5e?

[erikun]

One thing I would like to see back from 3.5e was how they handled the PC/NPC difference. The ability to create a character using PC rules and then run them as an NPC (or vice versa) was very nice. It allowed the DM to tweak an opponent to give them the desired abilities, or boost them up a few levels with some interesting abilities rather than just a handful of +1's in various places.

That doesn't work in 4e, mainly because the HP/weapon damage for PCs is largely different than those for monsters. And while having the monster creation rules right there - with expected HP and damage already figured out - was excellent, it didn't help much if you weren't looking at creating a creature from scratch.

[Eldan]

I liked the idea of Paragon paths as introduced in 4E. I even thought about using as a house rule in 3.5: you choose a prestige class on level 6 (almost everyone does that anyway) and continue to advance a base class along with it. Would also help a bit with the balance, I think, rewarding classes with actual features.

[Yora]

One thing I would like to see back from 3.5e was how they handled the PC/NPC difference. The ability to create a character using PC rules and then run them as an NPC (or vice versa) was very nice. It allowed the DM to tweak an opponent to give them the desired abilities, or boost them up a few levels with some interesting abilities rather than just a handful of +1's in various places.

On the downside, when you wanted to create an NPC, you had to go through the entire character creation and level advancement process each and every time.

I think an optimal solution would be somewhere in between. For example have skill points for PCs, and fixed level-dependant skill bonuses for NPCs, plus maybe three or four specialization skills, that get a +3 bonus each.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay in this case to my understanding it would be the daze would still effect, because the attack is both cold and fire, it's immune to the effect of fire powers, but not to cold powers, so the status effect still goes off. It's really not hard unless again there's something specific you haven't shown saying that's not how it works.

Ah, but in this case your understanding is wrong (likewise, your response on the mixed vulnerabilies is not actually RAW). But that's not the point anyway. I never said it was "hard", because whether you find something hard really depends on what kind of player you are (there are numerous players who find all of 4E hard to learn). I said it was clunky. It's an unnecessary rule, and also an inconsistent one.

Can I just interject here and ask: Why?
Why do you even have to take options that give a +1? Sure, there's some mathematical differences, but I just find those so terribly boring.

I'm not sure why, but in 3E a +1 bonus on 1d20 is generally found to be boring and uninteresting, whereas in 4E such a bonus is commonly called "incredible", "huge", "mandatory", "ridiculous", or similar terms.

So anyway. It's a good point that 3E has lots of bad feats and a few career defining options like Shock Trooper, but it's likewise true that 4E has lots of bad feats and a few career defining options like Polearm Momentum. WOTC should indeed pick one consistent approach to feats and stick with it, but so far they haven't done that.

[erikun]

On the downside, when you wanted to create an NPC, you had to go through the entire character creation and level advancement process each and every time.

I think an optimal solution would be somewhere in between. For example have skill points for PCs, and fixed level-dependant skill bonuses for NPCs, plus maybe three or four specialization skills, that get a +3 bonus each.

Actually, I would prefer to see both. 4e is already set up so that all PCs of a certain level will have roughly equilivant abilities, so it shouldn't be any more difficult to produce a "stock" monster in that system than to do the same where PCs and NPCs are equal.

Heck, you could even use the rules to produce a "stock" NPC on the player's side, rather than going through all the work of statting them up.


Of course, perhaps I have the idea of tossing all abilities into a classless skill system, with the option between pre-build "class packages" for traditional rolls or simply making whatever you'd like with whichever abilities you want. It would certainly make it easier to translate a stock NPC into something with class levels, as well...

[Sebastrd]

All base bonuses scale with level at the same rate.

That's a feature. Not necessarily a good or bad one.

I can't fathom how anyone could possibly believe that. It's, in my opinion, the most important and best change they made in 4E.

Healing effects automatically scale to the target's max HP

This isn't necessarily good at all. Certainly a realism hit. Not necessarily a gameplay bonus.

In what possible sense is this a "realism hit"? We're talking about a magical effect. Is an arbitrary die size more "realistic" in some way?

Newer /= better. I don't think you've justified adequately than the 4e core ruleset is inherently superior to the 3.5/pf one.

The core ruleset might not be, but that's a subjective matter. However, the engine, the mathematics behind the game, are absolutely superior. In just 20 levels, the 3.5 engine breaks down as the disparity between attack bonus, saves, and AC increases to the point they no longer function.

[stainboy]

Core Mechanic:

d20 + modifier. Same, same. Not seeing big diff here.

Pretty much any contest between two creatures in 4e will be resolved by d20+ halflevel + attribute vs 10 + halflevel vs attribute. D20 doesn't standardize level scaling. Some things go up by level, some half level, some one third level, some not at all, which is how we get stuff like touch attacks that only miss on a 1.

Combat Advantage:

Eh...see, there's a notable lack of precision involved in this streamlining. That said, both 3.5 and 4e have a rather crazy number of possible statuses to track. 4e likely involves more actual tracking due to short duration bonuses, which could be viewed as LESS streamlined.

The fact that 3e's own writers couldn't keep track of the distinction between "flat footed" and "denied Dex bonus" means the distinction shouldn't be there. Regardless, combat advantage ("you're at -2") is more elegant and makes more sense than "if you lose your dex bonus to AC because you can't dodge, but if you have a dex penalty you keep that because you can still be bad at dodging." What?

----

I'm right with you on 4e having way too many fiddly short-duration bonuses though. I'm just talking about the core engine, not the power lists. 4e did add a crapton of inconsistency in the power mechanics. But for very simple stuff - the fighter makes basic attacks, the wizard shoots Scorching Rays every round, the cleric heals, the rogue stabs and uses simple sneak attack setups - 4e's math is better.

That doesn't matter if you build lots of inconsistent crap on top of it (Kurald's "Immunity to Fire" vs "Immunity to Fire Based Effects," uuugggghh) but it's at least a foundation for a stronger system.

[EccentricCircle]

I should hope that they are working on designing fifth edition well in advance of any plans to release it. even if they still plan to release fourth edition material for the next couple of years it would make sense to be thinking to the future.
I hope that someone at Wizards has the job of reading forum threads like this one. it strikes me that finding out what vocal players of the game think of the pros and cons of various aspects of it would be a good first step in any design process. of course finding out what the less vocal players think would be equally important and significantly harder.

I don't want them to scrap 4th edition any time soon, but few of the books they've released lately have interested me that much, so I won't be sorry to see a new edition, although whether i'll actually buy into it or not will depend.

[erikun]

I will say that one thing 4e lost with the Combat Advantage mechanic is that a character could no longer grant themselves heavy advantages due to stacking multiple bonuses. In 3.5e, if a character was presented with a very difficult opponent to hit, they could take up a flanking position... along with knocking them prone, restraining them to deny their Dex bonus, and attacking while invisible. Putting them all together pretty much guaranteed that you would get a hit with your attack, which is about what you would expect in such a situation.

In 4e, though, the bonuses don't stack so the same thing doesn't happen. Being invisible or attacking downed opponents isn't any better than standing opposite of an ally, so there is little desire to do so - much less try to do it all in hopes of landing a bit strike on an otherwise tough-to-hit opponent. Heck, a silent/invisible/undetectable assassin trying to slit the throat of a sleeping guard will still miss around a third of the time.

It's a break from realism* that does allow the system to run smoother and simplify things, but it is a break from realism, and it does influence how players play the game.

* By "break from realism" I mean that the results of an action are not what a person unfamiliar with the system would expect.

[Jayabalard]

4e just came out a few years ago. We've still got some time with it before the next edition.

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be the first time that we had 2 competing versions of D&D at the same time

maybe he's working on 4e AD&D.

[Jayabalard]

I can't fathom how anyone could possibly believe that. It's, in my opinion, the most important and best change they made in 4E.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me: it results in a lack of granularity which some people find distasteful.

In what possible sense is this a "realism hit"? We're talking about a magical effect. Is an arbitrary die size more "realistic" in some way?

When people use the word "realism" they actually mean "verisimilitude" ... if the same effect works differently on different people for no reason, it's a "realism hit"

The core ruleset might not be, but that's a subjective matter.

The text you quoted is talking about the fact that it hasn't been shown inherently better. Nothing you argue after shows anything but a purely subjective opinion on which is better; you do not, in any way, show that it is inherently better.

However, the engine, the mathematics behind the game, are absolutely superior.

Not at all. You could say simpler. But superior is a totally subjective label.

[Yora]

That one was called Essentials.

[No brains]

I will withhold my damns and rat's cabooses on any of this edition business.

What I want from Wizards are the miniatures back. The plastic, non-shatterable, pre-painted minis lazy table-toppers love to collect.

[Starbuck_II]

Not necessarily. It wouldn't be the first time that we had 2 competing versions of D&D at the same time

maybe he's working on 4e AD&D.

Wouldn't that just be Hackmaster Basic (the new Hackmaster game)? It is basically AD&D with different stats (added back Looks). Only classes are Thief, Fighter, Mage, and Cleric. No racial limits, but you use build points so certain classes are cheaper.

[Anderlith]

I think that in 5th Edition getting hit at any level should be a serious thing. If you take an axe to the face, you should feel it, you shouldn't srug it off as -12hp. I also want the fragile mage back. Yes, you have walls of force & can deter my arrows with wind, but if I get at you, you are dead.

[Jayabalard]

Wouldn't that just be Hackmaster Basic (the new Hackmaster game)? It is basically AD&D with different stats (added back Looks). Only classes are Thief, Fighter, Mage, and Cleric. No racial limits, but you use build points so certain classes are cheaper.

that's kind of the opposite... you'd need to be more complex, and have more options to justify adding the "A"

[Anderlith]

& it should support more play styles than running around in dark cramped spaces. I like running around above ground

[stainboy]

When people use the word "realism" they actually mean "verisimilitude" ... if the same effect works differently on different people for no reason, it's a "realism hit"

To me percentage-based healing is more realistic (or more, uh, verisimilitudinous, whatever). If CLW always heals you about 10 HP whether you have 5 max HP or 200, then either:

-HP don't represent an absolute amount of injury, and CLW heals less physical injury the higher level you are. That doesn't make sense.

-Or, you try to make sense of CLW by saying HP do represent an absolute amount of injury. Then either you have to accept that 1st level characters die to papercuts or that high level characters end fights as animate clouds of red mist.


There are things I'd change about 4e's healing mechanics before porting them to another game, but percentage-based healing is a good idea.

[Mr. Hat]

The thing that I would like to see in a 5th edition is a workable system that will let me play as monstrous races. 3.P had the level adjustment and racial hit dice thing which had variable success and was overall a clunky system at best. 4th ed, on the other hand, made a pretty big point of separating what was a playable race versus what was a monster, which rubbed me very much the wrong way.

The essential problem they would need to tackle is how to differentiate the advantages a monster gives you and how much of an effect they have on whatever class/concept you are playing. For example, If I want to play a fighter type the massive physical bonuses I would get from playing as an ogre or something would need to be balanced out somehow. But if I wanted to play an ogre wizard those physical bonuses, while still nice, would mean a lot less to me and I shouldn't have to pay as much for them as the fighter would.

Really I wouldn't mind seeing variable xp costs for leveling in different classes, like back in 2nd ed AD&D (and maybe earlier editions? I don't know. I haven't played anything earlier than 2nd ed AD&D) but I know many people would find that obnoxious.

[Gamgee]

Saga system with tweaks was amazing and would work with DnD very well.

[Starbuck_II]

The thing that I would like to see in a 5th edition is a workable system that will let me play as monstrous races. 3.P had the level adjustment and racial hit dice thing which had variable success and was overall a clunky system at best. 4th ed, on the other hand, made a pretty big point of separating what was a playable race versus what was a monster, which rubbed me very much the wrong way.

The essential problem they would need to tackle is how to differentiate the advantages a monster gives you and how much of an effect they have on whatever class/concept you are playing. For example, If I want to play a fighter type the massive physical bonuses I would get from playing as an ogre or something would need to be balanced out somehow. But if I wanted to play an ogre wizard those physical bonuses, while still nice, would mean a lot less to me and I shouldn't have to pay as much for them as the fighter would.

Really I wouldn't mind seeing variable xp costs for leveling in different classes, like back in 2nd ed AD&D (and maybe earlier editions? I don't know. I haven't played anything earlier than 2nd ed AD&D) but I know many people would find that obnoxious.

AD&D didn't have any rules for playing monsters. They even removed 1/2 Orc.

[Mr. Hat]

I meant how in 2nd ed AD&D there were different xp tables for each class. Something like that could be repurposed for balancing out monstrous races.

[erikun]

Really I wouldn't mind seeing variable xp costs for leveling in different classes, like back in 2nd ed AD&D (and maybe earlier editions? I don't know. I haven't played anything earlier than 2nd ed AD&D) but I know many people would find that obnoxious.

If you are doing this by creating monster "classes", then you could just balance the monster abilities with what a class would have at that level and you wouldn't need different XP tables.

If you mean "Orcs get a 5% XP penality, Medusas get a 30% penality", then you run into the big problem that 3.5e had where multiclassing was worthless because you were stuck with a bunch of low-level abilities that were basically useless against the challanges you faced.

[NecroRebel]

If you mean "Orcs get a 5% XP penality, Medusas get a 30% penality", then you run into the big problem that 3.5e had where multiclassing was worthless because you were stuck with a bunch of low-level abilities that were basically useless against the challanges you faced.

...Unless of course low-level abilities weren't useless against high-level challenges. If the basic Magic Missile or similar skill is viable and useful from level 1 to level 1000, then it's not really a problem if you don't get high-level abilities. I'm thinking of Guild Wars's skills; many of the staple skills that were used throughout a player's career were among the first acquired, and the later ones were niche powers which were entirely possible to build without.

[Velaryon]

I don't think making a new edition is a very good idea, regardless of the actual content of said edition. No matter what they do, they can't please everybody, and many people will stick with their current edition of choice. And what's more, they will further cement their reputation for churning out new editions at an ever-increasing pace, which I believe will hurt sales. Why should I buy 5th edition when it will probably be obsolete in another 3 years?

Honestly, I'd be happier if they split the product line in two, with a 3.5 based line of gaming, and a very gamist oriented 4e inspired line of gaming. I'm not fussed about which one gets what name, but they two systems are terribly different, and I worry that one that tries to be half of each might end up hated by both camps.

This right here is what I would like to see. If WotC wants my money, then they should support my already existing edition of choice. Give us an official 3.75 that fixes the more glaring problems with 3.5, instead of putting out a completely different game with the same name and telling me to play that instead. And then give the 4th edition players whatever will make them happy too. Heck, they can even both keep the D&D name as long as they label them clearly.

[NecroRebel]

I don't think competing with themselves is a good business plan. If WotC puts out 2 completely different games at the same time, marketed, ultimately, to the same people, they have to have twice as many designers, editors, etc. to actually make the books, which probably means more than 1 1/2 times the costs. Frankly, old players don't matter. For the most part, we won't be buying whole sets of books like newbies will, especially if the "new" editions are just "fixed" versions of older ones, as the 3.5 and 4.0 players will mostly look at the 3.75 and 4.5 books, look at what they've got, and just take the most important stuff and do the conversions themselves. Again, the old players won't buy all the books if there's any compatibility between what they've already got and what's new, so it's more profitable for them to make a completely new system.

Also, the editions haven't been coming out at an increasing rate. 3 years between 3.0 and 3.5, 5 between 3.5 and 4, 5 between 4 and 5. Essentials isn't to 4e what 3.5 was to 3.0; they're just low-quality sourcebooks for 4e, not a rewrite. Calling it a new edition is like calling Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle a new edition; they're very different from the original system, but by no means overwrite the old one.

[Snowbluff]

Imo, 4e just sucked. Regardless of whether or not Power Attack is a power, or whatever, 3.x had an incredible amount of depth to it. The customization and silly things you could do with it are what make it appealing, as opposed to shallow systems such as DC Heroes.

Game balance does not have to be enforced by the books anyway. That's what DMs are for.

[Eric Tolle]

Two sets of powers. One for classes, one for everyone. Things that everyone can learn. Perhaps, yes, Whirlwind Attack is an incredibly powerful, difficult to learn technique that only true fighters can learn. Fair enough. But why, say, Power Attack? I hit it harder. There isn't much more to it.

The problem with that is that as it was with 3.X, feat-based abilities are in no way balanced with magical powers and spells. Given a choice between learning the ability to do extra damage with a sword hit, or the ability to go invisible, levitate, or summon monsters, what character would be stupid enough to choose the former?

I think that in 5th Edition getting hit at any level should be a serious thing. If you take an axe to the face, you should feel it, you shouldn't srug it off as -12hp. I also want the fragile mage back. Yes, you have walls of force & can deter my arrows with wind, but if I get at you, you are dead.

If you want fragile mages, then you're going to have to remove about half the spells mages have access to. Because by about fifth level in 3.X edition, actually getting to a mage is problematic, and by 12 level, there's pretty much no reason a mage should ever be threatened.

Now as for me, I want hit points to be explicitly defined as defensive luck- you die whan you "run out of luck", and there is no more detailed definition of where or if the person is hit. There is no "hitting in the face" outside of specific combat powers. That's the only way that hit points make any sort of sense, as people (and other animals) are not logs to be chipped away at until they fall. Wounds simply don't work that way.

Frankly, if you want a "a hit in the face matters" system, then you shouldn't go with hit points at all- use a damage save combined with a hit location table, similar to what the games Traveller 2300 or Albedo had. Toss in blood loss and shock mechanics, and you'll be set, especially if you rig the tables so that it's possible for someone to take 10 bullets in the chest and walk away, or die from being stabbed in the foot with a penknife.

But that's really getting away from D&D, even further away than True20 took it.

[NecroRebel]

Imo, 4e just sucked. Regardless of whether or not Power Attack is a power, or whatever, 3.x had an incredible amount of depth to it. The customization and silly things you could do with it are what make it appealing, as opposed to shallow systems such as DC Heroes.

Something tells me you either have other reasons for disliking 4e, you dislike it despite never having tried it, or you tried it when there was only one book out and then dismissed it. 4e has a great deal of depth and customization to it, probably as much per book as 3.x (try building a deep character with only the first Player's Handbook in both editions; you'll see fairly sparse real options). As such, I can't help but see your statement as non sequitur.

Game balance does not have to be enforced by the books anyway. That's what DMs are for.

[singsong]Oberoni Fallacy![/singsong]

The fact that a DM can avoid a problem with proper rulings does not mean a problem does not exist. If the DM has to enforce balance because the game doesn't, that just means that the game doesn't enforce balance.

[Curious]

Something tells me you either have other reasons for disliking 4e, you dislike it despite never having tried it, or you tried it when there was only one book out and then dismissed it. 4e has a great deal of depth and customization to it, probably as much per book as 3.x (try building a deep character with only the first Player's Handbook in both editions; you'll see fairly sparse real options). As such, I can't help but see your statement as non sequitur.

You know, I see this attitude quite frequently among 4e players. When someone says they have played the game and found it lacking, the inevitable response is that you must be lying, or you didn't play it enough, because anyone who has 'really' played 4e couldn't possibly find it to be anything less than revolutionary and nigh-perfect.