4E Lessons for 5E

[Necrosnoop110]

What are the pros and cons of 4E, in light of what can be useful for 5E? What can be learned from the 4E experiment that would be helpful for a 5E reboot?

Cheers,
Necro

[linklord231]

It's a lot easier to DM for 4e than for 3.5 in that you can judge a party's abilities much more easily.  You don't have to be worried that the Wizard prepared the right spell to bypass this obstacle, and the new "XP budget" system is WAY better than CR.

[X-Codes]

The way they did that, though, is by pretty much hard-coding character traits into the system and constantly beating down the positive outliers with errata (but not the negative ones, making old options weaker over time).

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

making old options weaker over time

ew

[Keldar]

The big lessons from 4 are:  If you go for balance first, you have to do the math.  The guys at WotC aren't very good at math.   
It isn't D&D without some sacred cows.  Fighter, Wizard and D20s do not D&D make.

[ariasderros]

The big lessons from 4 are:  If you go for balance first, you have to do the math.  The guys at WotC aren't very good at math.   
It isn't D&D without some sacred cows.  Fighter, Wizard and D20s do not D&D make.

+1 to both

[oslecamo]

Make sure bard and druid are on the base classes and gnomes and half-orcs on the base races. Or there will be blood.

[RobbyPants]

Good:

• Concept of power tiers (concept only; 4E didn't really implement this)
• No more random ability scores and HP.
• No more "good" and "bad" saves.
• Easy to design content.

Bad:

• Left many popular (and previously core) options out of the first PHB.
• Crappy math (particularly in skill challenges).
• Skill challenges that track failures.
• Bonuses and the Magic Christmas Tree.
• Crappy multiclassing.
• Combat and non-combat abilities don't seem to interact meaningfully.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

They've got more than enough material for the Hero power level game.

Some 1/4 to 1/3 of 4e's crunch can be downward migrated to a 10-year-old
Harry Potter power level game , and a 15-year-old Harry Potter game.
And not just for 10 years olds ; some adults "luv" that stuff / idk why.

Maybe 1/10th of 3e and 3.5e can be Potter-ized too.

[kitep]

The thing to keep about 4E - the ads!

Tiefling and Gnome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqFPujRZWo

Demogorgon and Gnome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KqjOGdOMtA&feature=related

etc.

[Keldar]

They get gnome respect!  Gnome respect, I tell ya! 

[caelic]

One I'm actually sort of surprised nobody has brought up (and one which may generate some backlash)

The player base, by and large, does not want a perfectly balanced game. 

3.5 was unbalanced; 3.5 was also very successful.  4e fixed most of the balance issues--and was not nearly as successful.

The history of D&D, I would argue, is one in which one-upmanship and "I have something you don't have!" play a critical role.  Many players don't just want to have powerful characters who can do cool things--they want to have powerful characters who can do cool things that the other characters can't do.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that "I have something you don't have!" is one of the main pistons driving the engines of gaming in general.

Why was Magic: the Gathering so wildly successful?  Because players bought cards by the case, hoping for that elusive rare that would give them an edge.  "I have something you don't have."

Why do people pay thousands of dollars of real-world money for a trading card that will give them an in-game World of Warcraft mount that is only cosmetically different from the mounts they already have?  "I have something you don't have."

Why have some of us devoted YEARS to manipulating the rules of this game, bought (in some cases) upwards of 50 rulebooks for a single edition, and pored through them for that single feat or spell that would unleash some devastating new synergy?

Again, on some level, I would argue that it's "I have something you don't have."   And I think the fact that 4e tried to do away with it by establishing perfect parity of character capabilities at all levels is one of the major reasons it failed to resonate with a large portion of the playerbase, and why Pathfinder has thrived despite being at least as unbalanced as 3.5.

[ariasderros]

(click to show/hide)

One I'm actually sort of surprised nobody has brought up (and one which may generate some backlash)

The player base, by and large, does not want a perfectly balanced game. 

3.5 was unbalanced; 3.5 was also very successful.  4e fixed most of the balance issues--and was not nearly as successful.

The history of D&D, I would argue, is one in which one-upmanship and "I have something you don't have!" play a critical role.  Many players don't just want to have powerful characters who can do cool things--they want to have powerful characters who can do cool things that the other characters can't do.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that "I have something you don't have!" is one of the main pistons driving the engines of gaming in general.

Why was Magic: the Gathering so wildly successful?  Because players bought cards by the case, hoping for that elusive rare that would give them an edge.  "I have something you don't have."

Why do people pay thousands of dollars of real-world money for a trading card that will give them an in-game World of Warcraft mount that is only cosmetically different from the mounts they already have?  "I have something you don't have."

Why have some of us devoted YEARS to manipulating the rules of this game, bought (in some cases) upwards of 50 rulebooks for a single edition, and pored through them for that single feat or spell that would unleash some devastating new synergy?

Again, on some level, I would argue that it's "I have something you don't have."   And I think the fact that 4e tried to do away with it by establishing perfect parity of character capabilities at all levels is one of the major reasons it failed to resonate with a large portion of the playerbase, and why Pathfinder has thrived despite being at least as unbalanced as 3.5.

(click to show/hide)

Yes, we want that fulfillment of having found something that makes us feel clever. That feeling of a reward for our investment of time reading through the material.

I don't think it's "I have something you don't have" always. Sure there are immature people who have that mentality, but the things I find are immediately shared with my group. There are many things they have that I do not. They have the cool trick, which makes them feel cool, and I have the fulfillment of having been clever enough to figure it out, or the fulfillment of the research having payed off if it wasn't me who figured it out. Imbalance doesn't have to violate the teamwork aspect of the social game.

In other words, I agree that it being an "Ivory Tower Game" is a large part of its appeal.
I just disagree with people who sit on top of their Ivory Tower and look down on people who are supposed to be partners / friends.

[caelic]

Oh, sure.  I didn't say it was an admirable thing...but that doesn't make it any less real.  Nor was I implying that everyone who spends significant time on the CharOp boards does so with the intention of creating some killer combination and then keeping the details of it concealed.

On the other hand, I do think the same drive is in play--just in a more subtle form--even in those of us who design and then share builds.  We don't want to be the only one to play the combo, but we do want to be the one to discover and share it.  Having the satisfaction of being the one to figure it out is having something that other people don't have--because, after all, they weren't the ones who figured it out.

True, it's not as odious as "I have a character who can beat up your character and I'm not gonna tell you how I did it!"--but the inherent competitiveness is still there.

Gamers are competitive by nature.  The competitiveness takes different forms--but I don't think D&D would exist without that competitive streak.

[ariasderros]

I don't think it's "I have something you don't have" always.

Emphasis. I just felt the addendum a necessary point. Other than that, I was agreeing with you.

In other words, I agree that it being an "Ivory Tower Game" is a large part of its appeal.
I just disagree with people who sit on top of their Ivory Tower and look down on people who are supposed to be partners / friends.

I agree with those who go up their ivory tower, then help others up too.

But your base point, that Ivory Tower games have more appeal (no matter how much the thread here may try to complain about it), is true.

[TenaciousJ]

One I'm actually sort of surprised nobody has brought up (and one which may generate some backlash)

The player base, by and large, does not want a perfectly balanced game. 

3.5 was unbalanced; 3.5 was also very successful.  4e fixed most of the balance issues--and was not nearly as successful.

My experience with 4e is that the balancing was all done downwards.  4e combat is grindy and CO doesn't feel like it reduces this very much.  Everything feels like high tier 4 disguised as a ToB character without the potential of a 3.5 charger.  No matter what my character does, it's going to feel like some mook relative to its level.  I doubt the backlash against balance would have been felt so much if things had been tuned towards a higher tier of 3.5 character.

[X-Codes]

Yeah, what really broke the deal for me with 4e wasn't just that everything was balanced downward and every. single. encounter. was a war of attrition, but also that WotC was inventing Power Creep by introducing new material that was about on-par or weaker than existing material, and then errata-ing existing material even further down in terms of power (such as the Tiefling's racial power).

[Jackinthegreen]

In short, 5E needs to let the players and characters feel powerful and unique.  Moreso than 4.0 but a bit less than 3.X  "I can do something you can't" is fine so long as you're working together and the unique abilities get a chance to shine.

[Bozwevial]

Easy to design content.

That's a bit of an understatement. You could very feasibly have a computer churning out powers for you and then give them to an intern to attach flavor text after the fact.

[FatR]

       Key lessons to learn from 4E, in no particular order:

1. Poor art direction is highly detrimental for your game.

2. Poor initial adventure support is catastrophic.

3. If you release only one setting book early on, it should not take a huge dump on the setting in question.

4. You should not insult parts of your fanbase (lesson learned, apparently).

5. Another rules-heavy dungeoncrawl-and-gridmap-focused version of DnD must compete on the market already saturated with the same thing (lesson might be learned).

6. Deliver things you promise and do not promise what you do not intend to deliver. My personal opinion about 4E started turning strongly negative when I realized that the magic items Christmas Tree is still there.

7. Game balance by itself does not create an enjoyable game, and it is not even the most important component of an enjoyable game. It is a highly desirable trait, but if your gameplay is generally unappealing, who cares if it is balanced.

8. Cutting off third-party support for your game does not benefit you.