[5e] Various Updates

[Dragonhelm]

Folks, I'm going to have a thread dedicated to 5e updates. Without further ado, let's see what is in store for roles.

Quote from Rodney Thompson:

"I don't think 'requiring someone to be a healer' is a sacred cow, but having healers in the game is. I wouldn't want to see D&D do away with healing, but I don't think there's anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want, ignoring concepts like role and function when putting together their party." - Rodney Thompson.

So I like the idea that someone isn't "stuck being the cleric." That's something that just kind of sucked about the game pre-4e.

Now, 4e introduced the concept of roles. I kind of like the concept, but then again, it felt so mechanical. It's the same type of thing. Every party needs a leader, defender, striker, and controller. Roles led to some poor archetypes, just to fill a role for a power source.

So maybe it's best if there are options so that players can just play whatever they want. If you want a party of strikers, so be it. And maybe the way you play your character makes him dual-role. Why can't a ranger be both defender and striker?

[Dragonhelm]

Quote from Bruce Cordell:

"And although of course no one can possibly speak with actual authority of the future on this topic, I can assure you that the OGL issues that plagued 4th Edition's release are lessons that did not go unheeded." - Bruce Cordell.

This is another good sign. Maybe we'll have another OGL era. I don't think everyone will sign on like they did last time since Pathfinder is out there. And no way will Paizo go with the new OGL. But man, the idea that 3rd party companies could benefit once again from D&D is exciting.

[adembroski]

Wow...

I don't think there's anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want...

Yeah, dude, we were doing that for three and a half editions before 4E came along!

Anyways, this makes my heart sing, seriously. Praise Kiri-Jolith.

The role concept was a direct rip from WoW and applied under the belief that tabletop RPGers wanted a similar experience, which was the fatal flaw behind the 4E design in my opinion. The roles weren't the major offender, to me, in 4E, but they were the most obvious symptom of the design approach that afflicted it.

[Dragonhelm]

The role concept was a direct rip from WoW and applied under the belief that tabletop RPGers wanted a similar experience, which was the fatal flaw behind the 4E design in my opinion. The roles weren't the major offender, to me, in 4E, but they were the most obvious symptom of the design approach that afflicted it.

Roles in 4e led to totally unnecessary classes. The invoker could just as easily have been a variant of the cleric. The ardent could have been a psion. All you need is the right power choices and the right character background.

[adembroski]

Quote from Bruce Cordell:



This is another good sign. Maybe we'll have another OGL era. I don't think everyone will sign on like they did last time since Pathfinder is out there. And no way will Paizo go with the new OGL. But man, the idea that 3rd party companies could benefit once again from D&D is exciting.

Where are you finding these?

[adembroski]

Roles in 4e led to totally unnecessary classes. The invoker could just as easily have been a variant of the cleric. The ardent could have been a psion. All you need is the right power choices and the right character background.

My fervent hope is that the entire powers system was the first thing on the chopping block. That was one of the things that most turned me off about 4E.

The idea that a warrior can attempt a leg sweep once per encounter, and from that point forward for whatever reason his leg simply wont perform that action for him again until the next time he runs into a monster (be that 3 days or 15 seconds after the last monster died) makes positively zero sense to me. This is the thing most indicative of the WoW mentality that went into 4E design.

I was never bothered so much by the loss non-combat skills. I have no problem re-importing them. The powers system really hamstrung the system as far as giving it an RPG feel to me rather than a more modern Chainmail with a nod to role playing as an aside.

I honestly thought the design, overall, of 4th edition was very elegant and well done. It just never felt like an RPG to me.

[Weldon Chen]

Roles in 4e led to totally unnecessary classes. The invoker could just as easily have been a variant of the cleric. The ardent could have been a psion. All you need is the right power choices and the right character background.

Well, if we could go back in time, alter history and take over WotC, I would have simplified roles into the main classes. For example, All martial should be tossed into a "fighter" class. The fighter class has in it defender, striker, controller, and leader powers. The same goes for the wizard, the rogue and the cleric. That way, a party can have a mix, like a striking fighter, and a controlling cleric. And in later levels, the fighter can cross over into a defending-striker fighter. But then, that would be tossing out the basic business model: lots and lots of classes with every power-source/role combo possible.

[Turambar]

My fervent hope is that the entire powers system was the first thing on the chopping block. That was one of the things that most turned me off about 4E.

The idea that a warrior can attempt a leg sweep once per encounter, and from that point forward for whatever reason his leg simply wont perform that action for him again until the next time he runs into a monster (be that 3 days or 15 seconds after the last monster died) makes positively zero sense to me. This is the thing most indicative of the WoW mentality that went into 4E design.

I was never bothered so much by the loss non-combat skills. I have no problem re-importing them. The powers system really hamstrung the system as far as giving it an RPG feel to me rather than a more modern Chainmail with a nod to role playing as an aside.

I honestly thought the design, overall, of 4th edition was very elegant and well done. It just never felt like an RPG to me.

Yup. Not only the powers should go on the chopping block; but the total number of options should be drastically reduced (be they power or whatever they choose to adopt.) In a recent Legends & Lore column Rich Baker admitted that 4e was at least a factor of 2 (in terms of numbers of powers) more complex than what they aimed for.

Personally, I have started experimenting of late with the 4e NPC rules also applied to PCs. This has drastically reduced the number of options, making the game much faster. I also re-introduced a sort of hit dice both for monsters and PCs, which has effectively reduced the amount to one half or less of the original. Again, huge saves. Finally, I removed the feats (since for the most part in 4e they don't provide special abilities), and gave the characters a +1 to defenses, attacks and damage per 5 levels.
With these changes, the game takes a completely different aspect.

I will admit that I am not bothered by the "encounter, daily" structure. It can all be framed in terms of opportunities. Sort of "authorial power" in the hands of the players.

[ferratus]

I've been thinking for awhile that we should just use the monster/NPC rules for creating 4e characters for awhile. If you've had positive experiences with that, I might just do that myself in the time that 4e has left.

As for roles, D&D has always had them and the edition that had them the least was the white box. Dungeons and Dragons being a team sport is a steady progression over the editions, 4e just made it explicit and gave you synergies for working together. My wife is upset that they are taking away roles, because as a more casual player a role gave her a clue as to what she was expected to do with her class.

As for powers, I got on board with the idea that mechanics represent what happens in a dramatic scene, not how the physics of my D&D world work. Frankly, the build-heavy 3e with all of its simulationist bits are something I hope that 5e doesn't follow. I don't want to do that prep work anymore because I have a wife and family now.

I did however get annoyed with powers because encounter and daily powers were big lumps of disappointment when you missed. In a CRPG you have a cooldown button to try again in a few seconds/minutes. In 4e, you had to wait 2 weeks to a month to try to use your big powers again. The fact that Vancian daily spells didn't follow the rules of combat for their attack spells and just worked in 1e/2e looks like an act of genius when viewed through that prism.

As for the platonic ideal of their being an ideal form of D&D and that no influences from video games or other RPG's can't creep into it... a fie on that. I hate Plato. I'm an Aristotelean (well Neo-Thomist) and D&D is D&D if it fulfills the function of D&D. Just as you know a chair based on whether you can sit on it, you know D&D based on whether you can play it.

[Jester]

The role concept was a direct rip from WoW and applied under the belief that tabletop RPGers wanted a similar experience, which was the fatal flaw behind the 4E design in my opinion. The roles weren't the major offender, to me, in 4E, but they were the most obvious symptom of the design approach that afflicted it.

Except that roles, albeit not the same roles, were mentioned in the 2e PHB...