D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Campbell]

If only WotC had written their adventures like that. LFR in particular was very much "4 combats and a skill challenge". There were often no stakes. Just fight your way through the combats to get to the end.

The adventures were horrid. Especially anything Mike Mearls was part of.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The philosophy seems undermined by numbers. My fighter is getting some pretty measly percentage points advancement in athletics or history or anything really. The game seems to be saying no with its numbers. Its like you are shaking your head no while saying yes. And you as DM set the difficulty so high it really really is a no unless this has already hit the not really a problem stage, the message is really "you are wasting our time"... besides the spell caster will handle it without a check with his well defined capability.

Lets be more analytical about it. Skill bonus growth in 5e is pretty limited. Thus it is quite possible for some much lower leveled characters to have skill bonuses similar to those of higher level ones. The problem then is to define what epic accomplishments skill check values are. In other words, if it is really possible for a fighter to accomplish reality-bending astounding stuff using his Athletics, then how do you insure that some super gifted low-level NPC (or even PC for that matter) cannot achieve something similar. 5e doesn't really have an answer for that, mechanically. 4e at least does, in the sense that you can declare drinking an entire lake (I'd call this an Endurance check) as maybe a 35th level hard Endurance check (the hardest check in the game, basically). This definitely puts it out of reach of non-epic characters of all types. The GM can now simply allow for these kinds of checks to happen. A ritual might still make this much simpler, and the wizard might easily pull that off, but there's a level gate on those too, so that's cool, and he's got to pay for it somehow. Thus magic and skills SEEM, IMHO, to co-habit and provide reasonable parity in this system. SC mechanics and 'Page 42' both also providing some added structure here.

Now, a 5e GM could go ahead and reason through a way to simply level gate these sorts of things as well, but 5e doesn't seem to really envisage that. I don't see where it talks about fantastical uses of skills by high level PCs for instance. Not in terms of something like plot parity with spell casters (who at the highest levels are capable of a great variety of effects, some of which are fairly open-ended in their potential).

 

[JohnLynch]

The adventures were horrid. Especially anything Mike Mearls was part of.

That really exemplifies the difference in 4e and Pathfinder. Pathfinder had great adventures. D&D 4e didn't. Unfortunately Mearles and Co got the wrong lesson from Pathfinder and destroyed 4e trying to chase the latest trends.

Which do not get me wrong: 4e was a deeply flawed product IMO. But Mike Mearles never really learned what the problems were or how to fix them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I gave that post by @Campbell a thumbs up, because it is fair.

The point is that the 5E system is the 4E system, with smoother and more transparent math and fewer limitations by forced rules, leaving room for free rulings on play. The original contention was that 4E encouraged improvised play more because of the restrictions, which is counter to observation of 5E in play.

Maybe that was someone's contention, it would never be mine! IMHO 5e is simply missing several extremely important pieces which are present in 4e and facilitate the type of play we engage in. Other aspects of 5e's system are just not as easy to use from a GM perspective. Now, 5e came up with a few good tweaks, but it left a lot more things on the floor...

To get back to the topic of the thread, 4e took D&D in a decidedly 'story game' (or you could say narrative) direction. It was a bit covert about it, and left in a lot of 'hooks' which could let you just 'do what you did in 3e', unfortunately. It also explained where it was going poorly and seemed somewhat equivocal about this new direction. However it WAS doing a few things:
1. definitively abandoning any pretext that the game was about producing realistic or 'verisimilitudinous' results, and is instead very explicitly structured to maximize its fun and interest as a game.
2. really thinking through the implications of the various rules structures and turning them to purpose #1.
3. introducing a more consistent overall structure of adjudication of situations so that the system could reduce workload on GMs.
4. present the game mechanics in a more consistent and transparent fashion so that they could be better leveraged.

I think any 'continued direction' would have to have ultimately taken these trends to the next step. In effect I think this is why 4e ended, because it would never be able to go down a path that lead to more traditional D&D play, only to a more refined and IMHO interesting 'story game D&D'. I regret that we don't have that, but since I have found it quite possible to produce something along those lines for myself, I just ignore the current crop of commercial offerings...

 

[Parmandur]

Lets be more analytical about it. Skill bonus growth in 5e is pretty limited. Thus it is quite possible for some much lower leveled characters to have skill bonuses similar to those of higher level ones. The problem then is to define what epic accomplishments skill check values are. In other words, if it is really possible for a fighter to accomplish reality-bending astounding stuff using his Athletics, then how do you insure that some super gifted low-level NPC (or even PC for that matter) cannot achieve something similar. 5e doesn't really have an answer for that, mechanically. 4e at least does, in the sense that you can declare drinking an entire lake (I'd call this an Endurance check) as maybe a 35th level hard Endurance check (the hardest check in the game, basically). This definitely puts it out of reach of non-epic characters of all types. The GM can now simply allow for these kinds of checks to happen. A ritual might still make this much simpler, and the wizard might easily pull that off, but there's a level gate on those too, so that's cool, and he's got to pay for it somehow. Thus magic and skills SEEM, IMHO, to co-habit and provide reasonable parity in this system. SC mechanics and 'Page 42' both also providing some added structure here.

Now, a 5e GM could go ahead and reason through a way to simply level gate these sorts of things as well, but 5e doesn't seem to really envisage that. I don't see where it talks about fantastical uses of skills by high level PCs for instance. Not in terms of something like plot parity with spell casters (who at the highest levels are capable of a great variety of effects, some of which are fairly open-ended in their potential).

In 5E, the numbers go up to 30, which is Impossible. Low level characters, even exceptionally talented ones, cannot get to 30: a Rogue with a 20 in the relevant Ability and Expertise at Level 1 can hot 29, falling short of a 30 task. Only hyper-focused Tier 2 PCs, like said Rogue, have an outside chance. High level pure Fighters, especially Champions, have a real shot at Impossible tasks. The DMG does gesture towards huge mythic possibilities such as that, if desired for the genre.

 

[Imaro]

Lets be more analytical about it. Skill bonus growth in 5e is pretty limited. Thus it is quite possible for some much lower leveled characters to have skill bonuses similar to those of higher level ones. The problem then is to define what epic accomplishments skill check values are. In other words, if it is really possible for a fighter to accomplish reality-bending astounding stuff using his Athletics, then how do you insure that some super gifted low-level NPC (or even PC for that matter) cannot achieve something similar. 5e doesn't really have an answer for that, mechanically. 4e at least does, in the sense that you can declare drinking an entire lake (I'd call this an Endurance check) as maybe a 35th level hard Endurance check (the hardest check in the game, basically). This definitely puts it out of reach of non-epic characters of all types. The GM can now simply allow for these kinds of checks to happen. A ritual might still make this much simpler, and the wizard might easily pull that off, but there's a level gate on those too, so that's cool, and he's got to pay for it somehow. Thus magic and skills SEEM, IMHO, to co-habit and provide reasonable parity in this system. SC mechanics and 'Page 42' both also providing some added structure here.

Now, a 5e GM could go ahead and reason through a way to simply level gate these sorts of things as well, but 5e doesn't seem to really envisage that. I don't see where it talks about fantastical uses of skills by high level PCs for instance. Not in terms of something like plot parity with spell casters (who at the highest levels are capable of a great variety of effects, some of which are fairly open-ended in their potential).

Ok first doesn't 4e only have 30 levels so how are we setting a 35th level DC? And if we're just making up/extrapolating new & higher DC's can't we do the same in 5e? Putting that aside...

We just discussed this and unless we are speaking to consistent success then 4e and 5e both have the possibility of low level PC's able to achieve supposed epic feats according to DC range. Now if we are speaking to consistent success well then low level PC's in both games won't be able to consistently achieve the higher DC's... so I'm failing to see how your claim above holds water.

 

[JohnLynch]

Maybe that was someone's contention, it would never be mine! IMHO 5e is simply missing several extremely important pieces which are present in 4e and facilitate the type of play we engage in. Other aspects of 5e's system are just not as easy to use from a GM perspective. Now, 5e came up with a few good tweaks, but it left a lot more things on the floor...

To get back to the topic of the thread, 4e took D&D in a decidedly 'story game' (or you could say narrative) direction. It was a bit covert about it, and left in a lot of 'hooks' which could let you just 'do what you did in 3e', unfortunately. It also explained where it was going poorly and seemed somewhat equivocal about this new direction. However it WAS doing a few things:
1. definitively abandoning any pretext that the game was about producing realistic or 'verisimilitudinous' results, and is instead very explicitly structured to maximize its fun and interest as a game.
2. really thinking through the implications of the various rules structures and turning them to purpose #1.
3. introducing a more consistent overall structure of adjudication of situations so that the system could reduce workload on GMs.
4. present the game mechanics in a more consistent and transparent fashion so that they could be better leveraged.

I think any 'continued direction' would have to have ultimately taken these trends to the next step. In effect I think this is why 4e ended, because it would never be able to go down a path that lead to more traditional D&D play, only to a more refined and IMHO interesting 'story game D&D'. I regret that we don't have that, but since I have found it quite possible to produce something along those lines for myself, I just ignore the current crop of commercial offerings...

I think 4e was a bit too sterile in it's approach. I think using a bit more natural language was inevitable. Something like this could have seen the game presented a bit more naturally without changing a single thing about how the rules actually worked.

 

[Garthanos]

A trick is an exploit largely dependent on surprise and can thus only be performed if your enemy hasn't seen your trick this recently. Encounter powers are not necessarily about fatigue ...and similar things can be done with other power sources too. After performing this spell you have to make a one minute purification ritual to repeat it.

I think 4e was a bit too sterile in it's approach. I think using a bit more natural language was inevitable. Something like this could have seen the game presented a bit more naturally without changing a single thing about how the rules actually worked.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Abstract short and long rest. I am particularly not fond of regaining all your hit points over a long rest.

• The lack of meaningful long term status conditions like poisons, diseases, and curses.
• Martial abilities with arbitrary resource management without any direct correspondence to the fiction. Stuff like superiority dice, rages per day, bardic inspiration, second wind, and action surge.
• Hit Dice/ Healing Surges. Particularly when healing does not use them up they do not really feel like extra reserves.
• Ability Score substitution effects like using Dexterity for attack and damage on finesse weapons or the Hexblade's Charisma to Attack and Damage. Also stuff like the Barbarian's Constitution to AC that lets them run around naked.
• Monsters that lack meaningful resistances, weaknesses, and immunities.
• Monsters with incredibly bloated hit points when compared to PCs

Well, I'm not sure if 'agree' or 'disagree' is the right term. I don't think anything in 4e is cast in stone as the 'right' way to do it...
1. Long rest in 4e practice and in HoML is simply a break point. It could come after a day, a certain plot point, etc. I would point out that making it a day is in keeping with the 4e theory of putting control more in the hands of the players, or at least giving them a degree of certainty and non-arbitrary parameters to work with.
2. I don't have a problem with 'abstract' resources. If you boil a 4e game down to a narrative then it easily works out to be basically "sometimes each character manages to be special" and the exact mechanical instantiation of that at a given instant in time is relatively unimportant. A fighter making a 'big move' could be simply expending a daily in an advantageous way and getting a crit, or it could be a Standard -> daily -> AP -> daily -> minor action attack combo, or burning an item power, or some feat effect kicking in, and/or any combination of the above. Its not really all that important which mechanics were engaged. The mechanics are there to give structure to the player's choices and make it a GAME and not a story-telling exercise.
3. I took my game in the direction of less specific resources, Vitality Points are a much more universal currency. I have this feeling you're a bit hung up on 'flavor' here.
4. I have no idea why you don't like DEX being an attack stat for weapons where it seems appropriate. Why is STR somehow sacrosanct as the only realistic option? I don't agree with you at all on that point. The other forms of substitution I think are possibly a bit more 'hackish' in the sense that they were implemented to provide players with a way to bypass hard choices in character build, which I don't really agree with. In terms of logic however, I see no reason why a wizard's hit points shouldn't depend on INT, most hit points are a reflection of intangible forces like 'luck' or at least of 'skill' anyway, why is CON the only thing which can grant this? You seem to just have become hung up on tradition in some cases here.
5. 4e DOES have monster 'weaknesses', but they're not as absolute and simplistically implemented as in other editions. This means they don't form hard blockers and force certain PCs totally to the sidelines such as happens in 3e or (maybe to a lesser degree, I'm not sure) in 5e.
6. Monster hit points simply represent a slightly different thing than PC hit points in 4e. Think of it as a simplification if you wish. Monsters have hit points and 'surges', but it is all just rolled into one for the sake of playability. Try PvP play sometime and you will see why this is really by far the most workable solution.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The wording does say to avoid rolls where significant failure isn't a likelihood, and leans heavily on avoiding rolls where possible and multiple rolls aren't really a developed thing.

Yeah, I don't want to say I'm very familiar with how the 5e DMG puts it. AD&D was definitely "make up a subsystem to simulate what would happen" and 3e seems to be "use the skill system to try to simulate what would happen". 4e talks about everything in GAME TERMS, which is where you want the focus to be. That was its power. 5e might talk about 'avoid rolls' (this is often a good start, but often I WANT rolls of some sort). I don't think saying that "multiple rolls really aren't a developed thing" is saying much. Deprecating and removing the SC system was really a poor choice in design, it thrusts the game back to the only other existing traditional paradigm, which is simply "roll enough checks that I, as GM, feel like its enough" and then the players wrangle with the GM because why not?
I mean, we can easily have debates (as there have been 100's in the past) about what would be the ideal type of mechanics for an 'SC' system. I don't know that the 4e approach was the best specific choice in detail. It probably wasn't from the standpoint of being easy for existing players to 'get it' and use it without much friction. In other respects it is pretty solid though.
Again, going back to 4e direction, clearly we can see a progression in the refinement of the SC technique from DMG1 to RC. RC-grade SCs are pretty good. Both sides have a pool of resources to pull from in order to either increase the odds of success at a cost, or to put additional pressure on the PCs. The understanding of plot progression at each point in the SC is much clearer, and the expected 'flow' of a challenge is thus much improved. Could a 'clock system' like BitD has, or some other mechanism like an aspect-based thing derived from a FATE-like game work better? I don't know, maybe.