Hmm… I can see the Muchkins taking a whole new approach now, rather than relying on overpowered mechanics, they’ll make their character use 3rd Ed grappling rules, THAC0, 1st ed class requirements, etc just to make the DM not WANT to look up if he’s making shit up :p.
That’s my theory as well.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14680958&postcount=79
Hey, that’s better than 3rd ed prestige class requirements, THAC0, and 1st ed grappling rules!
Exactly this; Additionally, this is why combats don’t/shouldn’t (unless your DM is doing something really out of the ordinary/against guidelines) “consist of people using at will powers for 45 minutes” because at any level above 3, you have 2-3 other powers for use every encounter.
Additionally, how is “everyone using an at will power” any different from “I hit him again”/“I throw darts at him because I don’t want to cast one of my three spells for the day”/“Backstab, whoo!”?
Regarding the “rules vs flavor text” argument, I would suggest that, really, it’s all flavor text. does it REALLY matter that the warrior uses a “rage” system, while the wizard uses a “mana” system and the rogue uses an “energy” system? No, frankly, it doesn’t. Because you’re just calling the same thing (expendable resource) something else. Could there be different rules for these? Sure. Do they make people “Not casters”? absolutely not. The ONLY differences that buckling on a bunch of superfluous rules systems makes is A) People who like fiddling with rules and/or breaking them get more rules to fiddle with and/or break and B) You add a lot of imbalance and messy edge cases that benefit the people in A. People wonder why “spellcasters” were broken in 3rd edition need only look at the fact that they had all the fiddly systems and the other classes do not, and what I’ve read of Pathfinder doesn’t change that. This is why a lot of modern game systems eschew all this excessive rules crunch in favor of using a standardized ruleset for whatever the heck sort of abilities people want to have.
I don’t really find it much of a stretch that a barbari can only dig down into his primal rage to scream loud enough to knock people over ever so often.
The tabletop boardgame Battletech came out with “expansions” that were optional. The original ruleset was fairly basic, with limited amounts of weapons and stuff. Then they came out with the idea of “Star League” quality stuff, and then “Clan Invasion” stuff, and then stuff more advanced (technologically) then that. It was supposed to be backward compatible, but I am not sure, but I think some inconsistances still creeped in.
Anywho, if you and your playgroup wanted to restrict yourself to 3025 level tech (the basic ruleset), you could.
Perhaps they are designing 5thEd. the same way: Basic ruleset, Advanced/Experienced, and Prestige/Epic. The GM could run a group of mixed ruleset characters (my warrior created under the basic ruleset only, with your wizard using the expanded/advanced ruleset). And maybe when I am comfortable with the Basic rules, and can “upgrade” my warrior with advanced ruleset stuff later on by adding additional skills/feats/equipment.
And 2nd edition unarmed combat, too: That puts 3rd edition grappling to shame.
Ah, yes. 2nd Edition grappling was what enabled a pack of kobolds to take down a party of high-level adventurers. Well, that, and jars full of green slime.
I tried to run a 4th ed. campaign when the rules first came out. After about three sessions, my players voted to drop it. One of my players said he didn’t like it, because his fighter kept doing the same two things over and over. I said, “If this was 3.5, you’d only be able to do one thing: swing your sword!”
A few months ago, I finally got to play in a 4th ed campaign. I was playing a first level fighter. And goddamn it, it really *was *frustrating that I kept doing the same two things.
As I figure it, the problem is that the 4th edition moves are too specific, to the extent that it hinders the imagination. “Longsword +8/+2” doesn’t look like much on a character sheet, but in your head it can be just about anything: running your enemy through with the point, slashing at his neck, cutting him off at the knees. The generic nature of the stat block gives you free range to create your own visuals to go with it.
In 4th edition, you have these specific moves: “Steel Serpent Strike” or “Brute Attack,” with specific flavor text. Rules-wise, you have more options, because you can make different specific attacks with different results. But flavor-wise, it feels more constrained. I’m doing the attack that’s printed on the card, and that’s it. There’s not as much room to play with what your character is doing.
I still had a lot of fun playing the game, and I don’t think it’s a bad system. But I think that’s a big part of what makes it feel more like a tactical board game, and less like a role-playing game.
Killer, I am just curious about if you feel that D&D 4th powers are like feats?
When I mentioned what you described a few years back, some DM told me they just ignore the flavor text outright, and come up with whatever suits the situation best.
That seems odd to me - as a first level, you have at least five options you can use every round, two you can use once in each encounter and one daily.
The five at-will options:
- At-Will attack 1
- At-Will attack 2
- Basic Melee Attack
- Charge (assuming you can move 2 spaces)
- Bull Rush
I totally get where you’re coming from with the flavor text on powers constraining the imagination; this is a big reason why my group mostly ignores the flavor text and concentrates on laying their own flavor over the mechanics. I think it helps that most of us played a lot of Champions, and got used to thinking of ways to make the rules bits fit into the character concept.
I think the flavor text is in there to try to make it feel less like a tactical boardgame; unfortunately I think it has had the opposite effect from the intended one for a big chunk of the audience.
The interesting thing is that encounter powers came from 3rd edition, not from video games. Barbarian rage is a once per encounter ability in 3e, and it worked so well that way they extended the idea into the Tome of Battle system, which then got refined into 4e’s system.
Also, I’m always amused at the suggestion (I’ve seen it so many times) that putting powers on a cooldown after use would be less videogamey than encounter powers. 
I was going to post that if no one else did. Dungeon Bastard is great.
Okay tough guy, what if no one you’re fighting is called Will? What then?
Pardon? Do you mean straight 3e or 3.5? Because in 3.5 it’s certainly not per encounter.
And given the market results of 4e, I don’t see how “worked so well” applies.
The basic melee attacks in 4E are universally inferior to your at-wills (assuming you chose at-wills to match your primary stats) and most classes have at-wills that are usable in place of basics. I don’t even bother to write down the stats for my melee basic in the two 4E games I’m in.
It’s not different…but in AD&D, fights didn’t last for 45 minutes. Monsters and PCs just didn’t have as many hit points, as a rule.
Your experiences are almost surely different from mine, of course. For one thing, I haven’t played a 4E game above level 6 yet, so I haven’t experienced having a wide selection of encounter/daily powers so far.
In addition, it was a lot easier to instantly kill something with no recourse. In 3.x at least, you usually got to make a save and even then it’s rare that something will kill you outright.
It’s also limited per day, but the limit of once per encounter is what I was referring to. And the market results of 4e is that it made buckets of money, primarily via D&D Insider. And Insider isn’t actually very good (It has had some… issues with development.) If they manage to make a properly integrated version of Insider for 5e, and actually finish making all of the tools, they’ll do fine.
Remember, they’re not making a 5e because 4e was a failure. If 4e failed, they would just drop it entirely. They’re making 5e because 4e was successful.
They’re making 5e this soon because Pathfinder outsold Dungeons and Dragons for the last two quarters. They broke their fanbase, and they know it.
Indeed, I’ve had every edition before 4th, and I don’t have either 4th nor pathfinder, but I am considering Pathfinder.