Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 adamsouza wrote:
Found this 8 video review of D&D Next Playtest material on youtube http://youtu.be/CuyiVWANGi0

I've been watching those vides -- they seem pretty good, pointing out some good changes and some stuff that's still very problematic. Thanks for passing that on!

 Manchu wrote:
Again, 4E was just the logical extension of 3.5.

I notice you make this comment as much as you can.

I have to say I don't agree with the sentiment at all. Are you saying with the way that 3.0 into 3.5 was attempting to make the classes more similar as it went along, 4th turning them into powers that were very similar was the logical step that would be made next?

I don't think allowing 6 different classes to have a power that does the exact same effect on a player other than HPs(Stunned, Dazed, Push, Pull, Slide...bleh) along with varied DMG amounts is anything logically taken from 3rd Edition or its semi-expansion of 3.5. Logically we all expect them to just balance the martial characters with more resonable later-level effects and abilities to make them on part with casters for situational usefulness sort of like Pathfinder did but without blanketing the whole of the class structure into these new 'Powers' that everybody shares. I don't know of a single person in my gaming groups, other gaming groups, or local Living Greyhawk players that consider 4th to have been 'Logical movement from 3.5'...all consider it a strong reboot of mechanics and concept.

Edit: My grammar fails annoy me...

I can see where he's coming from. From a perspective of what is important about the game they are very similar systems. I've never played any edition of D&D before 3.5, but from what I gather 3.5 is really a lot more combat focused than earlier editions with much more survivable heroes and more rules, but much better laid out and consistent rules.

4e takes all those philosophies I just described and ramps it up even moreso, to the point of being a miniature skirmish game with elaborate campaign rules in some cases (kind of ironic since D&D in general grew out of a tabletop wargame called Chainmail, now it's returning to its roots).

Yep, dementedwombat has the right idea. IMO, one of the most important changes introduced by 3.0/3.5 was making the concept of balance a central system goal (probably second only to the concept of a core mechanic). Third Edition handled this alright when in a limited situation: core classes versus core monsters. But it failed hard when it came to balance between core classes themselves over the long haul and especially with regard to all the splat. So D&D 4E took the promise of 3.0/3.5 -- this concept of balance -- and made it even more important. That's where the powers system comes from; trying to deliver on 3.5's promises.

The Devs have admitted that a lot of the changes in 4E were experimented with in 3.5E.

Warlocks with at will attacks.
Book of five rings with combat feats that turned into class powers.
etc...

Do you mean Book of Nine Swords?

 Manchu wrote:
Do you mean Book of Nine Swords?

I suspect that's what he means. That also happened to be the only core book for the entire 3/3.5 run that I didn't buy as I didn't like the mechanics presented... which obviously became the standard in 4e unfortunately for me.

Heh, you bought Incarnum but balked at BoNS?

I bought them all. Argh.

 pretre wrote:
Heh, you bought Incarnum but balked at BoNS?

I bought them all. Argh.

I found some good things that I could use in Incarnum from my casual leafing through at the store standing by the new release shelf. I couldn't say the same thing about BONS either from my quick read through nor with a more detailed reading of a borrowed friend's book (who also didn't like it so didn't mind lending it out for an extended reading) who played in my campaign (and later I in his).

I hardly remember what it's like to go to the store and browse through the new D&D releases.

 warboss wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Heh, you bought Incarnum but balked at BoNS?

I bought them all. Argh.

I found some good things that I could use in Incarnum from my casual leafing through at the store standing by the new release shelf. I couldn't say the same thing about BONS either from my quick read through nor with a more detailed reading of a borrowed friend's book (who also didn't like it so didn't mind lending it out for an extended reading) who played in my campaign (and later I in his).

Really? I was the opposite. I liked BoNS a lot more than Incarnum or Weapons of Legacy.

@Manchu: We just had a running tab with Amazon. I never actually browsed, but just bought. Ahh, the days before children.

I just meant that these days there are no new D&D releases. There are just re-releases of old things. That's supposed to change by month's end but TBH the product (Murder in Baldur's Gate) doesn't look that great.

 pretre wrote:

Really? I was the opposite. I liked BoNS a lot more than Incarnum or Weapons of Legacy.

Neither one was in my top half of favorite core supplements but my personal rule was that if I found around a dozen pages or more useful in a core book then I bought it as a DM. Most books qualified for that with 2-3 prestige classes, 2-3 pages of equipment, and then 4-5 pages of feats. I really didn't find anything in BONS that I wanted to use at all.

Oh man, Incarnum and Weapons of Legacy. I remember skimming through those as a little kid who had never actually played the game (for some reason my parents thought that letting me roam the bookstore was a good idea). I thought they were the most awesome thing ever.

I can still remember, the first D&D related thing I ever saw was a monster out of MM3 called the "summoning ooze". Opened a random book to a random page and there it was. To this day browsing the monster manuals is one of my favorite things to do in that game.

 dementedwombat wrote:
I can see where he's coming from. From a perspective of what is important about the game they are very similar systems. I've never played any edition of D&D before 3.5, but from what I gather 3.5 is really a lot more combat focused than earlier editions with much more survivable heroes and more rules, but much better laid out and consistent rules.

4e takes all those philosophies I just described and ramps it up even moreso, to the point of being a miniature skirmish game with elaborate campaign rules in some cases (kind of ironic since D&D in general grew out of a tabletop wargame called Chainmail, now it's returning to its roots).

I don't think that makes 3.5 a 'logical step' for 4.0 more than any other edition change was. Each addition was more combat oriented, streamlined and fun to play(survivability). The overall rules changes from 3.5 to 4.0 of taking away the things that made spellcasters different from the martial characters was a complete change of pace that makes 3.5-4.0 one of the most shocking changes for most long-time D&D characters. The idea of playstyles being different between any of the characters is gone and the game has become a fundamental 'character play' system...HUGE difference from playing casters and smashers in 3.5.

Sorry to interupt the Edition Cold War but anyone know if there is news on Next from gencon? I've been looking at the usual sources but haven't seen much.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
The overall rules changes from 3.5 to 4.0 of taking away the things that made spellcasters different from the martial characters

You're looking at it backwards. It's not that 4E took away things for casters; 4E gave every class the kind of play style 3.5 gave casters. Next. Logical. Step.

 warboss wrote:
anyone know if there is news on Next from gencon?

Not as such. Bruce Cordell is joining Monte Cook Games, however.

 Manchu wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
The overall rules changes from 3.5 to 4.0 of taking away the things that made spellcasters different from the martial characters

You're looking at it backwards. It's not that 4E took away things for casters; 4E gave every class the kind of play style 3.5 gave casters. Next. Logical. Step.

Chocolate is a frequent main ingredient of restaurant desserts. Lots of people like dessert. Restaurant soups, appetizers, and main dishes should therefore taste like chocolate following the "Next. Logical. Step." reasoning you're presenting.

That's the worst analogy I've seen in a long, long time.

Again, one of the most significant changes introduced by Third Edition was the centrality of the concept of balance. But this was largely limited to balancing the party against monsters in combat encounters. Classes were not balanced against one another and this resulted in a lot of complaints. Fourth Edition's next logical step was carrying the idea of balance forward as between classes. Their method for doing so was to give every class, not just casters, a "pick from a menu of powers" play style.

 Manchu wrote:
That's the worst analogy I've seen in a long, long time.

And he spends a lot of time moderating posts, so that's saying something.

4th ed was all about balancing everything. The CO (Character Optimization) boards were much less exciting for 4th ed than 3.5/3. No Pun-Pun, no COD-zilla, no one-shot 250 damage level 5 chargers. The balance was one of the good things about 4th: Everyone had a job and could do it roughly equally well.

And that makes a lot of sense, given the emphasis on balancing party level against encounter level in Third. The problem is, if the classes aren't balanced against each other then you can't really say you have balanced the monsters against the party, either. This was a big goal of 4E and, whether you like the way WotC addressed it or not, they were more successful regarding this goal in 4E than Third.

 Manchu wrote:
That's the worst analogy I've seen in a long, long time.

Again, one of the most significant changes introduced by Third Edition was the centrality of the concept of balance. But this was largely limited to balancing the party against monsters in combat encounters. Classes were not balanced against one another and this resulted in a lot of complaints. Fourth Edition's next logical step was carrying the idea of balance forward as between classes. Their method for doing so was to give every class, not just casters, a "pick from a menu of powers" play style.

No, it just carries the train of thought over to a different subject to illustrate how bad the underlying logic in making all previously disparate things function in the same fashion was. During 3 and 3.5, I played over 40 levels worth of characters (1-14 was my longest single stretch with the rest to at least 8th level) and DM'ed players through another 15 or so. I ran a cleric, barbarian, sorcerer, paladin, and rogue and enjoyed them all. I liked playing spellcasters. I liked playing Paladins, barbarians, and rogues as well. I don't, however, enjoy playing Paladin/barbarian/rogue classes mechanically as if they were a spellcaster.

I can't blame WOTC for trying to balance things but they shouldn't have jumped into the deep end right away without checking for sharks first. Star Wars Saga (despite the overpowered mechanic of attacking with skills via Jedi and later other classes) was a good evolution of 3.5 that I embraced but 4e took that incremental change and doubled down on it to the exclusion of everything else. That said, I don't think WOTC should abandon the 4e mechanics and design theory as completely as they abandoned 3/3.5 (and yes I know you disagree with that statement as you see it as a "logical" extension). They've already lost permanently some portion of the Pathfinder playerbase regardless of a return to earlier mechanics and they risk alienating the 4e die hards by refusing to acknowledge what that portion of the community feels was good about the edition. I don't know if there is a perfect solution to the D&D 5e problem... but I do know that after 4e I won't simply preorder the core books sight unseen. After investing so much in 3/3.5 and D&D minis to just see them dropped unceremoniously (along with Star Wars saga and its minis), I'll wait for the final retain version to hit the market before giving it a readthrough. I'll still try to keep a feel on the pulse of the community through threads like this but I don't have the motivation to download the playtest materials myself and try to wrangle up a local group.

 warboss wrote:
No, it just carries the train of thought over to a different subject to illustrate how bad the underlying logic in making all previously disparate things function in the same fashion was.

Not really. The problem is you are comparing the category of D&D classes with all categories of a meal. Fighters are not to an appetizer as Wizards are to dessert. That is why your analogy is terrible. It would be much better to say, many desserts are made with chocolate but that doesn't mean all desserts should be. After all, that's a lot closer to the point you're actually making.

And I get that you don't like chocolate desserts after every meal -- er, the 4E power system. But that isn't the question to hand. We're talking about whether the power system was a logical conclusion from WotC's experience with Third. Third did not only offer a rote concept of balance. The concept itself implicates that heroes should be able to handle the encounters they face; i.e., they become more "heroic" or what I call "fantasy super heroes." And so not only did 4E run with the concept of balance itself, it also ran with the idea of heroic characters. Giving everyone powers as a way to sharpen balance is a totally logical reaction to 3.5 ... which is why it started happening in 3.5. Bo9S was only the most explicit example. All the splat does the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
I'll still try to keep a feel on the pulse of the community through threads like this

I'd recommend watching the YT vids adamsouza linked. They're not just impressions but actual discussion of mechanics.

 Manchu wrote:

 warboss wrote:
No, it just carries the train of thought over to a different subject to illustrate how bad the underlying logic in making all previously disparate things function in the same fashion was.

Not really. The problem is you are comparing the category of D&D classes with all categories of a meal. Fighters are not to an appetizer as Wizards are to dessert. That is why your analogy is terrible. It would be much better to say, many desserts are made with chocolate but that doesn't mean all desserts should be. After all, that's a lot closer to the point you're actually making.

On that we can agree but I don't think I communicated my point as clearly as I hoped. It's not that fighters are an appetizer to the main course (and the derogatory tone that implies) but rather that they're all important different courses that ideally work together to form a complete and enjoyable meal. They all have their part to play and there are important differences between them and some people skip some or prefer others. My main complaint with 4e is that it took one popular aspect (some chocolately balance) and turned each course into dessert to incorporate that aspect. YMMV. I'll be the first to admit that 3/3.5 had its issues (splat spam and powercreep, overly complicated skill system, and imbalance between classes as well as between classes and their prestige variants, etc) but I enjoyed the comparatively different playstyles it allowed you to experience. To me, that difference was sacrificed despite good intentions to the noble goal of balance. It was just too much of a good thing. Either way, this analogy is making me hungry!

Oh I understood you weren't trivializing the non-casters. Put it this way, fighters are not to savory portions as wizards are to sweet ones. Third edition tried to do balance but largely failed (past level 10 or so, just thinking core here). Fourth succeeded to a greater extent by making non-casters as "glowy" as casters. This was the next logical step precisely because Third introduced balance as a function of increasing PC power levels relative to monsters. Fourth just took it (much) further, increasing class power levels relative to each other. Whether it's enjoyable to any given gamer or not is a separate question.

 Manchu wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
The overall rules changes from 3.5 to 4.0 of taking away the things that made spellcasters different from the martial characters

You're looking at it backwards. It's not that 4E took away things for casters; 4E gave every class the kind of play style 3.5 gave casters. Next. Logical. Step.

If you think I was looking at it backwards, and going the other way suddenly makes it logical, you and Spock certainly won't be getting along anytime soon.

4E certainly didn't give 'every class the play style 3.5 gave casters'. 3.5 casters are nothing like 4E classes at all. 4E gave every class a new playstyle where they are all the same and NOTHING like past characters except in name. There is no way an Encounter Power of Fireball is like a Wizard in 3.5 who could toss down 3-4 a day if he wanted to...not even close.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
NOTHING like past characters except in name.

Except Warlocks and BoNS and some of the other splat books that had X/Use per day and At Will powers. At Will, Encounter, Daily is nothing new. Making a class that just does that? Nothing new.

In fact, Paladins have been like that forever. Smites, Lay on Hands, etc were all daily, encounter and they always had Melee Basic.

This is kind of why I advocate looking at editions from a design stand point rather than zooming in on specific mechanics, like how a fireball works. The issue of Third Edition was leveraging balance to make PC more heroic. But they totally spaced on balancing classes against one another. This spiraled way out of control with splat. Third Edition splat is the addition of more and more and more powers to PCs. Even prestige classes that do not grant casting to non-casters often grant supernatural, etc abilities. It became a joke, as pretre alluded to above. WotC's answer was logical: yes, let's keep our superhero PC and let's keep all the cool stuff they can do -- but let's use one currency so we can keep it balanced.

 Manchu wrote:
This is kind of why I advocate looking at editions from a design stand point rather than zooming in on specific mechanics, like how a fireball works.

Agreed, it is hilarious to watch when people lay out what they don't like about X edition and you show that it has been like that since 1982 or something.

That's why I'm making a big deal about core mechanic and balance. These are things that did not exist in previous editions, either not as central concepts (Rule Cyclopedia had very complicated optional encounter balancing) or not at all.