines is actually pretty easy.

[Camelot]

Perhaps. But I still get the impression that the designers could have done a trial, and that they might have been surprised.

Also, note that rulers are pretty commonplace, cost orders of magnitude less than the D&D books, and are cheaper than graph paper. Not requiring extra accessories to play can be a noble goal, but I don't think anyone would consider having to have a ruler on hand to be a credible disadvantage to a game.

Using rulers with several miniatures on the table would be a nightmare for me, and make combat go even slower than it does now. It would, however, be simple to change the rules of 4e to fit using a ruler. Change every mention of a square to 5 feet, and proceed. The designers may not have suggested it, but that doesn't mean it's not an option.

My problem with those people? There's the Spectator class I homebrewed up, just for them. Now they don't have to worry about anything! Why lump people who want to play a non-gish melee character and people who really want to play the spectator into the same group?

(And, really, I'd be perfectly fine with alienating that audience. D&D can't be all things to all people, and it shouldn't try. People who don't actually want to be playing a roleplaying game are as good a choice as any to ignore.)

I have a member of my group who plays as simple a character as possible, mechanically. She loves to make complex characters, with rich backstories and plenty of opportunities for character development. However, the rest of my group prefers having interesting combat and puzzles more than roleplaying conversations, or at least like to have a balance among them. Should we alienate our friend just because she doesn't have a very tactics-oriented mind, and has a hard time grasping the rules? She definitely wants to play a roleplaying game, but if she tries to play anything more complicated than a slayer in 4e, her turns become so slow that it becomes not fun for the other players. When she has her simple character, everyone's happy.

I don't mind making up my own homebrew, but I was glad when Essentials came out, because it made things simpler for those who wanted that. I hope that 5e has a similar range of complexity from the getgo.

[jseah]

Again, none of this is incompatible with building them using the 4e NPC rules. It's certainly how NPCs work in my own games, and I'd say it's supported via the rule-set.

Oh, of course it is not incompatible since the NPC rules can do nearly everything and mimicking a PC class is trivial.
But I want my NPCs to be people, just like the PCs.

Or put it another way, PCs aren't special because everyone is just like them. (I note that this is probably another place where our styles differ; most of my campaigns have the PCs be relatively normal citizens (with one game being an exception))
Addition: Heroes, to me, get made after they're done; and not something inherent to them. The kid who slays the dragon isn't a hero. He's just a plucky kid who's good with a sword (or bow, or magic, or...). PEOPLE make him into a hero.

Uhm, do you have seen the table ? Because every single point you raised is on this table. Big damage is +1; save or dies range from +2 to +3, depending on the specific type; spell levels are worth +1 for 1st and 2nd level, and +2 for anything above (which is bullcrap, but hey, its there); different kinds of immunities are listed separately and range from +1 to +2 and there is a generic "special defense" for +1.

Teleportation? Movement restriction abilities?
Action economy?
Illusions (as in ability to make people see false information)? Information gathering abilities?

The effects of those range from nearly zero to game breaking, depending on the situation and strength (as well as opponent's defenses against it).


Come to think of it, if I GM 4E, the daily and encounter power list will probably rise dramatically in number and flexibility. (not just for wizards, I have no qualms about giving fighters explicit magic)
Adding some dailies that are free and fast ritual casting could be an option... hmm... *writes it down*

[obryn]

I was glad when Essentials came out, because it made things simpler for those who wanted that. I hope that 5e has a similar range of complexity from the getgo.

Agreed 100%. The Essentials classes, in my mind, made 4e a pretty complete system. Before those books, I had a player join a Level 17 campaign... I threw a Ranger at him and said, "just twin strike every round and you'll be at 80% efficiency." He learned, but it was a relatively steep curve.

If the E-style classes had been around back then, I wouldn't have needed to do that.

Or put it another way, PCs aren't special because everyone is just like them. (I note that this is probably another place where our styles differ; most of my campaigns have the PCs be relatively normal citizens (with one game being an exception))
Addition: Heroes, to me, get made after they're done; and not something inherent to them. The kid who slays the dragon isn't a hero. He's just a plucky kid who's good with a sword (or bow, or magic, or...). PEOPLE make him into a hero.

When I want to run a game where the PCs are kind of average joes, going from commoner to (maybe) hero, I'll run WFRP2e. I think it's way better suited for that playstyle than any version of D&D is. (Also, fwiw, it's a phenomenal system in general.)

If I'm running D&D, "normal person" is not what I'm looking for. I want the PCs to start out as ... well, novice adventurers, going out to make their fortune. Not bakers & blacksmiths. And any asymmetry between their capabilities and the capabilities of the people around them is kind of irrelevant... A D&D game is seen through the lens of the PCs; I'm the only one who gets to step out of that perspective.

(Also, I think you might be exaggerating how powerful level 1 4e characters are... You might be shocked at the high lethality rate at low levels - up until about 6th or 7th, things can easily get dicey.)

-O

[Oracle_Hunter]

Come to think of it, if I GM 4E, the daily and encounter power list will probably rise dramatically in number and flexibility. (not just for wizards, I have no qualms about giving fighters explicit magic)
Adding some dailies that are free and fast ritual casting could be an option... hmm... *writes it down*

You might want to actually run vanilla 4e first before trying to "fix" it

Basically, a lot of your "fixes" misunderstand how 4e is put together and operate on incorrect assumptions on how things work in practice. As a rule, it is really easy to mistake how it works "on paper" and how it works "in practice" -- which is one reason why I find actual 5e Playtesters invaluable in discussions about 5e. I like theoretical discussions as much as the next guy but seeing how things work in practice (and figuring out why they do) always has to trump it.

N.B. This is not an appeal to the "Perfect DMs / Perfect Players" fallacy since the why things work out a given way is often the most telling. When I see games run without regard to the rules (or relying heavily on the "DM Fiat" clauses) that tells me the underlying rule is broken somehow even if, in play, everyone just works around it.

For the 4e example, this is Skill Challenges: a fine mechanic, but in implementation it never works as laid out in the rules. I'd like to see it in 5e, since iterative mechanics are a nice fix on d20 variability issues, but it needs to be completely reworked to be useful.

[Ashdate]

Come to think of it, if I GM 4E, the daily and encounter power list will probably rise dramatically in number and flexibility. (not just for wizards, I have no qualms about giving fighters explicit magic)
Adding some dailies that are free and fast ritual casting could be an option... hmm... *writes it down*

Not to spoil your fun, but have you tried DMing 4e? I ask because you seem to want to really redesign how the game is run, and I'm not sure if that comes from personal experience, or some imagined flaws with the system.

Fights can take a long time because characters are (overall) more complicated than they were in 3.5 (certainly wizards and clerics are easier, but everything else is more complex). In fact, I find the quickest turns to be my monsters, since (despite controlling more than one), they're much simplier!

Instead of a fighter/paladin/ranger having one option for attacking things with a sword, they likely have 5 or more. Adding more complexity to the characters (combat wise) is something I would steer you away from; standard non-essentials classes already approach what I would consider the point of diminishing returns in terms of more abilities = more flexibility.

If you make monsters/NPCs more complex as well as make PCs more complex, I think you're asking for trouble.

To Oracle Hunters point, I would like to see "reworked" skill challenges in 5e too; I tried out the "Obsidian" skill challenge house rules for 4e last game and they worked better than I thought they would.

5e's challenge is that the skill reductionism to "base stats" could go either way; regardless, fixing the skill DCs are going to be necessary first so a high roll on a d20 doesn't become so crucial.

[Siegel]

Using rulers with several miniatures on the table would be a nightmare for me, and make combat go even slower than it does now. It would, however, be simple to change the rules of 4e to fit using a ruler. Change every mention of a square to 5 feet, and proceed. The designers may not have suggested it, but that doesn't mean it's not an option.



I have a member of my group who plays as simple a character as possible, mechanically. She loves to make complex characters, with rich backstories and plenty of opportunities for character development. However, the rest of my group prefers having interesting combat and puzzles more than roleplaying conversations, or at least like to have a balance among them. Should we alienate our friend just because she doesn't have a very tactics-oriented mind, and has a hard time grasping the rules? She definitely wants to play a roleplaying game, but if she tries to play anything more complicated than a slayer in 4e, her turns become so slow that it becomes not fun for the other players. When she has her simple character, everyone's happy.

I don't mind making up my own homebrew, but I was glad when Essentials came out, because it made things simpler for those who wanted that. I hope that 5e has a similar range of complexity from the getgo.

Well you could play a game that is Not DnD. Suprising idea i know. What else could there be...

[obryn]

Well you could play a game that is Not DnD. Suprising idea i know. What else could there be...

So the solution to having one player at a table who's not mechanically inclined, sitting with a bunch of other players who are, is ... to play something else? Instead of use something that works perfectly well and makes everyone happy?

-O

[1337 b4k4]

So the solution to having one player at a table who's not mechanically inclined, sitting with a bunch of other players who are, is ... to play something else? Instead of use something that works perfectly well and makes everyone happy?

<sarcasm>
Oh come now, it's quite clear that it doesn't make everyone happy. There's plenty of nerd rage to be had when you mix simple classes into their tactical miniatures game. It doesn't matter that it makes your group happy, having mechanically simple classes is clearly doubleplusunfun, and if you're playing D&D with them you're clearly Doing It Wrong.
</sarcasm>

[Kerrin]

But I want my NPCs to be people, just like the PCs.

Use the PC rules to make your NPCs if that's what you prefer.

WotC is not going to issue a Wanted poster for you if you do ... or are they?

[huttj509]

<sarcasm>
Oh come now, it's quite clear that it doesn't make everyone happy. There's plenty of nerd rage to be had when you mix simple classes into their tactical miniatures game. It doesn't matter that it makes your group happy, having mechanically simple classes is clearly doubleplusunfun, and if you're playing D&D with them you're clearly Doing It Wrong.
</sarcasm>

And obviously being the simple class is what the fighter's FOR.

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.

3E didn't really get complex fighter-type until ToB, a bit late in the system. The starting intent was for complexity to come in build rather than play, from the feat trees, but it didn't work out that way.

4E didn't really get simple until Essentials. Judgment on if this was too late after release is YMMV.

I think trying to include simple and complex of the same archetype in the starting book might feel a bit repetitive, but in order to accommodate preferences might be the best move.

[kyoryu]

And obviously being the simple class is what the fighter's FOR.

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.

I think there's also degrees of simplicity. See, when I think "simple Fighter", I think 1e/2e, where the only real option a Fighter had in combat (mechanically defined, not subject to DM whim, that is), was "hit the orc." Even if there were no orcs there, and you were fighting kobolds, you had to hit the orc. It was a weird time.

The 4e Essentials fighters were simpler than the pre-Essentials ones, sure, but they still had more choices and options than a 1e fighter. I could buy someone wanting to play an Essentials-type Fighter, but going back to the 1e style "hit the orc" fighter would be, I think, a poor decision.

What would be ideal for a "simple" class is one that could operate at a reasonable degree of efficiency, but had more knobs to tweak so that you could grow "into" the class over time if you so chose.

[huttj509]

Use the PC rules to make your NPCs if that's what you prefer.

WotC is not going to issue a Wanted poster for you if you do ... or are they?

Spoiler

Show

[jseah]

@Kerrin:
My GM tried that and I liked the effect, so I plan to do that if I ever GM 4E. In particular, I liked it enough as well when I do it in 3E that I think 5E ought to explicitly support NPCs being made with PC rules.

Probably not monsters, but one cannot have all the cake to yourself. =X

Not to spoil your fun, but have you tried DMing 4e? I ask because you seem to want to really redesign how the game is run, and I'm not sure if that comes from personal experience, or some imagined flaws with the system.

Also to Oracle Hunter:
True, I admit I haven't actually run 4e, although I have played it. From the player's side of the table, I found that the things I would expect my players to do (and tools/rules to guide them) were missing. The executive summary is, I found 4E combat to be chess. Really *really* complicated chess, but you don't get to do much more than maybe take away a tile.

I talked about running 4E with my friends at one point. I did get to the planning stage of a setting (upon which I was lacking a number of effects I really wanted my NPCs to have), but due to RL reasons, the thing never happened.

There are and still may be (I dropped 4E somewhere after Adventurer's Vault was released, so they might have fixed it since then) some significant gaps in the PC abilities. Even in the realm of combat, which 4E focuses on. I shall mention the lack of complex out of combat stuff only in passing. (rituals are too simple and inflexible; also too weak)
--long long rant here--

Spoiler

Show

In particular, I found both positive and negative status effects to be weak, except the healing types, and nearly pointless except in the exact situation they fit. (upon which they become useful, but not more than that)
Movement powers have incredibly transient effects and if some of them didn't bundle an attack, would be worse than useless.
Terrain-type powers (essentially a status effect on the ground instead of on creatures) are also likewise lackluster except for the fogs, which had some interesting uses.


But in summary, the things I found wrong with conflict in 4E is the lack of lasting significant* advantages that each side could aim for and hold. Combat was pretty much a very complex chess game with dice, the most advanced tactics we could think of to apply was,
"If I go here, and do X power, that might allow the monster to attack the wizard. He's still at full hp, he can take one hit, but afterwards, we'll be surrounding the monster on favourable terrain..."
- Of course, when you do that, expecting the monster to not attack, the GM sees the bait and decides to take it and rolls a crit... =D

There is little real tradeoff, most of the decisions are a matter of simple analysis of your and enemy's future opportunities with risk/reward factoring in somewhere.

I prefer conflict, tactical combat in particular, to contain multiple dimensions and each of them to contribute significantly to the results. This means that players have to think about their weapons, the immediate area, the wider conflict and information.
When assaulting or defending a castle (I know I know castles are a bad idea), knowledge of the layout, the layout itself, knowing where enemies are and what they are doing, as well as what they are likely to do in certain situations, what you know and don't know, what your enemies know and don't know,
should all factor into every fight within its walls. EDIT: and players and NPCs should have methods to influence some or all of them, during a fight or in preparation.

When 4E combat starts, most of that goes flying out the window or grants CA for one round (surprise). The most important threat I can think of to the players' poor preparation is that they end up fighting the entire garrison at once. Which is a pretty bad situation to be in, but there is nearly nothing other than numbers.
Unfair decided-before-first-attack battles are basically impossible unless you're fireballing minions, which indicates that Advantages-to-be-gained are not significant enough or do not stack enough or aren't there in the first place. Not saying that those battles should occur all the time, but them being possible at all is important.

EDIT2:

The effects of those range from nearly zero to game breaking, depending on the situation and strength (as well as opponent's defenses against it).

To clarify here, I meant that the GM could give NPCs some of these abilities since NPCs can be given apparently anything.
Of course, if your players can't teleport through walls, then you probably shouldn't have enemies who can.

...
I'm not explaining myself well here, am I?

Chalk it up to "its too simple!" but keep in mind that simply making it more complex in terms of additional power choices doesn't do anything to solve that problem.
There needs to be more "game". Broadening the spheres that characters can influence is my attempt at doing that. As to whether that'll actually work out remains to be actually tested.

[obryn]

I think we should have simple classes. I think we should have complex classes. I do NOT think that the split should be along magic/mundane lines. Ideally, if you wanted to play a concept, you could do it either complex or simple.

In 4e, the Elementalist from Heroes of the Elemental chaos finally filled this void. And it's an outstanding class - a very capable striker even with its limited scope. I'd love to play one.

4E didn't really get simple until Essentials. Judgment on if this was too late after release is YMMV.

As a 4e fan, I wish Essentials had been the first release, rather than late in the system. I think it would have been a much cleaner release to have the normal AEDU classes come later (but not too long later). I'm glad we eventually got the options, though. Better late than never.

-O

[jseah]

When I want to run a game where the PCs are kind of average joes, going from commoner to (maybe) hero, I'll run WFRP2e. I think it's way better suited for that playstyle than any version of D&D is. (Also, fwiw, it's a phenomenal system in general.)
<...>
(Also, I think you might be exaggerating how powerful level 1 4e characters are... You might be shocked at the high lethality rate at low levels - up until about 6th or 7th, things can easily get dicey.)

Playstyle difference. Even my entire "4E combat is too simple" post can be boiled down to two simple words.

Playstyle difference.

I played an L1 introductory short, started L5 in campaign going to L10. If that's what you call high lethality... =(
Until you stand a 50% chance of losing life and limb unless you were prepared, that's not high lethality. If players could charge into battle, every even battle that is, for 5 levels, and still stand a >80% chance of being alive, I call that safe.

[Kurald Galain]

(Also, I think you might be exaggerating how powerful level 1 4e characters are... You might be shocked at the high lethality rate at low levels - up until about 6th or 7th, things can easily get dicey.)

That's not my experience at all. Level 1 may be risky if you play encounters that are several levels higher, and there are some risks to not having a leader at the table, but otherwise I've seen extremely little character death, or risk thereof, in four years of gameplay.

Let's face it, the game is built on the assumption that player characters gain experience mainly (though not exclusively) through combat, and generally against higher-level opponents. Since resurrection is not available at low levels, this means that if combat was truly dangerous to characters, they would only rarely make it to moderate levels.

[kyoryu]

Until you stand a 50% chance of losing life and limb unless you were prepared, that's not high lethality.

That's a very different style game, one where what's really encouraged is preparation and planning, and not fighting itself - in a system like that, you should really know that you're going to win before you even engage.

That's a playstyle that 3.x just flat-out supports better than 4e. I don't think that particular playstyle was really an objective of 4e, and I'm frankly not sure it *should* be an objective of 5e. (Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just suspect (meaning - no data) that it's relatively niche).

[obryn]

That's not my experience at all.

Fair enough. It is mine.

Let's face it, the game is built on the assumption that player characters gain experience mainly (though not exclusively) through combat, and generally against higher-level opponents. Since resurrection is not available at low levels, this means that if combat was truly dangerous to characters, they would only rarely make it to moderate levels.

{{scrubbed}}

As I mentioned before, if I hadn't implemented a few get-out-of-death-free cards at the start of the campaign, everyone in my group (except one) would have lost at least 1 character before 8th level. Naturally, the optimization levels will vary across groups; I'd consider my group fairly mid-range for this.

Now, by mid-paragon, things are not so dicey. I had two near-deaths a few sessions back, but no actual deaths in a few levels.

-O

[kyoryu]

Now, by mid-paragon, things are not so dicey. I had two near-deaths a few sessions back, but no actual deaths in a few levels.

-O

Seems like the encounters a particular DM throws at the party would impact this significantly.

Also, how cutthroat the enemies are played. Do they go for a coup de grace given a chance? Do they AoE where unconscious characters are? How much time do people have to stabilize downed characters?

[obryn]

Seems like the encounters a particular DM throws at the party would impact this significantly.

Also, how cutthroat the enemies are played. Do they go for a coup de grace given a chance? Do they AoE where unconscious characters are? How much time do people have to stabilize downed characters?

Ummm... I think it's more that, by this level, the PCs have considerably more resources to handle Level+0, +1, +2, and higher encounters. It's one thing when you're level 5, with two dailies, two (three w/ themes) encounter powers, 1 utility power, and a pair of at-wills. It's another at Paragon when you have 3+ dailies, 4-5 encounters, and a handful of utility powers along with your paragon path features and a decent collection of magic items and/or boons. Monsters just don't get better in those ways.

In my own game, monsters are indiscriminate with their AoEs. It's wherever's best. By paragon, Coup de Grace is a trap option for most monsters.*

Spoiler

Show

Take your average fragile striker or leader, with 91ish HPs. Common damage expressions for a 15th-level monster are around 2d10+12 (or in that neighborhood), or 32 damage on a crit. If you need to get to -45 or so at best, odds are good you're wasting your action because any healing will wtill start from 0 and make it so that damage basically never happened. If they have more than this, you're even more likely to waste your round.

It's usually better for intelligent enemies to start targeting the leader if possible. With that said, intelligent enemies in my games sometimes make use of it, as do hungry ones who view the PCs mostly as a food source.

I think by mid-Paragon, the actual encounter level needed to reasonably challenge a party is around Level+2 with balanced terrain; maybe L+0 with strongly monster-favorable terrain. L+4-5 is hard, and L+6-8 or so is TPK potential.

-O

[Kurald Galain]

Seems like the encounters a particular DM throws at the party would impact this significantly.

Probably, but I've found that paragon characters have so many "panic buttons" that it's very hard to seriously challenge a party with decent tactics.

Also, how cutthroat the enemies are played. Do they go for a coup de grace given a chance? Do they AoE where unconscious characters are? How much time do people have to stabilize downed characters?

These questions assume that characters fall unconsious in the first place. Yes, that does happen, but not commonly, and generally the leader will bring them back up quickly afterwards. I've never seen stabilization come up above level 3 or so: combat will simply be over before a character has the time to run out of death saves.