The Campaign Builder's Guild

4E is a direct response to everything that happened in 3.x. The OGL proved too volatile for WotC's management's tastes. It's obvious why they would think that and it's understandable why they closed 4E off. Pathfinder exemplifies why 4E became such a closed system. Other companies using your intellectual property was considered anathema to a sound business model. I was honestly surprised that WotC decided to allow any third party participation.

I remember the WotC forums leading up to 4E being awash with people who wanted a tighter rule-set, wanted the Fighter and the Rogue to be less replaceable by magic items, wanted zero dead levels, wanted magic items to be standard, wanted less assumed power for the DM, wanted monsters to feel more exciting, wanted the game to be more pick up and go, etc.

All of that was given by WotC in spades.

However, once the masses got what they had been clamoring for, they were angry because what they really wanted was the same thing just slightly different (i.e. Pathfinder).

What I think 4E really messed up on was how they presented the material. When I first opened the 4E PHB I was pissed! I sat in a London Hostel thumbing through the book trying to grasp why there were all these spells in my PHB. I really wonder if people (including myself) would have been as cheesed off if the powers had not presented in the form of cards but rather in the manner in which  spells had presented in 3.x (i.e. just words on a page). That might of lessened my initial dislike of the system some what.

Regardless, I think 4E's greatest strength - it's stalwart devotion to a vision - is also its greatest weakness. What WotC failed to anticipate was the fact that very few groups approach the game in the same way. Diversity has always been a hallmark of D&D and in many ways 4E was a rejection of diversity in favor of a singular vision. Worked for some people, not others. The ironic part of this is that other RPG's live and breathe on forcing one vision down your throat.

5th edition seems to be running as far away as it can in the opposite direction - every thing is going to be DM and house rule focused. We'll see if WotC can pull that off (the last few play test packets have not endeared me to the game in the way the very first packet had).


I'm not sure I quite understand the complaints against monsters and PCs using different mechanics for their generation. To me, that just makes sense. I definitely want humanoid enemies to use the same mechanics but Dragons, Zombies, Minotaurs, Aboleth's, etc. feel radically different than normal humanoids. The process to creating them should be different but just as intuitive and easy as generating humanoids. I really liked 4E's Monster Manuals. I love the fact that I can open the book and run a Dragon. You can't do that in any other edition of the game.

Half the time in 3.x getting the right CR down when creating a brand new monster was more art than science. 4E would be no different. If I wanted to make a Half-Dragon Minotaur in 3.x, I would take the minotaur, add the Half-Dragon template...

Ok so it is easier in 3.x. But I liked the stat block from 4E more than 3.x's. I liked that each monster had one or two memorable abilities, it made every monster feel unique. Of course that could easily be retrofitted to 3.x...

Bah!

Too much thought of mechanics.

I like 4E for what it is - a WARGAME/rpg. I like 3.x for what it is - wargame/RPG.

I agree with the intent of 5th edition - D&D should be a basic game with a whole lot of add-ons that allow DM's to adapt the game to resemble their vision of their campaign setting AND tailor the game to fit their group's playstyle. In that regard, 4E failed. 3.x wasn't far behind what with its battle-grids and over-powered magic but the openness of the system and the allowance for some divergence helped surmount that obstacle and help make 3.x feel less constrained.

As an aside, it will be fascinating to see what the Pathfinder community does once 5th edition releases and Paizo releases Pathfinder 2nd Edition ( you know it will happen eventually).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Hippopotamus DundeePowers were like a grossly out-of-control version of Feats gone even more rampant (at the expense of the Skill system, may I add) and just turned me right off 4E entirely, being representative of everything I had disliked about Feats in the first place (which they then kept, in addition to Powers, a decision that was just the icing on my dislike cake).

Yeah, I get this.  Powers are exactly the kind of thing that, for me, obtrudes into the game's versimilitude in a way that 3E doesn't.  Like encounter or daily powers - let's say I'm a Fighter, your run-of-the-mill non-magical knight, and I want to use the Brute Strike ability or whatever.  Why can I use this only once per encounter?  Because the game's balance requires it: no other real reason.  I guess my character got tired or something (though not so tired they can't use a different per-encounter power...).  It's very video-gamey: I can practically picture a little cooldown icon as the power recharges.  It calls attention to its game-ness.  At least with feats, they were abilities you just had access to.

The justification for Martial Encounter Power is that they are extremely complex maneuvers that require precises timing, a fair bit of luck and a ton of exertion. You can only reasonably set yourself and your opponent up for that maneuver once a combat.

Martial Dailies stretch even my believability (and I'm already stretching it for encounter powers).

The problem is how do you make Fighters feel more powerful without giving them encounter powers or resorting to the tried and true  "taking things everyone should be able to do but we've made a feat, which means you need this feat to do that thing" method?

I think D&D Next is doing well with this by giving Fighters abilities to increase their AC or make their attacks do more damage but there have been more than a few complaints online that that method is just as boring as Fighters who rely on iterative attacks.

Another method would be to greatly reduce the power Spellcasters have but we all know the belly aching that comes with that decision.

We could return to an era of uneven leveling up, where "weaker" classes level up faster than stronger classes. That isn't a bad method, honestly, but needs to be finely tuned or else the whole system will collapse.

In the end, there is no right answer for everyone. The best the game can do is offer plenty of options to player and DMs and allow individual groups to implement the solution that works best for them.

Quote from: Elemental ElfOther companies using your intellectual property was considered anathema to a sound business model.

I don't think this really follows.  Look at Valve.  They let anyone use their Source engine.  You think they don't sell tons of copies of Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, etc?  They're doing just fine.  There are ways of keeping the game open that can make sense business-wise.  And, at least in my case, I'd give my money to Paizo (who are still using the OGL) before Wizards, in part because they're so open and collaborative.  Unless 5th edition proves truly awe-inspiring, I probably won't buy another actual D&D product ever again.

Whether or not it was a sound business decision, ultimately, has nothing to do with which edition I prefer; I still prefer 3E because it was open, even if that means Wizards made less money.

QuoteThe ironic part of this is that other RPG's live and breathe on forcing one vision down your throat.

I think a few of the more successful ones these days - Fate/Fudge, GURPS, even d20 in its various iterations - have started averting this pretty hard.

QuoteThe justification for Martial Encounter Power is that they are extremely complex maneuvers that require precises timing, a fair bit of luck and a ton of exertion. You can only reasonably set yourself and your opponent up for that maneuver once a combat.

Yeah, still not buying it.  If that was the case why can you use a second-but-different Encounter power but not the same one again?  And even so, the whole idea is a bit silly.  I agree with HD - why not make it a skill roll?  Or, you know, a Combat Maneuver check.

QuoteThe problem is how do you make Fighters feel more powerful without giving them encounter powers or resorting to the tried and true  "taking things everyone should be able to do but we've made a feat, which means you need this feat to do that thing" method?

Definitely, this is the problem.  My only solutions, really, are multi-classing and prestige classes, which isn't a great solution.  But I prefer Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians anyway.

EDIT:

QuotePathfinder exemplifies why 4E became such a closed system

I think this is actually sort of the reverse of what happened.  As I understand it, the whole reason Pazio started putting out Pathfinder is because, with the advent of 4th edition, Wizards canceled Dungeon and Dragon (which used to be pretty much all Pazio did) and made the game closed.  Pathfinder was a response to 4th edition being closed and restricted, not a cause.

Quote from: Steerpike

QuoteThe justification for Martial Encounter Power is that they are extremely complex maneuvers that require precises timing, a fair bit of luck and a ton of exertion. You can only reasonably set yourself and your opponent up for that maneuver once a combat.

Yeah, still not buying it.  If that was the case why can you use a second-but-different Encounter power but not the same one again?  And even so, the whole idea is a bit silly.  I agree with HD - why not make it a skill roll?  Or, you know, a Combat Manouver check.

I'm with Steerpike - the idea itself bears very little resemblance to anything I've ever heard, read or experienced in regards to martial practice, and furthermore it is doesn't hold up even within its own logical structure.

And honestly SP, I'm a big fan (and this speaks to the question of addressing Fighter variety) of taking Base Attack Bonus and holding it into the Skill system along with an active defense roll rather than a static AC. That way Fighters can choose which they want to favour (increasing options) and can be given just as many Skill points as anyone else, simply with the understanding they're probably going to spend them on Combat Skills.

Quote from: Steerpike
I don't think this really follows.  Look at Valve.  They let anyone use their Source engine.  You think they don't sell tons of copies of Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, etc?  They're doing just fine.  There are ways of keeping the game open that can make sense business-wise.  And, at least in my case, I'd give my money to Paizo (who are still using the OGL) before Wizards, in part because they're so open and collaborative.  Unless 5th edition proves truly awe-inspiring, I probably won't buy another actual D&D product ever again.

I agree with you - I think open systems work better in the long run than closed systems. However, WotC's management disagreed because they did not see the the inherent difference between people buying other companies' products and people buy other companies' products that are completely compatible with your product. I think 4E would have been vastly more popular had it been an open system like 3.x.  Personally, I think WotC really just wanted third party companies to use the d20 System Trademark License.

Quote from: SteerpikeWhether or not it was a sound business decision, ultimately, has nothing to do with which edition I prefer; I still prefer 3E because it was open, even if that means Wizards made less money.

Actually, they've made much less money with 4th edition if you focus solely on book sales, as Pathfinder has beaten them out many times, especially since 2010. However, we don't know how much the D&DI had helped stabilize WotC's business model.

Quote from: SteerpikeI think a few of the more successful ones these days - Fate/Fudge, GURPS, even d20 in its various iterations - have started averting this pretty hard.

For everyone like that there are games like Legend of the Five Rings, Dragon Age, Shadow Run, etc. In your list, you could definitely add Savage Worlds (love that system).

Quote from: SteerpikeYeah, still not buying it.  If that was the case why can you use a second-but-different Encounter power but not the same one again?  And even so, the whole idea is a bit silly.  I agree with HD - why not make it a skill roll?  Or, you know, a Combat Maneuver check.

Like I said, I don't really buy it either (doubly so for Daily powers).

Star Wars Saga has proven skill based attacks really require a fundamental re-design of the system to be balanced. It could definitely work but the whole system needs to be designed with that in mind.

Quote from: SteerpikeDefinitely, this is the problem.  My only solutions, really, are multi-classing and prestige classes, which isn't a great solution.  But I prefer Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians anyway.

If I had my way, I would actually co-opt the Psionics mechanics, where by Martial Classes only have at-wills. They can use their pool of Martial Points to buff their attacks or make their attacks have additional effects.

I have never liked Multiclassing in 3.x because it always seems to wind up degenerating into cherry picking. The way some people multiclass in 3.x just makes me think they should switch to a different game where one can simply buy the abilities they want rather than having to go through the difficult task of creating a complex build.

Quote from: SteerpikeI think this is actually sort of the reverse of what happened.  As I understand it, the whole reason Pazio started putting out Pathfinder is because, with the advent of 4th edition, Wizards canceled Dungeon and Dragon (which used to be pretty much all Pazio did) and made the game closed.  Pathfinder was a response to 4th edition being closed and restricted, not a cause.

I don't mean Pathfinder was the cause of the issue, rather it exemplifies what was wrong with the OGL from WotC's perspective. They wanted other companies to create campaign settings, adventures and supplements to D&D. They didn't want third party to create their own independent games. Creating independent games (which Paizo was far from the first to do) is what caused the over reaction against third party companies when 4th edition was released.  

Paizo was foolish to focus so heavily on a single licensed property. They should have diversified before the cancellation. To be fair, WotC did not just pull the rug from under Paizo as they granted Paizo a few extra months of publishing to finish out their last big multi-issue adventure path.

WotC was extraordinarily arrogant with 4th edition and they paid a VERY steep price for their arrogance. WotC is really trying to be conciliatory with D&D Next. They have an open play-test and are definitely listening to the public's concerns and criticisms.

Quote from: Elemental_ElfAll of that was given by WotC in spades.

I don't want to derail this too much but I think one of the big problems with 4e is that these goals are worthwhile but none of it actually happened. Here's how I'd break it down:

- Wanted a tighter rule-set: If by "tighter" you mean they eliminated everything about the game except combat, then, sure, they did that, but I don't see that as a particular plus. I mean, they tried to add some noncombat stuff with skill challenges, but skill challenges don't actually work. To compare, I can't really think of any part of the 3e ruleset as major and yet as utterly broken as 4e's skill challenges. (Diplomacy, maybe, but that's still just one skill!)

- Wanted the Fighter and the Rogue to be less replaceable by magic items: Ok, they did this... by basically making all of the classes the same.

- Wanted zero dead levels: The absolute amount of "stuff that you can actually do" doesn't go up nearly as fast in 4e. How often do you end up just paying the feat tax? In reality, you're gaining less power over 30 levels in 4e than you gained over 20 in 3e. There are a ton of dead levels in that sense.

- Wanted magic items to be standard: What do you mean by "standard"? Do you mean how magic items sort of stopped being these unique, special, quirky, crazy things, and were reduced to just "+1 sword" that you immediately throw in the trash when you find a "+2 sword"? This was already a problem in 3e and it only got worse.

- Wanted less assumed power for the DM: When I read this phrase, I think of adding "narrativist" mechanics or other things to increase player empowerment. 4e doesn't do anything like that, so I'm not sure what the actual goal was-- if it was "less DM fiat," this did not happen, because so much of the game that isn't combat is just left up to DM fiat.

- Wanted monsters to feel more exciting: How? 4e combat is grindy and monster powers aren't really all that interesting.

- Wanted the game to be more pick up and go: 4e still has a pile of rules and still requires a decent amount of system mastery to build an optimal character. It also has gigantic lists of powers to navigate where in 3e if you want to "pick up and go" you can just be a dumb melee fighter and swing your axe at things.

- Wanted a tighter rule-set: If by "tighter" you mean they eliminated everything about the game except combat, then, sure, they did that, but I don't see that as a particular plus. I mean, they tried to add some noncombat stuff with skill challenges, but skill challenges don't actually work. To compare, I can't really think of any part of the 3e ruleset as major and yet as utterly broken as 4e's skill challenges. (Diplomacy, maybe, but that's still just one skill!)

Why do you need rules for roleplaying? I've never really had a problem with Skill Challenges work fine. What do you consider broken about them?

- Wanted the Fighter and the Rogue to be less replaceable by magic items: Ok, they did this... by basically making all of the classes the same.

Similarity breeds equality. It's definitely one way of making everything balanced.

- Wanted zero dead levels: The absolute amount of "stuff that you can actually do" doesn't go up nearly as fast in 4e. How often do you end up just paying the feat tax? In reality, you're gaining less power over 30 levels in 4e than you gained over 20 in 3e. There are a ton of dead levels in that sense.

Technically the Feat Tax isn't an issue. It only comes up because the designers actually laid the mechanics of the system bare and people realized player characters needed an extra +1 to keep up with Monster AC/Defenses. The same holds true in many ways to 3.x. If you don't take weapon focus or the spell equivalent you'll lag behind as you level up (especially if magic items are less common).

- Wanted magic items to be standard: What do you mean by "standard"? Do you mean how magic items sort of stopped being these unique, special, quirky, crazy things, and were reduced to just "+1 sword" that you immediately throw in the trash when you find a "+2 sword"? This was already a problem in 3e and it only got worse.

Player Empowerment, mostly. Players wanted the game's assumption to be that Magic Items were common, necessary and assumed for character advancement. Unlike 3.x where Magic Items were the complete purview of DM. This is exemplified by the fact that Magic Items were in the PHB rather than the DMG.

- Wanted less assumed power for the DM: When I read this phrase, I think of adding "narrativist" mechanics or other things to increase player empowerment. 4e doesn't do anything like that, so I'm not sure what the actual goal was-- if it was "less DM fiat," this did not happen, because so much of the game that isn't combat is just left up to DM fiat.

Player empowerment. They wanted the game to assume the relationship between DM and player was tipped far more in the player's hands than the DM's. Magic items were a core concept that players were assumed to be able to purchase in towns, DM's were discouraged from using excessive house rules, DMs were pushed to allow everything (classes, races, magic items, etc.)  because "everything is core". There were no role playing requirements for any class abilities or any class. The game wound up being so much DM fiat because WotC listened to the forum goers and didn't emphasize story, roleplaying or world in any of their non-campaign setting products. By de-emphasizing those, WotC created an envirtonment where DMs wound up with more power via Fiat than they had in 3.x.

- Wanted monsters to feel more exciting: How? 4e combat is grindy and monster powers aren't really all that interesting.

Monsters in 3.x are very, very bland. It takes the DM to make them exciting through role playing. 4E is different in that every monster has exciting powers. However, you are right in that 4E's Wargame style combat made what would have been exciting powers seem rather bland.

I've actually used 4E monster manuals in my 3.x games and its stunning how much excitement they add to the game over the normal monsters.


- Wanted the game to be more pick up and go: 4e still has a pile of rules and still requires a decent amount of system mastery to build an optimal character. It also has gigantic lists of powers to navigate where in 3e if you want to "pick up and go" you can just be a dumb melee fighter and swing your axe at things.

If you know how to play the game and you use WotC's character creator, you can start playing in less than 15 minutes (for a mid-heroic tier character), doubly so since every class works exactly the same. If I had never played a Wizard before, it would take me a long time to build one in 3.x where as it would take roughly the same amount of time as any other character in 4E. If you're going to get into rules bloat, then both 4E and 3.x suffer from that but the pain is mitigated by the Character Creator, which WotC pushes every group to use (made almost necessary due to mountains of errata found in 4E (which is something I absolutely hate)).

Quote from: Elemental ElfSimilarity breeds equality. It's definitely one way of making everything balanced.

As a fan of 3.X/Pathfinder over 4E, this is exactly the approach that turns me off the edition so much - balance hrough homogeneity, at the cost of diversity.

QuoteMonsters in 3.x are very, very bland.

I disagree.  Some are bland, but most of the boring humanoids can be made more exciting and challenging with class levels, feats, spels, magic items, and templates.

Here are a few examples of very un-bland 3.X Monsters:

Ettercap: a monster that can climb, be stealthy, sets traps, throw webs, use poison, and synergize with other monsters (lesser spiders).  A tribe of these things - maybe some with Rogue or Ranger levels - could be a force to be reckoned with.

Gibbering Mouther: It has some very unique and interesting abilities- a sonic-based confusion effect that can be countered through interesting spells and equipment (Silence, ear-plugs, etc), ground manipulation can alter the terrain mid-combat, its special "once every 1-4 rounds" acid attack that can blind foes, its creeping engulf and blood-drain thing, and its horrifying ability to ooze through tight spaces.  And it can swim.  And see 360 degrees.  Truly terrifying.

Devourer: It runs on souls that fuel its powers - a truly unique mechanic.  It can slay you with a touch, use your soul to curse your allies, and then raise your body as a zombie.  With telepathy, a high intelligence, and an array of social and knowledge skills, it could make an interesting role-playing encounter, and a brilliant villain/boss monster.  There are interesting variants of the creature depending on its origins.

Vrock: A monster whose special power is a crazy dance.  It infects you with evil spores, stuns you with its screech, can fly, and requires specially good-aligned weapons to wound.

Barghest: Can shape-change, feed to get more powerful, has a range of spells at its disposal, and has interesting relationships with other monsters.  Multiple stages to its life cycle.  Add Barbarian levels for real scary.  Its mechanics instantly inspire adventure ideas: a Barghest is preying on a small village.  Can the characters stop it before it gets 4 growth points and becomes a Greater Barghest?

I dunno, I think all of these are pretty weird and unusual.  Calling any of them bland would be a major stretch; all of those monsters can do something different in different rounds of combat, all have unique powers and mechanics, many can be tweaked and modified in some way.  If these creatures come off as bland in play, the GM is not doing their job.  I'm not saying every monster in 3.X was brilliant, but you can't tar them all by the same brush.

Quote from: SteerpikeThis is a bit off-topic, but Xeviat, I'm curious - what do you think of fantasy RPG alternatives like GURPS, Burning Wheel, or "OSR" retroclones like Castles & Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, or Lamentations of the Flame Princess?

I haven't played any retroclones. The only thing close to another fantasy RPG I've played was L5R; I didn't like it's lack of a challenge level system and had constant arguements with the GM (out of the game) about things he threw at us being impossible (and we only won because he'd throw us bones during the fight). Likely, he was using the system for the wrong thing (combat over court?).

Quote from: SteerpikeReally, I'm wondering what your overriding design philosophy and system goals are.  What kind of game are you envisioning, and what do you want your 4E hack to accomplish, in broad terms?  How do you want the game to play, to feel?  I don't mean like "I want a hybrid of 3.5 and 4th edition," I mean like "I want a game of epic heroism where the characters are larger than life," or "I want a game of gloom and medieval darkness where the players must claw their way up from nothing," or "I want a highly immersive game, one invested with a sense of realism and grit," or "I want a very light, casual game that's fundamentally about tactical challenges."

I want a game of epic heroism. I want a game that runs the gamut from "small town hero" all the way up to "Heracles and then some". I want a system where my players can do anything they want, but where that "anything" is simply codified within the rules I (as the DM) don't have to feel like I'm playing favorites or being unfair. I want combat to be tactical and challenging. I want exploration and interaction to be immersive and challenging.

Quote from: SteerpikeI ask because with your approach so far, I think I get a sense of what you want to accomplish, but I want to know more about why, beyond simply pleasing players.  At the end of the day, what kind or style of game is the system in service of?  I tend to think that there's no platonic ideal for gaming systems, but that different systems suit different games.

The why is rather simple: I like having a game that I can muck with. I don't get to run games as often as I like, but setting them up is just as much fun for me. Interestingly, I liked running 4E games more than I liked running 3E games, but I liked setting up 3E games more than I liked setting up 4E games.



sparkletwist, I think you're being dramatically unfair to D&D4E. Your dislike of the system shows through in every single word you say. I disagree with you almost entirely; this doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does stress the fact that our opinions are opinions.

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted a tighter rule-set: If by "tighter" you mean they eliminated everything about the game except combat, then, sure, they did that, but I don't see that as a particular plus. I mean, they tried to add some noncombat stuff with skill challenges, but skill challenges don't actually work. To compare, I can't really think of any part of the 3e ruleset as major and yet as utterly broken as 4e's skill challenges. (Diplomacy, maybe, but that's still just one skill!)

How did they eliminate everything except combat? They put a lot of emphasis on combat, because that part of the game requires more adjudication, but there's the same kind of noncombat things in 4E as there is in 3E (just perhaps in lower concentration, mainly since they didn't set out to recreate everything in the 3E PHB in the first 4E PHB, something I disagreed with). What's non-combat about 3E? Spells?; most of those became rituals. Skills? Yup, still there. Magic items? Things like magic carpets?

Now, you'll get my agreement that the Skill Challenge system was borked. I loved the concept; the math didn't work right in its first iteration. It's sad, really, as they should have seen this if they had just shown it to us on the boards from the get-go; the statisticians IDed the problem within weeks. They fixed the math in the DMG2 and future versions. The only other flaw with it is that people took it to be a game mechanic rather than a narrative aid. What makes for a more exciting scene? The bard walks up to the guard and tells a lie to get in, makes a single check, and the guard lets him in? Or the bard walks up to the guard and spins an elaborate tale, making several checks and reacting to things the guard does or says, and the guard lets him in? 4E's skill challenges grew directly from the Complex Skill Checks in Unearthed Arcana.

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted the Fighter and the Rogue to be less replaceable by magic items: Ok, they did this... by basically making all of the classes the same.

Samey; everyone complained about this. Did anyone used to complain that the Cleric and the Wizard were the same? Now, I do see this as an issue; it is something I've IDed to change, but I think the issue is more about feel and presentation than it is about being an actual problem.

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted zero dead levels: The absolute amount of "stuff that you can actually do" doesn't go up nearly as fast in 4e. How often do you end up just paying the feat tax? In reality, you're gaining less power over 30 levels in 4e than you gained over 20 in 3e. There are a ton of dead levels in that sense.

I'm not really sure. We'd have to have a build off.

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted magic items to be standard: What do you mean by "standard"? Do you mean how magic items sort of stopped being these unique, special, quirky, crazy things, and were reduced to just "+1 sword" that you immediately throw in the trash when you find a "+2 sword"? This was already a problem in 3e and it only got worse.

What he means is that there were tighter assumptions on what magic items people would have. 3E had gold by level, but that could be all over the place. Someone could spend all their gold on a magic weapon and that's it; they'd be horrendously out of balance. An OCD person like me could make a chart investing the majority of their character wealth into a magic weapon, magic armor, deflection item, natural armor item, energy resistance items, and stat up items, carefully chosen to maximize plusses while not overspending (this was the only way I could generate high enough ACs to stand up to dragons, outsiders, and fellow fighters).

4E made these progressions standard. Everyone was assumed to get a magic weapon, armor, and neck item, and the plusses were assumed to be in the level/5 (rounded up) area (1-5, +1; 6-10, +2 ...) The game technically worked if you only had these three items. Yes, you needed to upgrade them at the first opportunity, but pretending that you didn't need to do that in 3E can only be done because the system wasn't upfront about it's mathematical assumptions. Was that the problem? Did 4E show us the man behind the curtain?

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted less assumed power for the DM: When I read this phrase, I think of adding "narrativist" mechanics or other things to increase player empowerment. 4e doesn't do anything like that, so I'm not sure what the actual goal was-- if it was "less DM fiat," this did not happen, because so much of the game that isn't combat is just left up to DM fiat.

I think what he meant was that there was less "DM may I?" You wanted to do a cool thing as a fighter, here are your powers to pick from (there was still improvising, humorously detailed on page 42 of the DMG; I'll never forget that, just like I'll never forget that the Expanded Psionics Handbook printed the Deja Vu power twice). You wanted a particular magic item? Just put it on your wishlist (the DMG instructed DMs to give the players the items they wanted, within the bounds of the item progressions, rather than saying no). Heck, the DMG and all of the other DM materials taught DMs to "Say Yes", something sorely lacking from other versions of D&D (not spoken from familiarity with all of the other DM books, but spoken from familiarity with groggy DMs who go on and on about their way or the highway and about "teaching players" how to "play right").

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted monsters to feel more exciting: How? 4e combat is grindy and monster powers aren't really all that interesting.

I'll come back to this one.

Quote from: sparkletwist- Wanted the game to be more pick up and go: 4e still has a pile of rules and still requires a decent amount of system mastery to build an optimal character. It also has gigantic lists of powers to navigate where in 3e if you want to "pick up and go" you can just be a dumb melee fighter and swing your axe at things.

Here's an area we'll both agree and disagree.

My wife loves playing D&D with me. We met playing D&D; I was her first DM. She and I both started playing during 3E; she didn't get in until 3.5. She liked making characters; she didn't like building characters. I'd have to set up her items when we played at a higher level (one game started at 3, my defacto starting point for 3E after running my first game from 1 to 15; another game she jumped into at 11). She'd tell me what she wanted to do, and I'd construct the character to fulfil that vision. Interestingly enough, once the game started going, she was one of the more tactically minded players at the table; I was very confused that she never wanted to play a leader-type (and didn't enjoy it when she did).

During 4E's reign at our house, she came to me excited one day after work. She took a PHB with her and built her character entirely by herself; she even picked her magic items. All she wanted me to do was make sure she did all the math properly and got the right numbers. She thought it was a much bigger deal than I thought it was. It was a Sorcerer too, and she had never touched spellcasters at all during our years of playing 3E.

You cannot make a "dumb fighter who just hits things" in 3E past 1st level; I'd argue that you can't even do it at 1st level. A 1st level human fighter in 3E has to choose 3 feats; a 1st level human fighter in 4E has to choose 2 feats, 3 at-will powers, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily power, so 4E has a smidge double the choices. 3E isn't lacking choices, though. Worse, 3E has trap choices; that fighter could spend their feats on skill focus: craft (basket weaving) perform (woodwinds), and toughness. Yay, they'll get to feel like they've made the character the envisioned, all while sucking at the table. They might not notice it at first, but when the half-orc barbarian is power-attacking his way through prone targets, the fighter player may start to feel ineffective.

This is spoken from experience, only the player was playing a Ranger who spent their first feat on Weapon Finesse (Shortsword). Where the Barbarian was dealing 1d12+6 damage, he was dealing 2d6 damage with a -2 penalty to attack; oh, if it was against a goblin, he did 2d6+2 with a -2 penalty to attack ...

Now, quickly back to monsters: Lets compare a Hobgoblin Warrior from both editions, just to illustrate my point.

Hobgoblin	1st-Level Warrior
Size/Type:	Medium Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Hit Dice:	1d8+2 (6 hp)
Initiative:	+1
Speed:	30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class:	15 (+1 Dex, +3 studded leather, +1 light shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple:	+1/+2
Attack:	Longsword +2 melee (1d8+1/19-20) or javelin +2 ranged (1d6+1)
Full Attack:	Longsword +2 melee (1d8+1/19-20) or javelin +2 ranged (1d6+1)
Space/Reach:	5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks:	—
Special Qualities:	Darkvision 60 ft.
Saves:	Fort +4, Ref +1, Will -1
Abilities:	Str 13, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8
Skills:	Hide +3, Listen +2, Move Silently +3, Spot +2
Feats:	Alertness
Equiptment:	Studden Leather, Light Shield, Longsword, Javelin (4)

Hobgoblin Soldier	Level 3 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid (goblin)	XP 150
HP 47; Bloodied 24	Initiative +7
AC 20; Fortitude 18; Reflex 16; Will 16	Perception +3
Speed 5	Low-Light Vision

Traits
Phalanx Soldier
The hobgoblin soldier gains a +2 bonus to AC while at least one hobgoblin ally is adjacent to it.

Standard Actions
Flail (weapon) • At-Will
Attack: +7 vs. AC
Hit: 1d10 + 4 damage, the target is slowed until the end of the hobgoblin soldier's next turn, and the target is marked until the end of the hobgoblin soldier's next turn.

Formation Strike (weapon) • At-Will
Attack: +7 vs. AC
Hit: 1d10 + 4 damage, and the hobgoblin soldier shifts 1 square provided it ends in a space adjacent to another hobgoblin.

Triggered Actions
Hobgoblin Resilience • Encounter
Effect (Immediate Reaction): The hobgoblin soldier makes a saving throw against the triggering effect.

Skills Athletics +10, History +8
Str 19 (+5)   Dex 14 (+3)   Wis 14 (+3)
Con 15 (+3)   Int 11 (+1)   Cha 10 (+1)
Alignment evil     Languages Common, Goblin
Equipment scale armor, heavy shield, flail

Now, the 4E hobgoblin has 4 special things it can do. It gets an AC bonus when next to another hobgoblin. It can draw fire or at least protect its allies. It can move around after an attack while ignoring OAs (without using movement to take a 5-foot step, which lost its free status in 4E). Last, they are resilient and can shake off a condition easier than others.

The 3E hobgoblin has ... well it can hit things. Oh, you can give it potions and magic items and select a different feat instead of Alertness ... but you can do the same things in 4E if you want to make a creature more dynamic.

As for the stats themselves, lets just look at HP. The 3E Hobgoblin is a level 1 threat (CR 1/2, you can fight two in a "fair fight" at level 1). It has 6 hp. A typical fighter will be dealing 1d8+ ... lets say 3 (16 Str) at first level. Average damage is 7.5. Woops, looks like the hobo goes down in 1 hit 66% of the time. Good game.

The 4E Hobgoblin is a level 3 threat (you can fight up to 5 of them in a "fair fight" at level 3). It has 47 hp. A typical fighter will be dealing 1d8+5 at that level. Average damage is 9.5. The hobo can take 5 of those hits before going down (modified since the fighter has 2 encounter powers at this point, probably dealing 2d8+5 damage, and might feel the need to use their daily for 3d8+5 ... maybe an action point for an extra attack ...).

My point is, where someone might say that 5 hits (so 8 rounds or so considering the 65% hit chance or so) is a slog, I say it's a dynamic fight. There's time for stuff to happen, time for interesting choices to be made. Time for something other than the wizard dropping a single spell or the fighter swinging their sword once and calling it a fight.


Was 4E a perfect system? No; I found errors in it from month 2 (things that were subsequently patched with feats rather than actually fixed). I only noticed these errors because the game was very upfront with its math (since it showed us what was expected of monsters). Perhaps that was a mistake on their part?

Quote from: SteerpikeI disagree.  Some are bland, but most of the boring humanoids can be made more exciting and challenging with class levels, feats, spels, magic items, and templates.

I dunno, I think all of these are pretty weird and unusual.  Calling any of them bland would be a major stretch; all of those monsters can do something different in different rounds of combat, all have unique powers and mechanics, many can be tweaked and modified in some way.  If these creatures come off as bland in play, the GM is not doing their job.  I'm not saying every monster in 3.X was brilliant, but you can't tar them all by the same brush.

Most of those monsters exist in 4E too. They're easier to run, since you don't have to deal with spell lists or "summon fiend" chances. Templates and themes exist for add-on based customization, and the math of the system is laid bare so true customization is far easier in 4E than in 3E.

So far, I've only responded to the OP. I'll come back for more later.

Quote from: Xeviat
As a fan of 4th Edition D&D, it is difficult for me to understand what some fans of 3E didn't like about it. Was it simply a resistance to change? Was it something superficial, such as a dislike of certain terms? Was it a dislike of a perceived "sameiness" between different characters? Was it a dislike of rigid powers, or even the use of powers by non-magical characters? Was it anger at having one's favorite class reduced in power?

First and foremost, this is probably not the question to ask yourself as a designer. What a nebulous group of people want out of a game isn't going to give you much clarity in your goals down the road. And it's a messy and complicated question that is only partially concerned with any mechanical design. As you note yourself, there are external factors like how much of the previous line people collected (and wanted to get some more use out of) alongside weird questions of fluff (just calling certain things "powers" bothers people). That isn't to say that there weren't specific design issues, but the issue will be confused by these externalities.

It may be best to select a set of design goals for your RPG without much regard for audience. Or if you are going to concern yourself with your audience, you may want to pick a specific player base and cater to them rather than try and please groups with incompatible goals. For a proper D&D, considerations of where the mainstream lies are valid. But the truth is nobody here is likely to make anything that big, especially in a niche already dominated by WotC and Paizo.

QuoteBecause I cannot sit still, I want to work on my own version of D&D before I move on to making my own system; my RPG style suits D&D, and I don't feel like moving on to a different kind of system. But as I like to live in a land of hopes and dreams, I want to make a system that can appeal to fans of 3E and 4E alike. In order to do that, I need to understand the differences, and similarities, between the two systems better. I need to understand what 4E's opponents dislike about the system.

Again, this is a weird question to be asking. There are very different types of "opponents" for 4e. If you ask about 4e's problems at theRPGsite, 4chan's /tg/, and The Gaming Den, you will get three very different kinds of answers. And there's a heavy contingent of 3x and PF players at all three sites.

QuoteFirst and foremost, I think the largest of the strong complaints about 4E come from a large difference between it and 3E. 3E, partially, strived to be a simulationist game. There were rules for everything, and everything used the same basic system. Monsters and PCs were built on the same structure, monsters and PCs used the same spells and feats. There were even rules to create every person in a settlement, no matter the size. 4E, on the contrary, knew it was a game on the surface. It told DMs to just make things up and not worry about the rules for many elements of the game. Monsters are built to be challenges for your PCs. Cities are filled with whoever you want to fill them with. The blacksmith is a human who smiths, not a level 8 human expert with 11 ranks of craft (weapons) and craft (armor).

The meme that 3e is a simulationist game is a pretty recent one. Really, no one would have made the claim while the term was still relatively current (while GDS and/or GNS were still pretty popular) as there are much much better games for scratching that particular itch. HERO, Runequest, and GURPS all spring to mind. I mentioned that there are multiple kinds of people who have problems with 4e, and here's where the chatter on The Gaming Den might become relevant. They have a few threads and discussions both on the ridiculously unrealistic results of some of 3.x's rules when applied, and on how 4e often fails to do what it should as a game.

3e used the same rules for monsters, PCs, and NPCs as part of a drive towards unification. It's the same logic that drove things towards d20-roll-high across the board. This isn't really the same thing as simulation and doesn't really simulate anything in particular. In the general sense 4e shares this trait, though the two games sort of apply it differently. 4e filters its mechanics through the assumed uses of those mechanics in a way that 3x doesn't necessarily do. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing either, if the rules still feel complete. I can't really speak to whether they do, as I don't really run or play 4e much, but this is basically how I would describe the difference.

QuoteAnother large difference between 3E and 4E is the way leveling characters works. In 4E, you choose a character class and stick with it through the entire game. At a certain point, you get to choose from specialties (paragon path at 11th, epic destiny at 21st). You could multiclass, granting you a defining class feature in a higher rarity (at-will becomes encounter, encounter becomes daily) and allowing you to trade powers between the two classes. You could dual-class at 1st level, allowing you to grow as two separate classes from the get-go. 3E, on the contrary, allows you to choose your class at each and every level. One could start as a fighter, then after their character finds religion, they could level up as a cleric. With certain prerequisites, characters could even access prestige classes.

Now, prestige classes had flaws of their own. First, were often more powerful than the base classes, creating an arms race. Second, they were trying to fill two different roles; some PrCs represented prestigious organizations or rare specialties, while others existed to patch up weaknesses in the multiclassing system. Even recognizing these flaws, the 3E class system had strengths that were tied to its simulationist angle. A character could grow organically. Your decisions weren't set from level one. Players could customize their characters greatly.

I think this is a weird place to differentiate. 3x seemed to have the edge in flexibility and intuitiveness, but multiclassed casters were severely sub-par and everybody else basically had to cherry-pick extremely carefully to keep up. Neither system works very well in terms of flexibility in the core, which is extremely weird because each has feats or powers that could easily smooth over the dual-concept characters. In either case, the difference isn't what I'd call simulation. A character who went rogue>wizard learned wizarding at a younger age, for example. Or a character who went rogue>fighter had many more skill points than one who went fighter>rogue. Again, not exactly simmy.

QuoteThe third difference I recognize between 3E and 4E is the firm, rigid structure of 4E. While you had choices at each level in 4E, sometimes more frequent choices than existed in 3E, the nature of those choices was always set. At 7th level, you learned a new 1/encounter attack ability, whether you wanted to or not. Now, I'm not certain why anyone wouldn't want to, but I suppose the lack of the ability to choose a non-combat ability, or to have more frequent use of a previous ability or just a stronger version of a previous ability made some players feel restricted. While many classes had these types of restrictions in 3E, they were less restrictive. Sorcerers, for instance, learned new spells at most of their level-ups, but those spells could be offensive, defensive, or utilitarian at the player's discretion.

This is actually a somewhat valid thing to look at. If there are (let's say) four powers you could learn in two levels, and you could pick any power at either of those two levels, there are six possible combinations at level two. If there were a "level one" category and a "level two" category and you could only pick one of each, you're down to four. The more powers there are, the bigger the impact such categorization can have. You start to need many times the volume of powers that you would otherwise need to offer a similar number of options overall.

I think either approach can be made to work, but for homebrewing it is much MUCH easier to restrict things less within a smaller pool.

QuoteAll of these differences are large, system-wide differences. But what about the differences between the core mechanics? I already addressed leveling. The next largest system difference is the skill system. In 3E, characters gained skill points at every level, based on the class they leveled and their intelligence bonus; in 4E, characters started with a number of skills at 1st level and didn't regularly gain more skills. On the surface, these two systems seem to be very different. In practice, a 3E character who does not multiclass could select their max number of skills and simply raise them to max at each level; this will produce similar numbers as a 4E character who selects the same skills at first level.

There is IIRC the other difference, which is that a 4e character has a level-based bonus even to untrained skills.

In 3x, there is a difference between a guy who maxed out three skills and a guy who put three ranks in every skill. Scarcity does present new options. Personally I prefer the 4e approach to skill training, since it provides more options *in play* as opposed to *through character building* which has become a lower priority for me.

QuotePerhaps this is, again, the illusion of choice. Technically speaking, DCs did not raise as you gained levels in 3E, but they did in practice. Higher CR traps had higher DCs to locate and disarm. Higher CR opponents had higher skills opposed to player skills. The fantastic challenges one would expect to encounter at higher levels had higher DCs, such as breaking down unbreakable adamantine doors or running across oil-slicked wires strung over windy canyons. 4E codified these DCs in an attempt to balance the game, but it presented the DCs by level rather than presenting the challenges by level. Perhaps this was a failing of presentation?

3x sometimes failed to scale difficulty with disastrous effects. Diplomacy is a great example, and possibly game-breaking if abused.

Otherwise, yeah, I'd more or less chalk this up to presentation. Saying that a level x door works a certain way feels weird when compared with saying that an adamantine door does.

QuoteFeats were largely the same, filling the same role in both 3E and 4E. Some class features moved over to feats, but characters gained more feats, so that should balance out. There were some minor functional differences between equipment; for instance, armors in 3E were presented to largely appear balanced against each other, with higher AC armor having lower Max Dex. Some outliers existed, but largely this held true. 4E's armor system had a hierarchy, with hide armor being better than leather armor, and plate armor being better than scale armor (not withstanding armor check penalties, which are a minor inconvenience). I'm not sure how I should interpret this difference, except to recognize that it might make characters feel like they have to upgrade their armor by purchasing armor proficiency feats, rather than sticking with what the designers gave their class.

I don't think this was really one of those things that bugged people very much. I haven't heard much about it, in any case.

QuoteSpells changed drastically between 3E and 4E. This change only affects a portion of the classes, as not everyone fully relied upon spells (out of the 11 core classes of 3E, 4 lacked spells all together, and 2 more hardly used their spells). The half of the classes that relied heavily upon their spells contained the most potent of the 3E classes. Any change to those classes' resources could be perceived as an attack upon them, and thus an attack upon the players who favored them. It is well established that Clerics were more powerful than Fighters in 3E, even when the Cleric was performing the Fighter's own role. Rather than accuse spellcaster fans of disliking 4E because they felt their favorite classes were weakened, I'd like to focus on the differences between the spells.

In 3E, spellcasters gained X spells per day of each spell level. Most could prepare which spells they wanted access to each day, and then they cast from this list; some classes learned a smaller list of spells, but they could mix and match what they cast each day. Those spells could be offensive, defensive, or utilitarian; in a game not focused on combat, a wizard could prepare nothing but utility spells, allowing them to feel like their abilities weren't waisted (whether or not non-spellcasters had this opportunity is lost in this example). In 4E, spellcasters (like all classes) learned offensive and defensive defensive spells at certain levels; utilitarian spells were largely grouped together as "rituals" and siloed separately from class powers. Even if a 3E character who parsed their spells out to be able to make it through 3 to 5 battles in a day had the same amount of abilities as a 4E character did in each fight, we again find ourself in a situation where 3E allowed players to feel like they had more choices.

The fact that non-spellcasters had access to the same structure of abilities seemed to put off some players. Some have said this is due to spellcaster players wanting to be better than non-spellcaster players. The suggestion is that spellcasters are the "hard mode" of the game, requiring greater knowledge of the game and greater preparation, and thus they should be rewarded with greater power. Others may not like the use of the same power stucture for casters and non-casters because it leads to a feeling of sameness. Perhaps there are players out there that prefer simplistic characters who don't have to worry about limited use abilities (though I would argue that even a simplistic Fighter grew into a complicated character in 3E, what with the potential of having 18+ feats by level 20), and these players didn't like Fighters having "powers".

For myself, there were a few problems with the power structure:

Martial daily and encounter powers were just weird. Why can't you attempt a particular move again in the same fight? Fatigue, and people "wising up" to the trick have both been presented as possible explanations, but the rules around the power don't reinforce that impression. Attacking a second enemy in the same encounter, including reinforcements who arrived later, won't work (negating the "wising up" bit). And the fatigue only seems to affect the particular power you used, and not other powers about as strenuous. Another justification I've heard is that these martial powers only get one "window of opportunity" which the martial character takes advantage of. But the player gets to decide when the window of opportunity is open (which is potentially jarring) and apparently resting is what allows these windows of opportunity to open somehow. I'm sure a martial encounter power can be explained in terms of the setting, but anything that takes that amount of work to explain is more than enough to interrupt suspension of disbelief.

A character couldn't focus on limited or unlimited resources, and powers in a given slot were too comparable. You're basically not going to get a beguiler or a summoning-focused character or a zombie-focused necromancer in 4e. There was a samey-ness to it. Truth is, I could have gotten behind a unified resource management system if the effects were at least a little more variable. Or I could have gotten behind a system of always dealing damage (4e isn't actually *that* far along this axis, but you get the idea), but with some classes managing their resources in drastically different ways. But similarity in both effect and resource management was just a bit much.

Finally, the decision of when to peak was always the most *boring* part of Vance. Choosing *between* offense, defense, utility, etc. was the main draw when there was one. A stance system (as an example) has the latter and not the former. The torches are soaked and you've been ambushed in the dark; you can keep your shield up *or* you can keep your light spell going. That's a difficult and engaging bit of resource management. AEDU was more like keeping the former and ditching the latter. You will use this power once per day, and that power once per day, but what time of day will you use them?

QuoteNow, I have gone on for twelve paragraphs highlighting why I think some players disliked 4E. It could seem that I'm saying 3E was a better game because of these facts, yet I began saying that I'm a fan of 4E. So what were the strengths of 4E? As many other writers have said, 4E's greatest strength was balance. Characters of the same level did similar damage and their bonuses grew at very similar rates. Instead of one class's attack bonus growing at +1 every 2 levels and another class growing at +1 every level (creating gap that grew so wide, the first class might as well never swing a weapon past the first couple of levels), all character's attack bonuses grew at the same +1 every 2 levels rate.

This balance wasn't just numerical in nature. 4E also balanced opportunity. Non-spellcasters could do cool things, just like spellcasters. Where the wizard could drop a fireball on a formation of enemy soldiers, a fighter could charge into the group and make a series of attacks upon all of them. In combat, everyone could contribute. No body felt left out in a 4E fight. Gone were the days of the fighter playing lineman while the wizard played quarterback, where everyone supported and relied upon the spellcasters and where the spellcasters could replace every other character (why play a traditional group including a Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard, when a combat Wizard, a utility Wizard, a melee Cleric and a caster Cleric did the job better?).

And here's where you might be well served by looking to fans of older editions for advice. In many cases, casters got massive boosts and fighters got massive nerfs in the edition transition. Old editions managed somewhat better parity while keeping the resource management angle more diverse between classes. I can get more into the entirely different set of solutions that can provide later, if you like.

Quote4E was also easier to run, at least from my experience. The strengths and abilities of the players was reasonably quantified, and the Challenge Level system was better balanced than 3E's Challenge Rating system. One didn't need to be a master of the system to run it, as so much of it was spelled out for new DMs. Monsters were more interesting to run; even the lowly goblin and kobold had interesting monster abilities. Increasing the power of monsters was as easy as consulting one chart, rather than going through the arcane system of adding hit dice or class levels and upgrading equipment. The existence of minion, elite, and solo monsters created variety in encounter design, and the fact that the basic assumption of the game shifted from 4 players vs 1 monster to 5 players vs 5 monsters made combat more dynamic. The nature of powers also made combat more tactical, as did the definition and quantification of player and monster roles.

Again, not wanting to commit egregious acts of ad hominem, I suspect some of the dislike of 4E stems from an elitist attitude towards 3E and gaming in general. 4E was easier to DM, thus its opponents called it a simpler game. 4E made characters more balanced, and thus they were all the same. 4E gave cool toys to non-spellcasters, and thus they were taking away the toys of spellcasters. 4E spelled quantified powers, and thus made it impossible for players to be "smarter" than their DMs. 4E made it harder to make a purposefully weak character, and thus it was stifling a roleplayer's ability to make the characters they envisioned. Games that reward system mastery and player skill have their place, but perhaps that place is not in a cooperative roleplaying game?

Again, a good place where talking to the older 3x fans may give you perspective. 4e isn't exactly the last word on rules-light and casual gaming. Movement in this direction is actually pretty popular in other circles, such as the OSR crowd and Storygames fan.

3x was extraordinarily prep heavy. It's one of the major flaws and basically the one thing I like least about it, and I'm not alone. Accessibility is one of the major gripes about the system among its fans.

QuoteClasses and leveling: Characters would need to choose a class upon each level up. This system allows for players to feel like their characters are growing organically.

If you want 100% flexibility, just let people train some skills and such at level 1 and pick new feats/powers as they level up from a single pool.
You can easily restrict feat/powers lists based on archetypes from there. For example, there may be a class list and a general list. Or a class list, race list, and general list. Or characters could pick three classes and pull from any of the three lists (so you could have an undead elf mage or a dwarf fighter tinker or what have you).
You could also delimit the 4e approach, and let people borrow off other lists in exchange for some minor form of penalty.
The 3x system has very little to recommend it vs any of these approaches.

QuoteSkills: Skills would need to improve as a character gains levels, and by choice, not automatically. Automatic advancement of skills, even when there are outside options to improve them further still, seems to dissolve verisimilitude.

I can take or leave free advancement in untrained stuff. But the binary approach just feels more D&D to me than the proper point buy.

QuoteSpells: Offensive and Defensive spells will need to be reconstituted in the same pool. Different classes will need to access the same spell list, though with minor differences, rather than having their own fully unique spell lists.

Allowing a blast to be a blast whoever's casting it is cool, and probably the easiest approach for a homebrew.

QuoteNPCs and Monsters: NPCs and Monsters will need to be built on a similar chassis as players. NPCs need to be able to be built with stats, from the lowly commoner to the most regal king. Monsters need to use the same spells and abilities as players.

From what I've seen this isn't really a major point of contention. I'd advise just making the number of relevant stats small and easy to figure based on a character's type and level. Minimizing the need for pre-statting could be super helpful.
[/quote]

Quote from: XeviatMost of those monsters exist in 4E too. They're easier to run, since you don't have to deal with spell lists or "summon fiend" chances. Templates and themes exist for add-on based customization, and the math of the system is laid bare so true customization is far easier in 4E than in 3E.

Though I don't like the different "chassis" or presentation styles for monsters vs. characters in 4E, I actually don't hate 4E monsters at all; in some ways I think they're one of the few things 4E does better than 3.X, emphasis in "some ways" (I don't like my Hobgoblins to require 5 hits, for example, and I definitely don't like most of the monster art for 4E, with some exceptions).  Giving monsters unique abilities is always good, and 4E tends to do this, to its credit.  My statement wasn't intended to bash 4E at all, it was to defend 3.X from Elemental Elf's statement that its monsters were "very, very bland" - this simply isn't true for many 3.X monsters.

Quote from: xeviatMy point is, where someone might say that 5 hits (so 8 rounds or so considering the 65% hit chance or so) is a slog, I say it's a dynamic fight. There's time for stuff to happen, time for interesting choices to be made. Time for something other than the wizard dropping a single spell or the fighter swinging their sword once and calling it a fight.

8 rounds with 4 people is already 32 turns. When I run, I'll often be running for 11. If 4e goes all combat, it does it for an entirely different reason than other people usually give: It's hard as shit to get two or three combats finished in a three hour session. At least IME.

What's worse is that I really don't feel like much about the fight matters after the fact. KOs and death were too infrequent for me, even in the 4e version of TOH. And without KOs or death there's not as much of a significant dent the game can leave after the fact. Resting adequately will restore nearly everything that matters, and there are no wounds or anything of the like.

Finally, the pushing and pulling and numbers and picking when to peak didn't feel like a significant decision.

I like tactical combat, but I want it to hit harder. I'd like a one fight-session (without a 3x caster nova) if the fight was a lot shorter. I'd like the concept of a feat taken up to 11, but didn't like the blandness. I was tired of fixing 3.5. I was THE guy 4e seemed to be for, and it left me really extremely nonplussed. To the point where I wouldn't play until a few years after it was released, and still probably wouldn't run it.

Most of that's just me though.

I think one thing that people who like 4E really care about that doesn't really bother me is the whole monsters/pcs/treasure scaling issue, which feeds into the entire obsession with balance that kind of puzzles me.  Like, when I DM, I do not always pick challenges that are "appropriate" to my characters at all, and I reward treasure as I feel like it (or, really, more in ways that make sense in-universe), not in accordance with a chart.

I use the Challenge Ratings as the roughest guidelines.  I routinely throw monsters at players that are much higher in CR than they're supposed to take, and I routinely throw easier challenges at them when it makes sense in-setting.  Like, if my 8th level players in my Planescape game decide to go to Baator and start kicking ass and taking names, they're going to get eaten by Pit Fiends.  Likewise if they decide to muck out the tavern-keeper's cellars they're only going to encounter the odd cranium rat.

The same applies to treasure.  If they decide they want to burglarize the Temple of the Abyss in the Lady's Ward then if they manage to somehow trick their way past the high-level evil Clerics (mug some acolytes, use a few Alter Self spells to take their places, reserarch some rituals to fit in...) and pickpocket a key or something, they might be able to get their hands on something like an Unholy Staff even though it's way more powerful/expensive than their average gold-per-level is supposed to dictate.  But if they just mess around in the Hive fighting low-level thugs they'll probably get small change.

So, to me, monster vs. PC "scaling" isn't really an issue, because I don't follow a scale, really.

I understand that huge disparities between player-power can be annoying, but when each class feels diverse and unique, actual disparities between the amount of damage dealt or whatever are less of a big deal.  Like, even though the party's Ranger/Druid probably didn't calculate all her feats and bonuses to make sure her character was super strong and whatnot, it's OK because whenever we deal with animals or plants and stuff she has her chance to shine.  When the classes start to feel homogenous, ironically even the little imbalanced things are going to stand out more.

EDIT:

So yeah this

Quote from: XeviatWhat he means is that there were tighter assumptions on what magic items people would have. 3E had gold by level, but that could be all over the place. Someone could spend all their gold on a magic weapon and that's it; they'd be horrendously out of balance. An OCD person like me could make a chart investing the majority of their character wealth into a magic weapon, magic armor, deflection item, natural armor item, energy resistance items, and stat up items, carefully chosen to maximize plusses while not overspending (this was the only way I could generate high enough ACs to stand up to dragons, outsiders, and fellow fighters).

4E made these progressions standard. Everyone was assumed to get a magic weapon, armor, and neck item, and the plusses were assumed to be in the level/5 (rounded up) area (1-5, +1; 6-10, +2 ...) The game technically worked if you only had these three items. Yes, you needed to upgrade them at the first opportunity, but pretending that you didn't need to do that in 3E can only be done because the system wasn't upfront about it's mathematical assumptions. Was that the problem? Did 4E show us the man behind the curtain?

is what I don't like, because that's not how I deal with treasure in 3.X - and, as sparkletwist says, this approach is pretty wretched flavour-wise, reducing the sense of wonder of magic items even more than 3.X had a tendency to do (in my 3.X games, there's no such thing as "just a +1 sword," ever).

Not ignoring the rest of your beautiful post, as I mostly agree with it and it's big, I don't want to bore anyone with a line by line response.

Quote from: beejazzFirst and foremost, this is probably not the question to ask yourself as a designer. What a nebulous group of people want out of a game isn't going to give you much clarity in your goals down the road. And it's a messy and complicated question that is only partially concerned with any mechanical design. As you note yourself, there are external factors like how much of the previous line people collected (and wanted to get some more use out of) alongside weird questions of fluff (just calling certain things "powers" bothers people). That isn't to say that there weren't specific design issues, but the issue will be confused by these externalities.

It may be best to select a set of design goals for your RPG without much regard for audience. Or if you are going to concern yourself with your audience, you may want to pick a specific player base and cater to them rather than try and please groups with incompatible goals. For a proper D&D, considerations of where the mainstream lies are valid. But the truth is nobody here is likely to make anything that big, especially in a niche already dominated by WotC and Paizo.

I did want to bring this part up. I'm the audience I'm speaking to with this essay. I love 4E, but something felt off about it. I liked running 4E more than 3E, but I liked homebrewing for 3E more than 4E (Heck, just look at some of my stuff around here and back on the WotC boards; I had my Templar, Savant, and Channeler classes, I had my combat maneuver/called shot system, I had my races ...). I'm not looking to focus group all of the players, I'm wanting to fix the feel for me; I figure that I'm not a unique and special snowflake, and if I like it more, other people will too.