[Ishn]

In 3/3.5E:

- Weapon proficiencies and skills were fleshed out a lot better than they ever were in AD&D.
- Feats provided the capacity to customize characters to fill a certain niche.
- Prestige Classes were introduced to allow further customization/flavor.


Where 3/3.5E failed:

- Wizards/Spellcasters still sucked at low levels and owned at high levels.
- The rules got overly complicated.
- Many of the feats were underpowered/overpowered.
- Many of the Prestige Classes were underpowered/overpowered.
- All of the customization you could do ended up being narrowed down to what was most useful/powerful into two or three options for each class.
- Multi-classing was turned into "the suck" for long term viability. If you did anything more than "dip" into it, you only crippled yourself.



In 4E:

- Weapon Proficiencies and skills were further streamlined.
- Feats provide the opportunity to customize, and are more balanced overall.
- Prestige Classes replaced with Paragon and Epic Tiers, which are flavor classes that give a handful of new powers while you progress in your primary class normally.
- Wizards/casters in general are more balanced with the physical damaged based classes do to the way the game handles powers.
- Added "henchmen" as a creature type. They do full damage and have normal defenses, but only have 1hp. They're "adds" for the fight to take hits and deal damage without making it crazy impossible.
- The rules from 3/3.5E were streamlined, although they may continue to grow as supplements come out.


Where 4E fails:

- The game plays like a video game. Everything constantly scales as you level. Your AC, attack, and damage continue to go up, but relative to what you're fighting it remains the same. This makes you feel like you're not really progressing, even with the "9999" damages flashing across the screen.
- There is still an imbalance in feats and the "tiers" that replaced Prestige Classes.
- Multiclassing stiill sucks and is not a viable long-term option.


What I'd like to see in 5E:

- I'd like to see long term multi-classing return as a fully viable long term option (as it was in AD&D).
- I'd like to see Feats become even more balanced.
- I'd like to see the class variants become a little more differentiated from each other.


What about you guys?

[elliott20]

a number of comments

Balance
balance is a tricky business. The fact of the matter is, as long as differen options exists within the same game (i.e. combat and social situations, while technically under the same game, are fundamentally completely different situations), you will never have complete balance. (that is, unless you were to reduce the game down to just one class, with one progression path, and no fun at all) And the way the D&D franchise has been handled, you will probably never see it get better. Part of this owes itself to a number of factors.

1. Lack of iterative design process

Any game that has achieved a high level of balance without sacrificing diversity and variety in design does so by having version tweaks and by repeating this process multiple times. Street Fighter did this, Starcraft did this. Hell, Chess has gone through probably millions and millions of versions itself. D&D does the iterative versions, but they are not progressive tweaks towards a finished product. They are all completely different products. (The only exception is 2E and 3E, but then both of them have their own unique issues)

2. Lack of end user feedback

While you can get a lot of iterative feedback done during the development phase, the best feedback will ultimately be the end users. Responding to the player feedback in a positive and deliberate fashion is one of the best ways to help give a system with a huge variety better balance. Just looking at 3.5 game you can tell easily that a large number of their feedbacks were not from the player community, but from the devs themselves. As a result, rule anamolies such as the diplomancer, the candle of evocation trick, etc, were never corrected or at least errata'd. And of course, often times they will fall back on things like "well, the DM should be able to spot this." While yes, that is how we as DM and players should handle it, from a product design stand point, that is just sloppy work, not to mention unfair to newbie DMs.

3. legacy design issues

there are a lot of things that d&d has taken on as simply legacy design concepts. things like alignment and such have often produced more problem in play then actually proven useful as a roleplaying tool. In my opinion, there are far better ways to add roleplaying depth to a character in a mechanical fashion. (i.e. beliefs and instinct system in Burning Wheel, Aspects in Fate, etc)

The more I look at the these issues all together, the more I feel that the balance achieved in 2E seem more like a fluke than actual deliberate design. 4E, of course, takes it too far, and basically neuters a lot of the flavor and variety the game provided. Not to mention it's so damn combat intensive that it's really just steps away from being miniature war game. (and no, skill checks do NOT work well)

[elliott20]

So having said all that, what would *I* like to see in the next iteration of D&D? (assuming I would still be playing it, since I have no intention of moving to 4E as of right now)

well....

- Instead of a brand spanking new 5E, I'd rather see 3.51E, 3.52E, and so on.
- setting materials that is for once, actually easy to use (instead of being a labrynth of information)
- some help on managing information
- I would also love to see some tips on running the game beyond just the bare minimum. (for those who are curious of what I mean, read the entire back section in the Spirits of the Century SRD. It's basically 100 pages on how to be a better DM.)
- Having multiple, viable options rock. Having always just one and exactly ONE options that clearly stands out from the rest almost all of the time is just plain stupid from a tactical standpoint. (meaning, the game has no strategic depth)

[lgm]

Scaling and "Video Gamey"

Your damage doesn't scale evenly as you level since it's dependent upon your powers. If you're focusing on a class (leaders and controllers are awesome) that doesn't depend on damage, your effects and capability changes and upgrades as you level.

I'd much rather have my AC and Attack scaling than having to heavily depend on magical gear to keep myself falling behind or getting too far ahead that I make other players look weak as well as becoming no challenge for my character. I'm extremely glad they took out most of the magic item need and even added a simple bonus to give to characters if the DM wanted to run a low magic game. In 3e, your attacks scaled with your BAB. If you didn't know how to manipulate it, you became ineffective. If you knew how to manipulate it, you became too powerful and the game got boring when you couldn't miss. Damage in 3e was far too easy to tinker with (until high levels when fighters couldn't keep up with casters anyhow).

The scaling puts the rules in the background for us. We don't worry about the rules and we are focusing on teamwork and the story. Last game between combat rounds, we were discussing our conversion to another god and our backstory instead of rules and bonuses. It's working great for us.

I know people have issue with multiclassing but it's now one of the systems within the game you need to know how to work. You also have to know that multiclassing is continuing to be developed as more is developed (I imagine one could really dislike that method) Half of our group have grabbed a multiclass feat. There are a handful of ways I would like to go long term multiclassing but I made my character long before the PHB2. There are awesome things to do with MC once you learn to not worry that you didn't tweak because you're getting more capability in return if done right. And many classes won't mix together and I'm fine with that.

As for unbalanced tier/feats, I'm not sure what you mean. There are some 'lesser' feats that fit specific builds that are weak if taken by a different design. Other than that, the new Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise from the PHB2 are the only glaring flaws for me (both assign a +1 to hit to make up for a design error in the higher tier math IMO).

The flaws that I see in 4e?

Stun. It's fun for a player to have a stun power to help lock down a monster for a round. It's very powerful and it doesn't appear much. However, monsters have that and causing a player to miss a complete turn is one of the issues they wanted to take out of the game. The dracolich specifically can lock down a whole party with stun and it really shows how it sucks in the game. I'd replace it with daze at least. Perhaps mimick the Sleep wizard power with two saves before stunned.

Skill Challenges

They have seen errata. In fact, all the DC charts have seen errata almost. Even after changing the DCs for Skill Challenges and changing the number of successes vs. losses, there is still a bad mathematical curve to winning and losing a skill challenge. I'd wish it was cleaned up before release but it's one of those things that you can figure out the poor math but still find that it works good at the table.

My personal view:

I will find more flaws with 4e in the future. But the rules aren't so important anymore. It plays like older editions for me and with Quest rewards I'm tracking the story much closer now. The majority of the group doesn't have time to think about the game when we're not playing so I'm very glad there is no system mastery advantage in the game. I was burned out on playing but I got back into gaming due to several games that were easier to play (not just 4e but it was one of them). I still like playing 3e but I won't bother running it.

[elliott20]

my problem with skill challenges wasn't quite the math as it was the dissociative mechanics of it all. Currently, they count successes. Okay, that's fine as a general approach, since it allows for you to be a bit more room and flexibility in the skill challenge solutions.

The problem is that the system as of right now does not distinguish between successes that actually do further you along your goal and successes that simply AID your ability to succeed. i.e. say I want to crack a safe in a bank, and I need say, 4 successes. I could do one action to research the lock type, one to get schematics for the bank, one to figure out the bank guard duty rotation, and one more on figuring out the guard profiles to know who I might be able to exploit. Say I get successes on all 4, by the rules, I should succeed, right? The problem is, I haven't actually done all of this yet! Really, all of these things I've done should provide a nice chunk of bonuses when I make the relevant checks, but I haven't actually gone in, cracked the safe, and gotten out.

My example here is obviously quite absurd and no GM worth his salt would fall for this, but by RAW, this is totally legal.

[lgm]

That's not the problem as much as it is the lack of explanation of how to successfully run them. I'm not sure you have the best example since all that would require is a successful Thievery check (with bonuses from players who performed those other checks well). I understand what you mean though. There is a continuing article in Dragon that focuses on running good skill challenges and I have a feeling more will be explained in the DMG2. But that really sucks because you have to PAY to get access to either which should be free advice to all gamers and should have been in the DMG in the first place.

Skill Challenges should be done for an action that takes places over time. Instead of breaking into the safe, perhaps discovering how to break into a building that contains the safe (the actual breaking in and opening the safe is done with more simple skill checks). Success gives you bonuses and a secret way while failure makes you almost go through the front door. The DMG isn't explaining this very well to people new to skill challenges. It's not very good at helping you come up with your own and lacks a long list of examples. The skill challenge section should have been much larger.

[elliott20]

that's what I'm saying. The potential is totally there, but clarification is lacking. This is something you see with a lot of game systems where they will come up with a GREAT system but then they offer no advice on how the hell you're supposed to use the material more effectively. They might offer rudimentary examples, but at the end of the day, you're still not quite sure how to best apply the model itself.

D&D has ALWAYS had this problem. This is why good GMs are hard to find, because the best practices are not being taught or passed out for some reason. The end result is that every new GM who picks up a DMG has to learn to become a GM from scratch as opposed to learning from what people have already experienced for years and years.

If it were up to me, I think the next D&D product shouldn't be another expansion manual, but rather a manual that simply talks about how to be a better GM. Seriously, a book on good GMing and general best practices on GMing? I'd shell out money for that.

[lgm]

Welcome to the DMG2 due out this year. It is supposed to do exactly that.

For new DMs, the 4e DMG is probably the best one ever written. However, it still lacks information on a couple key areas; skill challenges being the largest oversight. Overall it is excellent compared to any past DMG.

This post has been edited by lgm: 11 May 2009 - 05:21 AM

[Lynx Cat]

No, welcome to the 2E Creative Campaigning book ;) I still have it and I still think it's great. Too bad much of it is geared toward 2E-specific mechanics.

As for what's good or bad about 4E, I've hardly played it (one barely-started PBP and one that only got as far as the first combat don't count), so I'll hold any judgement. But in any event, I *do* say it's kinda early to be talking about 5th edition :P

[lgm]

I was assuming he was thinking less about a 5th edition and more about what he wished was different about 4e. With D&D, I don't need the heavy multiclassing because for me that was just a 3e thing and not a tradition of D&D. I prefer the new core classes that they've been doing a great job on producing so far. It's a class system so I'll take more of them and have enough multiclassing to tinker around.

[Ishn]

lgm, on May 12 2009, 05:36 AM, said:

I was assuming he was thinking less about a 5th edition and more about what he wished was different about 4e. With D&D, I don't need the heavy multiclassing because for me that was just a 3e thing and not a tradition of D&D. I prefer the new core classes that they've been doing a great job on producing so far. It's a class system so I'll take more of them and have enough multiclassing to tinker around.

That's mostly correct. It's what I wish they'd done differently and want to see addressed in the next edition/revision.

The core classes are pretty good, but the multi-classing isn't. While you may not need multi-classing because the core classes are good, I like the RP aspect behind multi-classing (such as a fighter/cleric without being a righteous paladin). Also, if they include it - which they did - then it should be done better.

[lgm]

I like how it was done through feats because it can be expanded upon easily. It is somewhat lacking right now but I prefer it over every previous incarnation of it in D&D.

I have to say that I don't care for all the core classes. The cleric and paladin specifically suffer from multiple attribute dependency where they need to have 3 good scores instead of the standard 2 good scores found in all other classes including the phb2. I believe they realized their error in design a few months after release unfortunately. It does take a bit of work to clear up the issue. I'm hoping Divine Power has some form of work-around (feats?) or builds that address the issue.

[Benevolance]

In building my Paladin, I was greatly frustrated by the need to have awesome scores in every stat. Have yet to give the game a really good run, so I'll reserver judgement on the mechanics.

I'm on the multi-class bandwagon. I loved the ability to tinker in 3e and basically create my own unique build with a clever selection of classes. My characters would never dip into fewer than 3 classes and as many as 7 in some cases. I thoroughly enjoyed the min-maxing aspects of the game, along with the selection of optimal gear. Essentially, 3e required two things I enjoy immensely: the gathering and interpretation of rules knowledge, and the judicious application of that knowledge.

So to that end, I wish that 4e had more choices. I think that as more supplements come out, there will be more feats and abilities to choose from, and perhaps better ability to snag powers and abilities across classes.

[Kishi]

Wow, seven classes? What did you take?

Not that I should throw stones- I do love me some multiclassing, too, but I think the most I've gone with is five.

[Benevolance]

I wanted to build a martial judge, but didn't like the Justicar class.

Fighter/rogue/ranger/dervish/templar/kensai/shadow dancer. The character fought with 3 swords, in cheesy anime style.

[Ishn]

I made a pretty badass 4E Paladin with three good scores and three not-so-good scores. His base stats/modified stats are:

STR: 10/10
CON: 16/18
DEX: 9/9
INT: 12/12
WIS: 16/17
CHA: 18/21

He's level 7, has a +13 attack roll, and I made all of his class powers charisma or wisdom based.

It's hard to do with only two good status, though. LGM is right about that one, but I find most characters need three good stats.

[Goober4473]

Classes in 4E are designed to only need two good scores. Classes like paladins have Charisma and Strength based powers, with Wisdom as a secondary, which is three scores, but you can choose to take only Charisma or only Strength powers, so you need Cha/Wis or Str/Wis. If you want more versatility, three scores is useful, but it shouldn't ever be necessary.

[Ishn]

Goober4473, on May 13 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

Classes in 4E are designed to only need two good scores. Classes like paladins have Charisma and Strength based powers, with Wisdom as a secondary, which is three scores, but you can choose to take only Charisma or only Strength powers, so you need Cha/Wis or Str/Wis. If you want more versatility, three scores is useful, but it shouldn't ever be necessary.

I think Constitution is a secondary or, at least tertiary, stat for any tank class, which pushes Paladins to three: Str/Wis/Con or Cha/Wis/Con.

[lgm]

Goober4473, on May 13 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

Classes in 4E are designed to only need two good scores. Classes like paladins have Charisma and Strength based powers, with Wisdom as a secondary, which is three scores, but you can choose to take only Charisma or only Strength powers, so you need Cha/Wis or Str/Wis. If you want more versatility, three scores is useful, but it shouldn't ever be necessary.

With class features needing both Charisma and Wisdom, try building a Strength paladin that is as good as a Charisma based one. You'll soon learn that you need both a good Cha and Wisdom. The power selection also favors Charisma as there are more Cha powers and in some cases, there are no Str. powers at certain levels. Cha powers can be obvious choices over Str powers at certain levels as well. The main paladin class feature is Divine Challenge which defines his ability as a defender. Without a good Charisma score, a strength paladin becomes a very poor defender especially at higher levels.

[lgm]

Ishn: I know you've been concerned about 4e multiclassing. Have you been keeping up with the Hybrid playtesting? It appears they have cleaned up the hybrid class rules and are showing them off to those with a DDI subscription. The talk of them that I've seen reads that it's quite balanced and it looks like you can really mesh up two classes by combining a hybrid class with multiclass feats as well as hybrid feats (unlocking class features for use). You won't get a mix of 5 classes (thank god) but you able to 'dual class' and build more variations.

[elliott20]

you mean I can't do my wizard/swordsage/Jade Phoenix Mage/Incantrix/archmage combo anymore? NOOOOOOOOO~~~~~!!!!!

but seriously, whenever I look at anybody's char op for 3.5 now a days, it always includes a ridiculously long list of PrCs trailing it, which looks... well... retarded. it's why I don't even bother with Char Op anymore.

[lgm]

Me: Wow, you knew how to power game this character up pretty good. Looks solid.

Player: Hey! I'm no power gamer!

Me: Huh? You got the system mastered and you know how to tweak your concept.. what's not power gaming behind that?

Player: I don't munckin anything. I have a background story that justifies it all.

Me: I don't care. I'm just saying it's a really strong build. Wait, you felt you had to.. justify it?

Player: That's not what I mean. It's not broken.

Me: No, it's just all sorts of schizophrenic. The splat books ejaculated all over your character sheet.

[Benevolance]

Quote

whenever I look at anybody's char op for 3.5 now a days, it always includes a ridiculously long list of PrCs trailing it

Which is largely because, instead of expanding the feats repetoire and giving PCs enough generic feat slots to fill out powers and abilities, characters have to take PrCs to get certain abilities. Want to be able to stand from prone without taking a move action? Sorry. No feat for you. Heck, not even a specialized application of the Tumble skill. You have to take a PrC that has the Kip Up power. Want to lessen your TWF off-hand penalties more? Sorry, no feat for you! You must take the 5 level Tempest PrC.

Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved did a much better job of slotting powers and abilities and making the feats/spells more generically accessible, but even it could have gone further. The only alternative that was ideal was the Generic Classes in the Unearthed Arcana books. But it was more done as a "Hey, you could house rule like this..." that stripped away the gilding on 3e, exposed the bones, and stopped. If you really wanted to play that system, be prepared for a lot of work behind the scenes to convert over the powers and abilities you wanted.

That's the one thing I appreciate about 4e. Lots of feat slots, lots of generic feats that are ability specific as opposed to class specific, and the ability to dip into other classes without actually taking levels in that class. I also like the fact that most of the content creation has been brought in house. It makes it more consistent and helps to balance out the power creep.

[lgm]

That's the best view of the PrC issue I've read. I remember being very enthused about Complete Scoundrel because of the Skill Tricks (they were called that, right?) that allowed you to use skill points to get expanded skill abilities without resorting to PrCs. You could stand from prone and do other assorted agility and social things. You still lacked access to other combat things such as expanded TWF tricks however.

[elliott20]

that, though, sounds like the weakness of the class system in general.

[Benevolance]

It's the weakness of pretty much every RPG that attempts to take skills and abilities (both realistic and fantastic) and convert them into a set of mechanics to simulate a reality in a storytelling setting. Different styles of mechanics get different parts right, but none are entirely successful. Ultimately, it comes down to which set of rules support the most fun for your group's playstyle.

[sirtayls]

Quote

2E Creative Campaigning book I still have it and I still think it's great. Too bad much of it is geared toward 2E-specific mechanics

Amen!

Quote

I loved the ability to tinker in 3e and basically create my own unique build with a clever selection of classes. My characters would never dip into fewer than 3 classes and as many as 7 in some cases.

This is exactly why I did not like 3e. Actually, OotS sums up why I didn't like 3e as well:

http://www.giantitp....s/oots0126.html

Personally I really have enjoyed 4th edition. Skill challenges have been totally house ruled, but the party is enjoying the mechanics and flow!

Changes could include magic item / treasure availability. I think 3rd edition was monty haul, and 4th swung way the other way...

This post has been edited by sirtayls: 06 June 2009 - 12:28 PM

[lgm]

Skill Challenge math is wonky but it's awesome once you realize how to run correctly as a DM regardless of the math even. There really should have been more examples, of setting them up, how to be inclusive of skills and especially how to get the players engaged in them.

I'm don't believe treasure availability is an issue. As in 3e, they offer guidelines that you are free to mess with. They do hand out less treasure which I personally prefer but because the treasure parcel guide is far more exacting than anything that came before, it's extremely easy to keep track how high or low a group's treasure is according to the measure. The expected gold can be converted to magic items by the DM or the players so it tracks as well.

Now if you're playing the H-series modules (Keep on the Shadowfell; Thunderspire; etc) you will want to toss out much more treasure since the first released module series doesn't even follow the treasure guideline <_<

This post has been edited by lgm: 07 June 2009 - 06:53 AM

[sirtayls]

My other issue now that we have played a while - rituals. Right now they seem to be
a) expensive
2) have a long casting time and
iii) have a limited purpose

I think if a ritual hit one or maybe two of those they would work. most (but not all) seem to hit all three.

[Ishn]

Rituals are meant to be used outside of combat, so the long casting time or limited purchase doesn't matter much. You're not intended to have them all, just a handful. I don't really have a problem with rituals except that they almost never come into play.

[lgm]

Rituals are a great way to have an NPC/monster attempting some awful spell that takes awhile to cast giving the PCs a chance to interrupt it or fail to do so. We ran into that and I found it quite interesting since we never knew how close to completion the caster was as we fought our way to him.