Author Topic: So, what's next for 4e? (Read 12128 times)

RedWarlock · « **on:** November 21, 2011, 08:08:32 AM »

Since we've got a lack of 4e threads, I figure I should start one.

What kind of class would you like to see come out in a future book? The Heroes of the.. line seems to be a path of expansion lately. We seem to be getting a mix of new material and Essentials-style reflavorings for existing classes. Nice to see them expanding beyond core concepts, though the Wizard emphasis is getting a bit old.

Heroes of the Underdark? more than just drow, maybe some essentials stuff for psionics? More aberrant material?

Heroes of the Elemental Chaos? Elemental classes have been considered but (apparently) discarded, but maybe they'll see a resurgence? Maybe some demonbinders beyond the warlock, maybe something more akin to the demon-transformation classes like Acolyte of the Skin and the old Fiendish template?

I'd love to see partial classes, like the spellscarred and the dhampire, maybe exploring monsters? We've already been seeing themes expanding into that territory, I really want to see monsters getting playable. Large-size ogres (we just got our first Tiny race, a large one would be sweet!), or other more monsterish races. Even just touching on the standard monsterish options, things outside of the medium/small humanoid mold. (Centaurs? harpies/raptoran? demons?)

Anyone else got any ideas?

Risada · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2011, 08:17:33 AM »

I... don't like the way 4e is going (not that I care that much... my chosen system is 3.5).

(Be warned. The following information comes from someone who haven't read about 4e in a while, so it might have mistakes.)

First, the Essentials classes (or e-classes) simplified 4e even further, reducing classes like the Fighter (Slayer) and Ranger (Scout) into one trick ponies that can beef up their trick of choice - in this case, charging. You don't do anything else; you just charge. There was a Dragon somewhere with rules for picking powers from other classes, allowing the e-classes to pick stuff from the o-classes. Even then, the OMGWTFBBQ stuff still belongs with the o-classes (Ranger's Blade Cascade+minor action off hand powers, Barbarian's Hurricane of Blades/Storm of Blows, etc...). While this is nice, I don't think the Essentials idea is the best way to go...

Complete4th · « **Reply #2 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:21:48 PM »

I'm not much interested in more PC options. Partly because I'm not interested in E classes, but also because I think we have enough. Of just about everything. I wouldn't mind a psi striker with PPs, but that's because I'm a 'fill in the grid' kind of guy. There's probably room for a few more races...maybe. I have a furry player who'd love to play an aarakocra.

But honestly, I think it's clear that we're reaching the saturation point; with races like the horribly designed shadow-dudes from the shadow book, and pixies with acrophobia, the devs are clearly running out of design space.

What I would like is more DM stuff. Monster Vault 2, anyone?

caelic · « **Reply #3 on:** November 25, 2011, 04:17:01 PM »

All things considered, I'd say that what's next for 4e is 5e.

Consider:

1. 3.0 was released in 2000, and replaced in 2003 by 3.5.

2. 3.5 was released in 2003, and replaced by 4e in 2007.

Basically, it looks like a new edition of core rulebooks is needed every 3-4 years to maintain profitability margins. 4.0 is right up in that 3-4 year age category now...and by all accounts, 4e has NOT been as successful as 3.0 and 3.5 were.

Add in the rehiring of Monte Cook to work on "unspecified projects relating to the D&D line," and I think the writing's on the wall.

littha · « **Reply #4 on:** November 25, 2011, 04:22:31 PM »

I saw a statistic somewhere that said 4e was only just about as successful as Pathfinder... which strikes me as a complete failure on wizards part.

caelic · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2011, 06:23:18 PM »

I wouldn't categorize it as "a complete failure." By the standards of tabletop roleplaying games, it was a solid success.

The problem is that "by the standards of tabletop roleplaying games" isn't a very high bar, and I think it's very clear that they were shooting for a higher one--probably one set by Hasbro.

I have tremendous sympathy for the folks at Wizards who are in charge of D&D. They're trying to make a tabletop RPG into a venture profitable enough to satisfy Hasbro, and the truth is that tabletop RPGs haven't been a high profit margin venture since the first glory days of D&D--and as the tabletop medium becomes more and more archaic, the problem becomes more acute.

In short, they're trying to make a Volkswagen pull a tractor trailer load.

They shot for the moon with 4e--tried to completely redefine the profit model and shift to a monthly service-based income model. Unfortunately, they failed badly in that regard. D&D Insider never materialized, and they were left with the same old "book a month" profit model that they were trying to abandon, because they knew they couldn't sustain it.

I really don't know where they're going to go from here.

CantripN · « **Reply #6 on:** November 26, 2011, 04:46:20 AM »

Not much of a fan of 4ed, but it's not so bad. I really do think Essentials are 4ed "Easy Mode", though, and really don't like those classes.

Me, I'd be happy with some support for what they do have already, and not just more options for those that already have those.
Wizards have 4 class options, and a about a dozen powers per level to pick from. More, usually.
And yet my Runepriest has a choice of all of 4-5 powers every level, and no good class feats, at all.

Nachofan99 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 26, 2011, 10:55:02 PM »

Honestly, and I'm not trolling at all here, I think 5e *is* what's next for 4e. Caelic is right on with the numbers. Additionally, I remember right as 4e was dropping that Wizards had a HUGE list of products scheduled for release for 4e, and now those floodgates are a trickle, so I suspect a big system change or entirely new edition soonish.

archangel.arcanis · « **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:24:44 PM »

I agree with Nacho that this is looking like 3.5 just before they announced 4e. They finished what they had in development, they don't really have any 3rd party licenses to end, they are on the time table, and it really looks like it is teetering on losing money soon. That all sums up time for a refresh, which would likely be 5e as they said they will never again do a half change like 3.0->3.5.

Personally I liked a lot of what I saw out of 4e and didn't like the fact that there weren't nearly as many options. Sure you had a lot of choices, but they all boiled down to the same stick painted a different color to hit the monster with. So here is to hoping they learned their previous lessons and don't swing too far back the other way.

Nachofan99 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 28, 2011, 08:37:38 PM »

Don't forget, WotC has said a lot of "We will never do this again..." and then *immediately* did it again; or at least did it a few years later. See: Numerous Magic the Gathering reprints amongst others.

Ryu Hayabusa · « **Reply #10 on:** November 28, 2011, 11:14:27 PM »

Gonna third that 5e is the next step. Just as 4th edition was a reaction against 3.5, I suspect 5th edition will be a reaction against 4th edition. I'm not sure how it will go, but I won't be surprised ot see something closer to 3.x or Pathfinder. Hell, I'd be surprised if they don't try and undercut Pathfinder's fanbase and recoup some of the losses there.

awaken_D_M_golem · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2011, 04:56:20 PM »

Yep ... 5e ... hopefully previous editions can all be squeezed in.

I doubt it ; but hope is as hope does.

Sinfire Titan · « **Reply #12 on:** November 30, 2011, 01:12:54 AM »

Do remember that Daggerdale flopped pretty hard.

Solo · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2011, 01:13:48 AM »

What is next is ya'll switching to Legend.

awaken_D_M_golem · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2011, 05:26:18 PM »

(googles daggerdale) ... huh, I missed that. Seems I'm not the only one.

(googles Legend Roleplaying Game) ... which one Solo ??

Seerow · « **Reply #15 on:** December 02, 2011, 05:10:33 PM »

Quote from: awaken_D_M_golem on November 30, 2011, 05:26:18 PM

(googles daggerdale) ... huh, I missed that. Seems I'm not the only one.

(googles Legend Roleplaying Game) ... which one Solo ??

Probably means the one at ruleofcool.com

GreyICE · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2011, 05:37:34 PM »

Someone on another board suggested something that I thought was mechanically quite brilliant for a new edition - unify the classes by power source.

So each class got a pool of abilities to draw from based on their power source (Martial, Primal, Divine, Arcane) and then class specific abilities to add on to that.

That would reduce a lot of the 'overhead' in D&D, as a common pool of powers makes a lot of sense, and generally unifies game balance. Why SHOULDN'T the Avenger, the Cleric, and the Paladin all have a set of unified powers they can draw from? They're all warriors of their gods who hit things with weapons. It makes introducing new classes a lot easier. Why shouldn't the Wizard, the Warlock, the Sorcerer, and the Swordmage all pull from common spells?

4th edition succeeded in being the most tactically interesting, balanced, and fun to manage edition of D&D ever. Gone were the days of banning 4 core classes for balance (bye Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers). Gone were the days of flinching when 4 people decided to roll up a Monk, a Wizard, a Cleric and a Rogue to drop into a 9th level campaign.

----

As for new directions, 4e has taught them a LOT. MM1 and MM2 were a little shaky, but with MM3 and Monster Vault monsters, I can consistently throw at the party, as a DM, challenges that leave them on the edge of their seats struggling to find a way to handle everything that's coming their way.

This is a feeling 3e has never really succeeded in creating.

I think that there's a lot coming for a new edition - truly unified tactical combat, a nice mix of simplicity and power, and a strong ability to create interesting systems on the fly.

P.S. The internet tends to massively overestimate Pathfinder's fanbase. It's a very solid system, and went a long way towards adding some fun back in 3.X that eventually went missing, but it is an okay patch on a framework that DOESN'T WORK.

GreyICE · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2011, 05:46:30 PM »

Quote from: Risada on November 21, 2011, 08:17:33 AM

I... don't like the way 4e is going (not that I care that much... my chosen system is 3.5).

(Be warned. The following information comes from someone who haven't read about 4e in a while, so it might have mistakes.)

First, the Essentials classes (or e-classes) simplified 4e even further, reducing classes like the Fighter (Slayer) and Ranger (Scout) into one trick ponies that can beef up their trick of choice - in this case, charging. You don't do anything else; you just charge. There was a Dragon somewhere with rules for picking powers from other classes, allowing the e-classes to pick stuff from the o-classes. Even then, the OMGWTFBBQ stuff still belongs with the o-classes (Ranger's Blade Cascade+minor action off hand powers, Barbarian's Hurricane of Blades/Storm of Blows, etc...). While this is nice, I don't think the Essentials idea is the best way to go...

Actually their one trick is hitting things real hard. Don't look at the Character Optimization boards, those are theoretical builds. Looking there is like looking at a party of a Hulking Hurler, the Cheater of Mystra, a Planar Shepherd with Greenbound Summoning, and Pun-Pun.

It basically was for people who had 3rd as their preferred system and didn't like their fighter having all these newfangled choice things in combat.

The fact that everyone roundly hates them probably indicates how much people liked THAT aspect of 3.X (I don't know a single 3.X veteran who regularly plays a purebred fighter, rogue, or barbarian).

Zemyla · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2011, 07:35:45 PM »

I have to go against the tide and say that there's still a lot of life left in 4E. I can see it going, either in this form or a modified one, all the way up to around 2016. Heroes of the Feywild shows that they're still willing to experiment with things. Berserker was an attempt at hybrid roles, while Skald gave an MBA-based character an array of encounters and dailies by making them all minor or off-actions. I'm imagining a thief-type monk, with a number of ever-stronger encounter and daily move actions which enhance its attacks even more. I'm imagining ranged defender auras, or "marking" an ally to protect him from any enemies attacking.

And if I can imagine these, WotC can imagine even more. Could you have come up with the warblade, factotum, or dragonfire adept when 3.5 came out?

awaken_D_M_golem · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2011, 02:57:50 PM »

My local big box bookstore didn't bother with Mords or Feywild, or a couple of the Encounter box set.

My local gaming store got one copy of Mords.
I showed up to get a look at it and guestimate whether I wanted it or not.
Dad came in with his son. Been gaming since chainmail. Now I got my son roped in.
They (read He) wanted the book, so I let them have it for a little conversation.

DM tells the PCs exactly what monsters they're facing.
Son "secretly" (because they know he's doing it but don't tell Son)
... checks his iphone with every single MM1+2+3 entry in it.
Then they fight it out.
Egad.

They are having their version of Fun.
And buying lots of books / gear / adventures / bandwidth to yap positively about the game.
I don't think it matters what edition (or game) they play.

News:

Author Topic: So, what's next for 4e? (Read 12128 times)