Honestly I would've been okay if defenders were the only ones who had access to interrupts at all.
0
Options
Lord Palingtonhe.him.hisHistory-loving pal!Registered Userregular
Denada - bonus points if they can make it vague enough to run a superhero game with it. If I ever get some free time, I want to work on using the whole at-will/encounter/daily thing for a superhero rpg. I think it would be a good fit, especially with how comic book fights usually work.
Denada - bonus points if they can make it vague enough to run a superhero game with it. If I ever get some free time, I want to work on using the whole at-will/encounter/daily thing for a superhero rpg. I think it would be a good fit, especially with how comic book fights usually work.
I've been thinking about that, and I think a modified Gamma World would actually work great for that:
1) Mutant origins become "super origins" or "power templates" or whatever.
2) Balance the origins so that they can be chosen instead of rolled randomly.
3) Clean up vague or poorly worded powers.
4) ???
5) Profit.
Really it's just another example of them solving a problem the most stupid way possible while missing the point at the same time. The solution to having too many powers that interrupted other stuff during combat, was to make a defined limit on how often these powers could be used. 4E already had it but unfortunately they didn't apply it consistently and we got the free action attack mess in Epic (which is really where that free action rule was needed - despite it not being anywhere near the issue in heroic/early paragon).
I dunno. The Immediate limit causes problems for defenders who use an immediate to defend. I mean, I look at Fighters and Paladin marks as being auto-enforced, compared to Warden, Swordmage, and Battlemind marks and I'm kinda like... ehhh?
I mean, do you really need to do both? If you have very few immediate attacks, then do you really need to put a limit on how many can be used per round? (I assume non-attack immediates are typically okay, since they usually just mod a roll.) I'm not even sure the 1 free action attack per round thing was a particularly elegant solution either; I can see why it was necessary, but it caused all kindsa trouble with powers that were working perfectly fine. They just lost control of the design paradigm as they published more material....
Bit late on the save or die discussion, but remember the problem isn't just the DM attacking players with Save or Die attacks, the PCs having access to them is also problematic. Makes it difficult to balance encounters, can turn encoutners into anti climaxes (so the DM ends up in an arms race with the players) and also makes all other character actions meaningless - rogue: Attacks for damage, Fighter attacks for damage, Paladin casts spell on fighter to protect him from the monster, Wizard casts sleep, encounter over.
Well, the new L&L has no poll, but at least it's talking about something I think most people can get behind. Quick, decisive combats should be an option. A combat that's more a note of tension in the adventure than a tactical interchange. I can agree, that should be one way you can run combats. I'd personally like to have both options available. You can probably do that in 4e by fiddling with the skill challenge mechanics, but the tendency is to just use the tactical combat rules, which can take anywhere from a while to a long time, depending on the group.
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2012
In Burning Wheel, there are three tiers of combat: Versus (a barroom brawl), Bloody Versus (a potentially lethal encounter, but not an important one), and Fight! (full on combat). The first two are handled with a simple opposed roll between the participants. Fight! is for the encounters that matter. It really speeds things up a lot.
I'm finding that the more I look at and hear about other systems, the more it feels like D&D is getting a bit outdated. I'm concerned that a lot of the stuff they're trying to bring back for 5E is only going to further that feeling, but I'm still (probably foolishly) hoping that they'll use their supposed modular rules system to introduce some more modern elements.
Then again, maybe I'm just reacting to the way my players play, and finding that even though they seem to think so, D&D isn't actually the best system for their play-style.
I'm finding that the more I look at and hear about other systems, the more it feels like D&D is getting a bit outdated. I'm concerned that a lot of the stuff they're trying to bring back for 5E is only going to further that feeling, but I'm still (probably foolishly) hoping that they'll use their supposed modular rules system to introduce some more modern elements.
Then again, maybe I'm just reacting to the way my players play, and finding that even though they seem to think so, D&D isn't actually the best system for their play-style.
What is their play style, and what would you suggest?
I really love 4e's tactical style, especially with the way roles are separated. Is there anything else that plays like that?
I'm finding that the more I look at and hear about other systems, the more it feels like D&D is getting a bit outdated. I'm concerned that a lot of the stuff they're trying to bring back for 5E is only going to further that feeling, but I'm still (probably foolishly) hoping that they'll use their supposed modular rules system to introduce some more modern elements.
Then again, maybe I'm just reacting to the way my players play, and finding that even though they seem to think so, D&D isn't actually the best system for their play-style.
I think D&D is geared at being an intense dungeon crawler more than being about roleplaying. I don't want to open this can of worms again; this is just my opinion. That everything, literally, everything has stats in 3.X/Pathfinder is a nudge towards the possibility of killing/breaking everything. It's that kind of crunchiness that bogs the game down.
Burning Wheel is slowly becoming my new system of choice. It's not rules light by any means (you NEED to read the core book cover to cover, 600 pages FYI) but the math doesn't escalate the way it does in D&D. The emphasis is placed on creating a character with beliefs and challenging those beliefs in play. Your skills are a vehicle for doing that, and are also highly specialized.
In comparison, encounters in D&D don't have that feeling. The mechanics are tied to your class choice and you never need to dig deeper to know that you're a Rogue that likes to stealth around.
They all play 3.5 pretty regularly, and only agreed to play 4E because I wanted to run it and they like me. With that in mind, they:
1) Want to try unusual things and have me come up with a ruling for it. Most of the time I just hand-wave something that I know isn't supported by the rules, but it would be cool so I allow it to happen. It would be great if I had a really flexible basic rules mechanic (like Cortex's Attribute+Skill+Trait mechanic) where I could just choose a combination of stats for them depending on whatever they're trying to do.
2) Not actually look at their sheets that much. We're up to level 5 now, and they still don't understand all their powers or how to use them. They've all pretty much just picked one power that they think is great, and use that all the time. The warlord still doesn't use his powers correctly, though he's getting better. I would enjoy not having to rely on specific power text, and instead have a more open-ended system where they just tell me what they want to do and I tell them what to roll.
3) Expect combat to be much more quick and deadly than it is. I think this is a result of coming from 3.5, where one hit is often enough to kill something. After 5 levels they're still surprised when 20 damage doesn't outright obliterate something. I end up using a lot of minions to accommodate their expectations. I'm not sure what I would do for this, but I'd like more options with the combat system. Something like the tiered approach mentioned a few posts up would be neat I think.
Overall, they're fairly creative, and seem to like having their fluff backed up by mechanics. They don't care much for balance or strong tactical decisions. I think a system in which the mechanics can back up anything they can think of, runs quickly, and is more concerned with creative thinking than tactical choices would suit them well.
One thing that I've noticed in most traditional fantasy settings, there's basically three kinds of fights:
1. Mowing down an army of mooks
2. Group fighting one huge monster
3. Group fighting a group of roughly equal strength
Although the second and third are pretty well covered by solos and regular/elite monsters, respectively, I think there's a better way than minions to handle the first. Perhaps treating an enemy army as a swarm, appointing occasional "leader" mobs inside the group that offer bonuses/penalties until slain. In that case, the "damage" done is slaying individuals until the swarm essentially loses enough morale to call a retreat or scatter.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
They all play 3.5 pretty regularly, and only agreed to play 4E because I wanted to run it and they like me. With that in mind, they:
1) Want to try unusual things and have me come up with a ruling for it. Most of the time I just hand-wave something that I know isn't supported by the rules, but it would be cool so I allow it to happen. It would be great if I had a really flexible basic rules mechanic (like Cortex's Attribute+Skill+Trait mechanic) where I could just choose a combination of stats for them depending on whatever they're trying to do.
2) Not actually look at their sheets that much. We're up to level 5 now, and they still don't understand all their powers or how to use them. They've all pretty much just picked one power that they think is great, and use that all the time. The warlord still doesn't use his powers correctly, though he's getting better. I would enjoy not having to rely on specific power text, and instead have a more open-ended system where they just tell me what they want to do and I tell them what to roll.
3) Expect combat to be much more quick and deadly than it is. I think this is a result of coming from 3.5, where one hit is often enough to kill something. After 5 levels they're still surprised when 20 damage doesn't outright obliterate something. I end up using a lot of minions to accommodate their expectations. I'm not sure what I would do for this, but I'd like more options with the combat system. Something like the tiered approach mentioned a few posts up would be neat I think.
Overall, they're fairly creative, and seem to like having their fluff backed up by mechanics. They don't care much for balance or strong tactical decisions. I think a system in which the mechanics can back up anything they can think of, runs quickly, and is more concerned with creative thinking than tactical choices would suit them well.
You should download The Burning Wheel PDF from their site. It's free, and it gives you a lot of the core concepts and you can even get "The Sword" a simple one-shot with pre-generated characters to give it a go. As for your individual points:
1) The game has a huge amounts of skills that more and less specialized. This is not unwieldy by any means, as many of them are specific to different races or whether or not you're a spellcaster. If you don't have the appropriate skill, you're never SOL; you test the relevant stat, and can use related, but not entirely appropriate skills to get bonus dice on this roll. If your friends can help you accomplish your task, they increase the number of dice you roll as well. It has rules for linked and graduated tests for more complex, long-term actions.
2) This is a low-magic setting and your abilities are few. Since character begin play with a very small number of abilities, your players are going to be familiar with what they do. While there is no core setting, the game is written based on historical medieval Europe, which is why things are a little grittier and destitute.
3) Because most combat is handled using Versus and Bloody Versus tests, it's a single opposed roll to get to the outcome. There is still description and narration and all of that, but the dice are rolled once in those cases. Also, you never reroll for anything; the results always stand. The Fight! rules are pretty complex and tactical in that you script opposed actions, but you don't need a battlemap at all.
They all play 3.5 pretty regularly, and only agreed to play 4E because I wanted to run it and they like me. With that in mind, they:
1) Want to try unusual things and have me come up with a ruling for it. Most of the time I just hand-wave something that I know isn't supported by the rules, but it would be cool so I allow it to happen. It would be great if I had a really flexible basic rules mechanic (like Cortex's Attribute+Skill+Trait mechanic) where I could just choose a combination of stats for them depending on whatever they're trying to do.
DMG, p. 42. Seriously, with DCs and everything. Find the most appropriate skill, or just have them make an ability check. Honestly, you don't even need that. Just make up some crap about what they actually roll, and watch the die. An average task succeeds on a 10 or better, +/-2 or 3 for harder/easier tasks.
2) Not actually look at their sheets that much. We're up to level 5 now, and they still don't understand all their powers or how to use them. They've all pretty much just picked one power that they think is great, and use that all the time. The warlord still doesn't use his powers correctly, though he's getting better. I would enjoy not having to rely on specific power text, and instead have a more open-ended system where they just tell me what they want to do and I tell them what to roll.
This is somewhat of a problem with 4e. Players tend to get stuck into ruts like this. Especially players new to the game. My group is level 10 and still only rarely uses daily powers, if they can help it (the cleric went out of his way to use Cure Light Wounds, because he's never had a good reason to use it before). I find translating the powers to large index cards where it doesn't have the default flavor text, just the mechanical bits, oddly helps more, because they start making up their own flavor.
3) Expect combat to be much more quick and deadly than it is. I think this is a result of coming from 3.5, where one hit is often enough to kill something. After 5 levels they're still surprised when 20 damage doesn't outright obliterate something. I end up using a lot of minions to accommodate their expectations. I'm not sure what I would do for this, but I'd like more options with the combat system. Something like the tiered approach mentioned a few posts up would be neat I think.
Make sure you're using updated monster stats from MM3/Monster Vault and after. Monster from MM1&2 just aren't deadly enough. And never, ever use an MM1 solo. They are terrible. Also don't be afraid to throw them against high level encounters. My group routinely is able to overcome level +2/3 encounters (again, without daily powers most of the time).
Overall, they're fairly creative, and seem to like having their fluff backed up by mechanics. They don't care much for balance or strong tactical decisions. I think a system in which the mechanics can back up anything they can think of, runs quickly, and is more concerned with creative thinking than tactical choices would suit them well.
If you like the power progression format and balance of 4e, but prefer the 3.5 mechanical baseline, I'd suggest Legend RPG. It's a d20 clone, but with something more like power/talent trees instead of straight up choosing a power at every level.
Oh I'm not actually complaining about how 4E works. I like 4E, and prefer it to other systems both for running and playing.
What I'm actually talking about (probably not clearly) is that the specific players in my group don't interact well with it. They strain the system's weak points and under-utilize the system's strengths. Their style of play, at least to me, seems better suited to a different system. Maybe that's still 3.5, or maybe there's a more "modern" system that would actually do better for them.
I think some of this thinking might also be coming from a bit of system fatigue. I'm starting to feel like I've done everything with 4E that I really want to do, and I'd like to branch out to other systems to see what experiences they have to offer. 5E might be that system if they can look beyond D&D's roots to see what other companies are doing with their games. I'm holding out a bit of hope for that, even though everything I see tells me that it's probably going to be some convoluted mess of 3.5, AD&D, and 4E without any real innovation.
Although the second and third are pretty well covered by solos and regular/elite monsters, respectively, I think there's a better way than minions to handle the first. Perhaps treating an enemy army as a swarm, appointing occasional "leader" mobs inside the group that offer bonuses/penalties until slain. In that case, the "damage" done is slaying individuals until the swarm essentially loses enough morale to call a retreat or scatter.
I think one of the bigger problems in 4e is illustrated pretty well by how often someone discusses a way they'd like to do something, and I end up saying "4e has exactly this, but it's not made very clear"
Because 4e has exactly this, but it's not made very clear - swarm rules are mostly applied to very small creatures (bugs and other creepy crawlies) in the Monster Manuals and aren't discussed a whole lot in the DMG, but Open Grave uses them to describe throngs of the undead, and has a sidebar that goes over how you can translate that into other monster types.
Basically the upshot is that if you're so inclined, you can simulate a group of enemies by taking a creature, increasing its size by two steps, and applying the swarm rules to it (half damage from melee and ranged attacks, vulnerable 5/10/15 to area attacks, and usually an aura 1 that causes anyone inside or adjacent to the swarm's squares to take a basic melee attack from the swarm at the start of their turns.) You now have a large group comprised of weaker versions of the creature you started with, filling a role similar to a pile of minions but with mechanics that are more in line with a normal monster. This helps to speed play, reduce battlefield clutter, and reward aoe powers without letting them auto-win the encounter.
The more the 5E discussion goes on the more I realize that I don't really care about D&D, but rather a rich and colorful fantasy RPG with balanced, cinematic, tactical combat and many ways to interact with the world. It's basically broken that old Charm spell that 2E placed on me way back when.
Yeah, 4E did have a communication problem - communication and editing skills have been lacking since Day 1 of 4E, and continue to this day. 4E is full of so much subtext that basically assumes you have an edge over the average person when it comes to reading between the lines... I think that assumption has been disproven handily by now.
This summary of SA posts, apparent "violations" of the NDA or "leaks" or whatever, is making the rounds: http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd
I have no reason to disbelieve any of this, nor is it really surprising. Just dropping this here because I only found it today myself. I guess I'm a rumor-monger or whatever.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
The thing that really sticks out? (And stabs me in the face?) How the author talks about how WotC is trying to disavow 4E. Even when WotC agrees that 4E is doing it the best way, they can't admit it.
It's kinda hilarious, in a train wreck sort of way.
The thing that really sticks out? (And stabs me in the face?) How the author talks about how WotC is trying to disavow 4E. Even when WotC agrees that 4E is doing it the best way, they can't admit it.
It's kinda hilarious, in a train wreck sort of way.
I think we assumed it was happening, but it's indeed hilariously bad to see it apparently that striking. The general avoidance of systemized language is great too. Assuming that's by design and not just them having no fucking clue how to state what they mean (when they could just use 4e language, BUT THE GROGNARDS), it's going to be exceptions and confusing language abound. Hooray!
---
Also, the L&L. One hour adventure, what the hell? This is not what I meant when I said I wanted help making [4e] combats go faster. Who is going to plan to and set out to play D&D for only one hour, outside of an Encounters-style store event? I don't know about you guys, but it takes me/some of my crew an hour to make the round-trip drive to the game. I'm probably making more of it than I should, because it's just their baseline or something, but... why?
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Some past WotC article at least a year ago stated that they run a lot of lunch hour games with abbreviated rules. It's possible that they have decided that this is the next big thing.
Hey guys, not sure if this is the appropriate place to post or not. I was looking for the 4th edition discussion thread, and I suppose this is effectively it. Is anybody around here running a 4e game that would be interested in another player? I've been wanting to play a Blackguard like crazy since I first heard about them, but I've been kind of stuck on DM duty for my own game. I enjoy my game immensely, but I'd also like to get some me-time in as far as playing D&D goes. Also, Blackguards seem really fun while retaining some level of simplicity.
I was looking on the official D&D forums as well, although I'm fairly tired so I may have just missed the forum where you post player or DM availability for online games. I'm not even sure where else to look.
Hey guys, not sure if this is the appropriate place to post or not. I was looking for the 4th edition discussion thread, and I suppose this is effectively it. Is anybody around here running a 4e game that would be interested in another player? I've been wanting to play a Blackguard like crazy since I first heard about them, but I've been kind of stuck on DM duty for my own game. I enjoy my game immensely, but I'd also like to get some me-time in as far as playing D&D goes. Also, Blackguards seem really fun while retaining some level of simplicity.
I was looking on the official D&D forums as well, although I'm fairly tired so I may have just missed the forum where you post player or DM availability for online games. I'm not even sure where else to look.
It's been pretty slow with the 5e shit, but the 4e thread is here. People organize new games there sometimes, the usual format here is to start a Play-by-Post so the DM will just make a signup thread that turns into a game thread or OOC thread.
If that SA stuff is real, and I'm not saying it is, although that seems likely, then I think my hope for 5E is pretty much done. It doesn't seem to match up with their stated design goals at all and looks just
... terrible. Like, really, genuinely bad.
The worst part about the leak, and I was trying to find a way to rage out about it at a couple people on Twitter before I realized Twitter absolutely sucks for any form of discussion, is that their attempt at modularity, if it is supposed to be represented at all in those rules, is absolute garbage.
Even if the rules used in it were intended to be some weird bastardization of editions before 4e, there is absolutely zero evidence of any sort of hot swappable core, instead just outsourcing the actual design work to DM who is willing to pay more money for D&D The House Rule Edition.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Q: 4e minions are pretty great! Are they going to be in 5e?
A: No.
It's worse than that.
A: No, because eventually you get strong enough to one-shot stuff you were slapping around levels ago. We aren't really concerned about the lack of variety by facing the same 6 orcs you did the last 6 times because the encounters need fodder and there's no other fodder orcs.
How important is it to the team that different classes have different mechanics? What kind of ideas would you like to explore to give different classes a different feel?
The important thing about class mechanics is not simply that they be different, but that the mechanics of a class produce the best and most iconic experience of playing that class.
Please one of these days someone respond to a question about the classes that isn't "what broken shit do people remember the most about the previous editions?"
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
Also, classes are divided up into rarities, but I didn't see an immediate use of that rule, other than only the 4 "common" classes were in these rules.
>You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points.
>Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare.
Q: 4e minions are pretty great! Are they going to be in 5e?
A: No.
It's worse than that.
A: No, because eventually you get strong enough to one-shot stuff you were slapping around levels ago. We aren't really concerned about the lack of variety by facing the same 6 orcs you did the last 6 times because the encounters need fodder and there's no other fodder orcs.
It's worse, I think, that they're assuming that a monster that's tough and versatile enough to be an interesting and challenging solo encounter at a low level isn't going to be a mess of bookkeeping when encountered in large quantities as a minion at higher levels.
Q: 4e minions are pretty great! Are they going to be in 5e?
A: No.
It's worse than that.
A: No, because eventually you get strong enough to one-shot stuff you were slapping around levels ago. We aren't really concerned about the lack of variety by facing the same 6 orcs you did the last 6 times because the encounters need fodder and there's no other fodder orcs.
It's worse, I think, that they're assuming that a monster that's tough and versatile enough to be an interesting and challenging solo encounter at a low level isn't going to be a mess of bookkeeping when encountered in large quantities as a minion at higher levels.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I wager their fix is going to be lots of boring creatures, because again iconic/verisimilitude.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
There's a simple formula for it. It's just [2HD+((R*PA)/CR)]/2 to find your Mob Value, which you use on table 11.6 in the Advanced DM Reference Module to find your Average Low-Strength Creature Die, which increases linearly until you hit 10, then it increases by d3+1 every third point. Once you have your ALSCD, go back to table 9.9 in the Basic Rules Guide and find the corresponding Mob Creature Upgrade Path. Apply those numbers to the standard figures on table 21.8a in the Bigsby's Belligerent Baddies Expansion to arrive at the new HD value for your monster.
Q: 4e minions are pretty great! Are they going to be in 5e?
A: No.
It's worse than that.
A: No, because eventually you get strong enough to one-shot stuff you were slapping around levels ago. We aren't really concerned about the lack of variety by facing the same 6 orcs you did the last 6 times because the encounters need fodder and there's no other fodder orcs.
It's worse, I think, that they're assuming that a monster that's tough and versatile enough to be an interesting and challenging solo encounter at a low level isn't going to be a mess of bookkeeping when encountered in large quantities as a minion at higher levels.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I wager their fix is going to be lots of boring creatures, because again iconic/verisimilitude.
Boring creatures that will need to be built with feats, skills, ability scores and spells. Because that's how they did it in 3e, and that's the only version of the game that counts.
I'm probably one of the more favorably disposed towards 3.x around here and I think it's fucking horrible. They keep taking all the shitty bad parts while ditching the stuff that made a kind of sense.
The more the 5E discussion goes on the more I realize that I don't really care about D&D, but rather a rich and colorful fantasy RPG with balanced, cinematic, tactical combat and many ways to interact with the world. It's basically broken that old Charm spell that 2E placed on me way back when.
Yeah, 4E did have a communication problem - communication and editing skills have been lacking since Day 1 of 4E, and continue to this day. 4E is full of so much subtext that basically assumes you have an edge over the average person when it comes to reading between the lines... I think that assumption has been disproven handily by now.
This is bascially why I continue to try to play D&D for some sadistic reason
It's the world that is created the history the land and lore and how to play in it
I'm probably one of the more favorably disposed towards 3.x around here and I think it's fucking horrible. They keep taking all the shitty bad parts while ditching the stuff that made a kind of sense.
Ugh.
Is it because that Monte Cook is somehow trying to help create the 5th ed when he ruined the 3rd
Well, if it really is as unfinished a cludge mess as that report implies then maybe it's a good thing as it means they have time to actually listen to the feedback and fix the impending disaster, right?
Desperately clutching for straws of optimisim here.
Posts
I've been thinking about that, and I think a modified Gamma World would actually work great for that:
1) Mutant origins become "super origins" or "power templates" or whatever.
2) Balance the origins so that they can be chosen instead of rolled randomly.
3) Clean up vague or poorly worded powers.
4) ???
5) Profit.
I dunno. The Immediate limit causes problems for defenders who use an immediate to defend. I mean, I look at Fighters and Paladin marks as being auto-enforced, compared to Warden, Swordmage, and Battlemind marks and I'm kinda like... ehhh?
I mean, do you really need to do both? If you have very few immediate attacks, then do you really need to put a limit on how many can be used per round? (I assume non-attack immediates are typically okay, since they usually just mod a roll.) I'm not even sure the 1 free action attack per round thing was a particularly elegant solution either; I can see why it was necessary, but it caused all kindsa trouble with powers that were working perfectly fine. They just lost control of the design paradigm as they published more material....
Then again, maybe I'm just reacting to the way my players play, and finding that even though they seem to think so, D&D isn't actually the best system for their play-style.
What is their play style, and what would you suggest?
I really love 4e's tactical style, especially with the way roles are separated. Is there anything else that plays like that?
I think D&D is geared at being an intense dungeon crawler more than being about roleplaying. I don't want to open this can of worms again; this is just my opinion. That everything, literally, everything has stats in 3.X/Pathfinder is a nudge towards the possibility of killing/breaking everything. It's that kind of crunchiness that bogs the game down.
Burning Wheel is slowly becoming my new system of choice. It's not rules light by any means (you NEED to read the core book cover to cover, 600 pages FYI) but the math doesn't escalate the way it does in D&D. The emphasis is placed on creating a character with beliefs and challenging those beliefs in play. Your skills are a vehicle for doing that, and are also highly specialized.
In comparison, encounters in D&D don't have that feeling. The mechanics are tied to your class choice and you never need to dig deeper to know that you're a Rogue that likes to stealth around.
1) Want to try unusual things and have me come up with a ruling for it. Most of the time I just hand-wave something that I know isn't supported by the rules, but it would be cool so I allow it to happen. It would be great if I had a really flexible basic rules mechanic (like Cortex's Attribute+Skill+Trait mechanic) where I could just choose a combination of stats for them depending on whatever they're trying to do.
2) Not actually look at their sheets that much. We're up to level 5 now, and they still don't understand all their powers or how to use them. They've all pretty much just picked one power that they think is great, and use that all the time. The warlord still doesn't use his powers correctly, though he's getting better. I would enjoy not having to rely on specific power text, and instead have a more open-ended system where they just tell me what they want to do and I tell them what to roll.
3) Expect combat to be much more quick and deadly than it is. I think this is a result of coming from 3.5, where one hit is often enough to kill something. After 5 levels they're still surprised when 20 damage doesn't outright obliterate something. I end up using a lot of minions to accommodate their expectations. I'm not sure what I would do for this, but I'd like more options with the combat system. Something like the tiered approach mentioned a few posts up would be neat I think.
Overall, they're fairly creative, and seem to like having their fluff backed up by mechanics. They don't care much for balance or strong tactical decisions. I think a system in which the mechanics can back up anything they can think of, runs quickly, and is more concerned with creative thinking than tactical choices would suit them well.
1. Mowing down an army of mooks
2. Group fighting one huge monster
3. Group fighting a group of roughly equal strength
Although the second and third are pretty well covered by solos and regular/elite monsters, respectively, I think there's a better way than minions to handle the first. Perhaps treating an enemy army as a swarm, appointing occasional "leader" mobs inside the group that offer bonuses/penalties until slain. In that case, the "damage" done is slaying individuals until the swarm essentially loses enough morale to call a retreat or scatter.
You should download The Burning Wheel PDF from their site. It's free, and it gives you a lot of the core concepts and you can even get "The Sword" a simple one-shot with pre-generated characters to give it a go. As for your individual points:
1) The game has a huge amounts of skills that more and less specialized. This is not unwieldy by any means, as many of them are specific to different races or whether or not you're a spellcaster. If you don't have the appropriate skill, you're never SOL; you test the relevant stat, and can use related, but not entirely appropriate skills to get bonus dice on this roll. If your friends can help you accomplish your task, they increase the number of dice you roll as well. It has rules for linked and graduated tests for more complex, long-term actions.
2) This is a low-magic setting and your abilities are few. Since character begin play with a very small number of abilities, your players are going to be familiar with what they do. While there is no core setting, the game is written based on historical medieval Europe, which is why things are a little grittier and destitute.
3) Because most combat is handled using Versus and Bloody Versus tests, it's a single opposed roll to get to the outcome. There is still description and narration and all of that, but the dice are rolled once in those cases. Also, you never reroll for anything; the results always stand. The Fight! rules are pretty complex and tactical in that you script opposed actions, but you don't need a battlemap at all.
DMG, p. 42. Seriously, with DCs and everything. Find the most appropriate skill, or just have them make an ability check. Honestly, you don't even need that. Just make up some crap about what they actually roll, and watch the die. An average task succeeds on a 10 or better, +/-2 or 3 for harder/easier tasks.
This is somewhat of a problem with 4e. Players tend to get stuck into ruts like this. Especially players new to the game. My group is level 10 and still only rarely uses daily powers, if they can help it (the cleric went out of his way to use Cure Light Wounds, because he's never had a good reason to use it before). I find translating the powers to large index cards where it doesn't have the default flavor text, just the mechanical bits, oddly helps more, because they start making up their own flavor.
Make sure you're using updated monster stats from MM3/Monster Vault and after. Monster from MM1&2 just aren't deadly enough. And never, ever use an MM1 solo. They are terrible. Also don't be afraid to throw them against high level encounters. My group routinely is able to overcome level +2/3 encounters (again, without daily powers most of the time).
If you like the power progression format and balance of 4e, but prefer the 3.5 mechanical baseline, I'd suggest Legend RPG. It's a d20 clone, but with something more like power/talent trees instead of straight up choosing a power at every level.
What I'm actually talking about (probably not clearly) is that the specific players in my group don't interact well with it. They strain the system's weak points and under-utilize the system's strengths. Their style of play, at least to me, seems better suited to a different system. Maybe that's still 3.5, or maybe there's a more "modern" system that would actually do better for them.
I think some of this thinking might also be coming from a bit of system fatigue. I'm starting to feel like I've done everything with 4E that I really want to do, and I'd like to branch out to other systems to see what experiences they have to offer. 5E might be that system if they can look beyond D&D's roots to see what other companies are doing with their games. I'm holding out a bit of hope for that, even though everything I see tells me that it's probably going to be some convoluted mess of 3.5, AD&D, and 4E without any real innovation.
I think one of the bigger problems in 4e is illustrated pretty well by how often someone discusses a way they'd like to do something, and I end up saying "4e has exactly this, but it's not made very clear"
Because 4e has exactly this, but it's not made very clear - swarm rules are mostly applied to very small creatures (bugs and other creepy crawlies) in the Monster Manuals and aren't discussed a whole lot in the DMG, but Open Grave uses them to describe throngs of the undead, and has a sidebar that goes over how you can translate that into other monster types.
Basically the upshot is that if you're so inclined, you can simulate a group of enemies by taking a creature, increasing its size by two steps, and applying the swarm rules to it (half damage from melee and ranged attacks, vulnerable 5/10/15 to area attacks, and usually an aura 1 that causes anyone inside or adjacent to the swarm's squares to take a basic melee attack from the swarm at the start of their turns.) You now have a large group comprised of weaker versions of the creature you started with, filling a role similar to a pile of minions but with mechanics that are more in line with a normal monster. This helps to speed play, reduce battlefield clutter, and reward aoe powers without letting them auto-win the encounter.
Yeah, 4E did have a communication problem - communication and editing skills have been lacking since Day 1 of 4E, and continue to this day. 4E is full of so much subtext that basically assumes you have an edge over the average person when it comes to reading between the lines... I think that assumption has been disproven handily by now.
I have no reason to disbelieve any of this, nor is it really surprising. Just dropping this here because I only found it today myself. I guess I'm a rumor-monger or whatever.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Like, it's pretty hilarious to me that Wizards is fucking that dog that hard.
It's kinda hilarious, in a train wreck sort of way.
I think we assumed it was happening, but it's indeed hilariously bad to see it apparently that striking. The general avoidance of systemized language is great too. Assuming that's by design and not just them having no fucking clue how to state what they mean (when they could just use 4e language, BUT THE GROGNARDS), it's going to be exceptions and confusing language abound. Hooray!
---
Also, the L&L. One hour adventure, what the hell? This is not what I meant when I said I wanted help making [4e] combats go faster. Who is going to plan to and set out to play D&D for only one hour, outside of an Encounters-style store event? I don't know about you guys, but it takes me/some of my crew an hour to make the round-trip drive to the game. I'm probably making more of it than I should, because it's just their baseline or something, but... why?
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
I was looking on the official D&D forums as well, although I'm fairly tired so I may have just missed the forum where you post player or DM availability for online games. I'm not even sure where else to look.
It's been pretty slow with the 5e shit, but the 4e thread is here. People organize new games there sometimes, the usual format here is to start a Play-by-Post so the DM will just make a signup thread that turns into a game thread or OOC thread.
... terrible. Like, really, genuinely bad.
Even if the rules used in it were intended to be some weird bastardization of editions before 4e, there is absolutely zero evidence of any sort of hot swappable core, instead just outsourcing the actual design work to DM who is willing to pay more money for D&D The House Rule Edition.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Also, new Rule-of-Three!
Q: 4e minions are pretty great! Are they going to be in 5e?
A: No.
It's worse than that.
A: No, because eventually you get strong enough to one-shot stuff you were slapping around levels ago. We aren't really concerned about the lack of variety by facing the same 6 orcs you did the last 6 times because the encounters need fodder and there's no other fodder orcs.
Please one of these days someone respond to a question about the classes that isn't "what broken shit do people remember the most about the previous editions?"
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
:^: This is good reading.
It's worse, I think, that they're assuming that a monster that's tough and versatile enough to be an interesting and challenging solo encounter at a low level isn't going to be a mess of bookkeeping when encountered in large quantities as a minion at higher levels.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I wager their fix is going to be lots of boring creatures, because again iconic/verisimilitude.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Easy.
Boring creatures that will need to be built with feats, skills, ability scores and spells. Because that's how they did it in 3e, and that's the only version of the game that counts.
I'm probably one of the more favorably disposed towards 3.x around here and I think it's fucking horrible. They keep taking all the shitty bad parts while ditching the stuff that made a kind of sense.
Ugh.
This is bascially why I continue to try to play D&D for some sadistic reason
It's the world that is created the history the land and lore and how to play in it
Is it because that Monte Cook is somehow trying to help create the 5th ed when he ruined the 3rd
Desperately clutching for straws of optimisim here.