Over the next few months there should be more packets being released. I will update this thread afer the next playtest session.Where are you getting these packets?
I second this question.
|
Where are you getting these packets?
Given that this person is play-testing a game that only a select few can right now (and they even had to sign NDA's in order to have this privilege)...
Might be a total shot in the dark here... ;-p
But it stands to reason that these "packets" are coming directly from WotC and are ONLY available to those that have signed said NDA's...
At level were you playing at?
Dennis: I played it at D&DXP and liked it a lot too. I agree it really has an old-school feel to it. I can't really say much about if it will appeal to the more tactical/miniatures oriented players since the "module" we were playing was very rules-light. We didn't get a chance to make up characters or even really LOOK at the rules other than what was represented on the character sheets provided. We did have a nice perk that the table I was at was being run by Bruce Cordell and boy I can tell he is a fan of old-school style games too. I also agree the "skills" were very streamlined.
He ran a tweaked version of Keep on the Borderlands called Caves of Chaos. We got in and killed a bunch of stuff but ended up taking a bunch of heat and had to make a break for it near the end. Bruce was really cool and very helpful with the rules and he made sure to remind everyone that if you wanted to do something just say what you want to try and not to think too much about the dice or how it will happen mechanically.. which is really helps with immersion into the game, at least for me. Monte Cook was running the table right next to us but I was too engaged in Bruce's game to spend too much time spying on Monte's table lol
Thus far reading over the packet that was sent out it seems like a really dumbed down version of dnd. Very basic, but maybe thats what they intend. I am not a fan thus far, but need to play test it to see how smooth things go before making a final verdict on this.
Edit: Paizo my money is safe with your products and I intend to continue to support you regardless of dnd next.
|
Thus far reading over the packet that was sent out it seems like a really dumbed down version of dnd.
Uh, just saying D&D as a generic is not very helpful. Sure, the playtest materials have none of the complexity of the mechanics of 3e or 4e, but just by reading it I can see that there is a lot more layered complexity than in, say, B/X or AD&D. The basic mechanics are about on par with 3e and 4e in terms of complexity, only a bit more streamlined, and the amount of differentiation between characters is about on the same level.
Reading it with mild curiosity. While Labyrinth Lord should have me covered for many more years of gaming to come, Next seems like a nice marriage of some of my favourite aspects of 3e and 4e at least based on the previews.
Also, I can't wait until they put out the full character creation rules: I want to try my hand at mixing the Wizard with the Slayer theme to make all of my attack spells hit for damage all the time.
|
I'm torn about staying with Pathfinder. I did one playtest session and thought the rules were an improvement over 4e but I'm enjoying Pathfinder. I'll probably buy the books next year but I think I'll still support Paizo.
I'm active in our local Pathfinder Society group and I'm running 7 slots of PFS at GenCon and right now I can't see that changing.
Mike
|
|
Thus far reading over the packet that was sent out it seems like a really dumbed down version of dnd. Very basic, but maybe thats what they intend. I am not a fan thus far, but need to play test it to see how smooth things go before making a final verdict on this.
Edit: Paizo my money is safe with your products and I intend to continue to support you regardless of dnd next.
WOTC did say that this new edition will be modular. A basic set of core rules, with optional add ons. Since this is the first time rules are out, makes sense to start with basic core stuff.
I've played D&D Next (GMed) a couple of times, but not a enough to form a really informed opinion on it. However, I did enjoy the sessions I ran. I felt like they have done a good job of combining the best elements of a number of past editions.
Liked
• advantage/disadvantage mechanic (elegant, easy to use, fun since you have two chances to crit on an attack roll, which bonuses wouldn't give you)
• for the most part how the classes function (including magic). For instance I like that a wizard can prepare different spells in all his slots and then decide what combination to use. For example, you could prepare charm, sleep and magic missile and then use all three slots on magic missile spells. By the way, magic missile is actually useful at 1st level since you get to fire three.
• A lot of the spell still retain their traditional flavour, but have been balanced so they aren't quite so game breaking. For instance, haste is still really good, but it only affects a single target, which is IMO much more reasonable than the pathfinder version of the spell.
• Spellcasters get cantrips, and they seem a bit better than pathfinder cantrips (i.e, there are a couple that you can use in combat that are better than say Pathfinder's ray of frost or ray of acid)
• When characters get a second attack they can move in between making the second attack if they want (they don't have to just stand there and attack).
• Magic items aren't considered necessary and are actual bonus instead of something that the game sets players up to feel entitled to.
• Flattened math (I like the idea of this, though I'm still not sure how well it is actually implemented. I think the AC on some of the more powerful monsters should be jacked up a few points).
Not so sure about:
• Skill system. I think the expertise dice idea for certain classes is kind of interesting, but I'm not sure if I like how they decided to deal with skills. I'd have to play more to form an opinion on this.
• I would still like to see more rules to help encourage the use of cinematic combat maneuvers to make martial combat more dynamic; these may come, but the playtest packet doesn't say much on the subject.
• I miss touch AC
• The new character sheet (not a fan)
• Focus on high attribute scores (since the game is based on using your attribute bonuses as the main modifier for pretty much every test, there is still a huge incentive to get really high attribute scores. They've capped them at 20 unless you can raise them above through magic, but I still think that having 18s and 20s in your key stats is going to be the standard. I'd like the game better if a 14 in a key attribute could be considered decent).
There's still some weird stuff in this game that should get cleaned up before they release it, but I'm not sure if it will. For example, at second level a fighter gets "action surge," which allows them to take an additional action on their turn (but they have to take a rest before doing it again, so it's not the type of thing they can do more than once per fight). At any rate, it still gives them an extra action. Once they get to the level where they get multiple attacks those extra attacks are still all part of one action. That means at 11th level a fighter spending an action surge will do at least 6 attacks since they can make 3 attacks per action at level 11 (possibly more if they are hasted or using two-weapon fighting). One of their stated design goals is to keep a quick flow to combat, which I think is a good goal, but then they put in abilities like this, which will do the opposite. So yeah, there are still some kinks to work out.
However, my main issue with the system remains that there is really not much in the game to make martial combat much more than attack and damage rolls. For the most part, I liked what they did with 4e for martial characters (though some of the powers were a bit hard to digest in certain contexts- "come and get it" "archers' staircase"). Right now, If I were going to play a martial character, I'd most like to play one in 4e. I realize that they want to keep the core game simple though, which I can respect and get behind, but it would be nice if they gave us some idea on how they might address the desire many players have for a combat system that allows for fun, tactical options for martial characters that go beyond attack/damage.
Here are some reasons why I don't like Advantage/Disadvantage:
• It's a POWERFUL bonus/penalty, resulting in something like a +/- 4 or 5 on to your d20.
This is actually one of my favorite aspects of Advantage/Disadvantage: it is mathematically realistic. In cases where there is a large disparity between opponents' skill, Advantage/Disadvantage has very little effect on the outcome (+/-1, effectively). In cases where opponents are equally matched, Advantage/Disadvantage can make or break the competition (+/-5, effectively).
This is actually one of my favorite aspects of Advantage/Disadvantage: it is mathematically realistic. In cases where there is a large disparity between opponents' skill, Advantage/Disadvantage has very little effect on the outcome (+/-1, effectively). In cases where opponents are equally matched, Advantage/Disadvantage can make or break the competition (+/-5, effectively).Here are some reasons why I don't like Advantage/Disadvantage:
• It's a POWERFUL bonus/penalty, resulting in something like a +/- 4 or 5 on to your d20.
True, and it's not so much the disparity that I have a problem with. It's the disparity in conjunction with how often the Dis/Advantage comes up. Were is less likely to gain Advantage with an attack, the disparity is great. If someone can obtain Advantage with every single attack, the disparity becomes a problem, IMO. If my rogue can get Advantage on each attack they make, the plate-armored opponent is a lot less of a threat then when advantage shows up every once in a while, making the attack or action or scene more dramatic.
I've played D&D Next (GMed) a couple of times, but not a enough to form a really informed opinion on it. However, I did enjoy the sessions I ran. I felt like they have done a good job of combining the best elements of a number of past editions.
Liked
• advantage/disadvantage mechanic (elegant, easy to use, fun since you have two chances to crit on an attack roll, which bonuses wouldn't give you)
• for the most part how the classes function (including magic). For instance I like that a wizard can prepare different spells in all his slots and then decide what combination to use. For example, you could prepare charm, sleep and magic missile and then use all three slots on magic missile spells. By the way, magic missile is actually useful at 1st level since you get to fire three.
• A lot of the spell still retain their traditional flavour, but have been balanced so they aren't quite so game breaking. For instance, haste is still really good, but it only affects a single target, which is IMO much more reasonable than the pathfinder version of the spell.
• Spellcasters get cantrips, and they seem a bit better than pathfinder cantrips (i.e, there are a couple that you can use in combat that are better than say Pathfinder's ray of frost or ray of acid)
• When characters get a second attack they can move in between making the second attack if they want (they don't have to just stand there and attack).
• Magic items aren't considered necessary and are actual bonus instead of something that the game sets players up to feel entitled to.
• Flattened math (I like the idea of this, though I'm still not sure how well it is actually implemented. I think the AC on some of the more powerful monsters should be jacked up a few points).
Yea, I agree with just about everything. Especially the flattened math. While I still enjoy Pathfinder, 3.5, and 4E.....the Armor Class getting into the 30s and 40s, and the attacks hitting the 20s and 30s seem ridiculous, plus the amount of damage that can be had in 1 attack or 1 turn is just unnecessary. When I have a 4E monster with 358 HP and the Ranger deals 72 + 3 + 9 from quarry plus immediate reaction from the Fighter for another 12 and then ongoing 5 damage......what the hells am I? DM or Mathematician? Higher numbers =/= more fun for me. I don't mind progression, but the fast rate in which is escalates is rather problematic.
Not so sure about:
• Skill system. I think the expertise dice idea for certain classes is kind of interesting, but I'm not sure if I like how they decided to deal with skills. I'd have to play more to form an opinion on this.
They removed expertise dice for skills. Now skills are back to being filed under specific abilities. Athletics, for example, is a Strength-based skill. Each class gets the choices of one or more skills plus your Background grants a few others. So a Fighter with the Knight background could have up to 4 separate skills.
• I would still like to see more rules to help encourage the use of cinematic combat maneuvers to make martial combat more dynamic; these may come, but the playtest packet doesn't say much on the subject.
Yeah, I think so far the way in which they treat being knocked down is too easy on the defender. Spend 5' of your total movement to get up is sort of pointless for someone who just knocked you down. Disarm and Grapple aren't too bad, but remain very situational to be used on a consistent basis.
• I miss touch AC
• The new character sheet (not a fan)
Yea, having the Wizard hit an AC with a ray of frost is difficult, but at least your attacking with your magic stat instead of your Dexterity or Strength scores (which often are terrible for Wizards). And I've been using the older Character sheet or just scratch paper because I don't like the new one either.
• Focus on high attribute scores (since the game is based on using your attribute bonuses as the main modifier for pretty much every test, there is still a huge incentive to get really high attribute scores. They've capped them at 20 unless you can raise them above through magic, but I still think that having 18s and 20s in your key stats is going to be the standard. I'd like the game better if a 14 in a key attribute could be considered decent).
True, the focus on scores is still a driving point behind character growth. But now at least your confronted with making your main stat higher, or taking a feat. And with feats being bigger in terms of what they grant AND the fact that you don't get many of them, they're hard to dismiss right from the get-go. Further, due to bounded accuracy, having a 14 isn't as bad over the course of your character's career as it was in 3.5/PF or 4E. You can still get away with having a Str 14 or 15 as a Fighter and not be terrible. You won't be as potent as a Fighter with a Str of 18 or 20, but that +2 or +3 difference isn't as significant when the ACs aren't scaling ridiculously high. Plus magic items can boost your stats past 20.
True, and it's not so much the disparity that I have a problem with. It's the disparity in conjunction with how often the Dis/Advantage comes up. Were is less likely to gain Advantage with an attack, the disparity is great. If someone can obtain Advantage with every single attack, the disparity becomes a problem, IMO. If my rogue can get Advantage on each attack they make, the plate-armored opponent is a lot less of a threat then when advantage shows up every once in a while, making the attack or action or scene more dramatic.
I kind of like the idea of combatants constantly jockeying for Advantage, but I think I'd have to experience it in play before I really make up my mind about. It's definitely realistic, though.
True, the focus on scores is still a driving point behind character growth. But now at least your confronted with making your main stat higher, or taking a feat. And with feats being bigger in terms of what they grant AND the fact that you don't get many of them, they're hard to dismiss right from the get-go. Further, due to bounded accuracy, having a 14 isn't as bad over the course of your character's career as it was in 3.5/PF or 4E. You can still get away with having a Str 14 or 15 as a Fighter and not be terrible. You won't be as potent as a Fighter with a Str of 18 or 20, but that +2 or +3 difference isn't as significant when the ACs aren't scaling ridiculously high. Plus magic items can boost your stats past 20.
I'd like to see them go even further, and eliminate magical "bonuses" altogether. For example, instead of Gauntlets of Ogre Power giving a +4 Str bonus, they'd simply give you and ogre's average strength score (say, 24). A Bull's Strength spell might simply give one a strength score of 18 instead of a bonus. I, too, am perfectly happy to keep the numbers low.
True, and it's not so much the disparity that I have a problem with. It's the disparity in conjunction with how often the Dis/Advantage comes up. Were is less likely to gain Advantage with an attack, the disparity is great. If someone can obtain Advantage with every single attack, the disparity becomes a problem, IMO. If my rogue can get Advantage on each attack they make, the plate-armored opponent is a lot less of a threat then when advantage shows up every once in a while, making the attack or action or scene more dramatic.I kind of like the idea of combatants constantly jockeying for Advantage, but I think I'd have to experience it in play before I really make up my mind about. It's definitely realistic, though.
Right, I think "trying" for advantage can be a lot of fun. Pushing your enemy into difficult terrain or jumping onto a table or using one of your attacks to knock them prone for the remaining attacks to have advantage is a lot of fun and cinematic. Flaking the enemy with your ally...meh been there and done that. Sorta boring.
True, the focus on scores is still a driving point behind character growth. But now at least your confronted with making your main stat higher, or taking a feat. And with feats being bigger in terms of what they grant AND the fact that you don't get many of them, they're hard to dismiss right from the get-go. Further, due to bounded accuracy, having a 14 isn't as bad over the course of your character's career as it was in 3.5/PF or 4E. You can still get away with having a Str 14 or 15 as a Fighter and not be terrible. You won't be as potent as a Fighter with a Str of 18 or 20, but that +2 or +3 difference isn't as significant when the ACs aren't scaling ridiculously high. Plus magic items can boost your stats past 20.I'd like to see them go even further, and eliminate magical "bonuses" altogether. For example, instead of Gauntlets of Ogre Power giving a +4 Str bonus, they'd simply give you and ogre's average strength score (say, 24). A Bull's Strength spell might simply give one a strength score of 18 instead of a bonus. I, too, am perfectly happy to keep the numbers low.
Actually, as of the 10/14/13 playtest, Gauntlets of Ogre Power state: When you don these gauntlets, your Strength score becomes 19. If your strength score is 19 or above, these gauntlets have no effect. Belts of Giant Strength are based on the Giant it's supposed to emulate, from Hill Giants Strength of 21 to Storm Giants Strength of 29. Also, currently there are no spells that boost your abilities. No Bull Strength or Eagle's Splendor.
|
Actually, as of the 10/14/13 playtest, Gauntlets of Ogre Power state: When you don these gauntlets, your Strength score becomes 19. If your strength score is 19 or above, these gauntlets have no effect. Belts of Giant Strength are based on the Giant it's supposed to emulate, from Hill Giants Strength of 21 to Storm Giants Strength of 29. Also, currently there are no spells that boost your abilities. No Bull Strength or Eagle's Splendor.
This is the way to go and how I am going about it for my re-write of AD&D 3rd ed.
Some small combat or save boosters and that's it, eliminate any meta game data manipulation (ex: raise Int and all DCs and skills, etc).
There are too many things I dislike in the current core rules for me to pick this up, but I think they are going in the right direction.
Actually, as of the 10/14/13 playtest, Gauntlets of Ogre Power state: When you don these gauntlets, your Strength score becomes 19. If your strength score is 19 or above, these gauntlets have no effect. Belts of Giant Strength are based on the Giant it's supposed to emulate, from Hill Giants Strength of 21 to Storm Giants Strength of 29. Also, currently there are no spells that boost your abilities. No Bull Strength or Eagle's Splendor.This is the way to go and how I am going about it for my re-write of AD&D 3rd ed.
Some small combat or save boosters and that's it, eliminate any meta game data manipulation (ex: raise Int and all DCs and skills, etc).
Sounds good. I too like the idea that the Fighter isn't always the one benefiting from the Strength-boosting items and spells.
There are too many things I dislike in the current core rules for me to pick this up, but I think they are going in the right direction.
Such as?
|
|
Actually, as of the 10/14/13 playtest, Gauntlets of Ogre Power state: When you don these gauntlets, your Strength score becomes 19. If your strength score is 19 or above, these gauntlets have no effect. Belts of Giant Strength are based on the Giant it's supposed to emulate, from Hill Giants Strength of 21 to Storm Giants Strength of 29. Also, currently there are no spells that boost your abilities. No Bull Strength or Eagle's Splendor.This is the way to go and how I am going about it for my re-write of AD&D 3rd ed.
Some small combat or save boosters and that's it, eliminate any meta game data manipulation (ex: raise Int and all DCs and skills, etc).
Sounds good. I too like the idea that the Fighter isn't always the one benefiting from the Strength-boosting items and spells.
Such as?
There are too many things I dislike in the current core rules for me to pick this up, but I think they are going in the right direction.
The only doc I have is a little outdated - so I will have to post a list when I can access it.
Based on what I have read or remember:
I know I wasn't big on the expertise die for fighters - spending a die to knock a foe down - doesn't the foe get a chance to save vs. the effect? No? Then I don't like it. The expertise die is now the catchall for extra damage, effects, etc. A bit much imo and I can see this generating some silly numbers on damage past 5th level.
Clerics can't turn undead (from the doc I have), their Channel Divinity a rip of a power I didn't like in PF. I guess post 2nd ed, everyone is afraid of tables - like making a Turn Undead matrix - so everything now has to be a formula (x damage, etc) which is limiting The formula was limiting in 3.5 and in PF the damage all undead is boring.
Too many little things written into the core to list.
After playing 3.5 and PF for so long I have learned my lesson to stay away from bad systems or systems that seem ok, but really start to fall apart upon repeat play. They pared things down a bit from 3.5 and 4th, but they still have the same push/pull board game/miniatures mindset in their design - I don't see that going away anytime soon. I’m also ok with some PC exceptionalism, just not to the degree offered up in DND Next.
IMO (and mine alone) they should have just released a cleaned up basic/AD&D retro clone (capture that market) and then have all the newer style (3.5 or 4e) material as modular system add-ons. Having some of these newer systems in core is a non-starter for me.
Their baseline should have been a 100% retro-clone re-release with minimal rules changes from 1st ed as framework. Then they could sell separate content to make your game run more like 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.
Anyway - I wish them the best of luck in the system - not for me though. For a system that is designed to provide a good working base it just doesn't cut it and would require a major re-write just to get it to where I want it. I will give it a look when it comes out but some of the core design philosophies and considerations in the play test indicate that this game is just not for me.
I know some of my info may be wrong so I will re-post this when I can re-read the newest doc, but at it's core their design considerations seem much like a mix between a limited 4e tactical with a limited 3e customization - neither of which I like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, well the latest fighters don't have Expertise die anymore. The sub-class (Weaponmaster) does but you can opt to take the Warrior, which is basically a guy who gets better at getting critical hits.
Clerics have Turn Undead in which the Undead have to make a Saving throw or run away. If they take damage, they stop being turned. It's a limited use, however, to their Channel Divinity which improves as they level.
But I get what your saying. Honestly I think they would best be served by stopping all edition creation altogether and just create content for 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. Have a supplement, create rules for it that can be used in a multi-edition platform for which everyone will by as it's based on their preferred style. A Races of Giants book, for example, would have rules and stats to use Giants in EVERY edition they have out. Then there can be multi-platform rules that are useful regardless of edition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if they did that I would buy their product, if not just for new material for my 1st/2nd ed game.
Yeah, my doc is old - so I need to be fair to the playtest. I have the most current doc on my home pc so I will check it out.
I wish that if they did included expertise die (as an example of a rule/system) they would allow the DM the option to dump it as an option and scale your game cleanly following A,B and C considerations(because the game is designed that way - to be modular). Something 3rd ed, 4th and PF all have failed to do.
But if they put out books that covered multiple systems I would buy.
In the latest playtest it's the gladiator path that gets a dice to perform maneuvers. You basically have a few maneuvers you can do at the start and you roll a d6 if its higher than your opponents strength or dexterity modifier (depending on the move) you succeed. As you level up you get access to some new moves. I haven't playtested this mechanic yet, but it could be serviceable.
In the latest playtest it's the gladiator path that gets a dice to perform maneuvers. You basically have a few maneuvers you can do at the start and you roll a d6 if its higher than your opponents strength or dexterity modifier (depending on the move) you succeed. As you level up you get access to some new moves. I haven't playtested this mechanic yet, but it could be serviceable.
They renamed it to the "Weaponmaster" but that's just nitpicking. The other thing about these Combat Superiority die is that if you roll lower than the ability mod (thus not completing the action) you just add that as extra damage onto the attack.
Except that since you probably rolled a 1 or a 2 that extra damage won't amount to much, but I guess extra damage is extra damage. I forgot to mention that you get to do the maneuver if you hit with attack, so you do damage and perform the move.
I like kind of like the pathfinder mechanic of CMB vs CMD (better than the idea of rolling a d6 and comparing it to the attribute modifier, as this seems to deviate away from the d20 core mechanic). However, I find that martial characters don't attempt combat moves that often in my pathfinder campaign unless they are specifically built around a move (like tripping or sundering). There usually isn't a lot of incentive to overrun or bull rush when you have to forfeit the chance to hit and do damage (unless you've invested in several feats towards that move). There also isn't much incentive to try moves that you don't have feats for since you provoke AoO. This is something that I wish they had done differently with pathfinder. Make the combat moves open to anyone to try without a risk of a AoO and then allow characters with feats to stack a combat move on top of an attack, so that you aren't forfeiting the chance to do damage. As it stands they are in many cases highly situational, and thus I don't see them used at the table as much as I would like. I could probably re-work the system with some house rules, but I don't usually bother to tinker with systems too much (except for dragon age).
Except that since you probably rolled a 1 or a 2 that extra damage won't amount to much, but I guess extra damage is extra damage. I forgot to mention that you get to do the maneuver if you hit with attack, so you do damage and perform the move.
Right, rolling low means that your turn and it's usage wasn't wasted.
I like kind of like the pathfinder mechanic of CMB vs CMD (better than the idea of rolling a d6 and comparing it to the attribute modifier, as this seems to deviate away from the d20 core mechanic). However, I find that martial characters don't attempt combat moves that often in my pathfinder campaign unless they are specifically built around a move (like tripping or sundering). There usually isn't a lot of incentive to overrun or bull rush when you have to forfeit the chance to hit and do damage (unless you've invested in several feats towards that move). There also isn't much incentive to try moves that you don't have feats for since you provoke AoO. This is something that I wish they had done differently with pathfinder. Make the combat moves open to anyone to try without a risk of a AoO and then allow characters with feats to stack a combat move on top of an attack, so that you aren't forfeiting the chance to do damage. As it stands they are in many cases highly situational, and thus I don't see them used at the table as much as I would like. I could probably re-work the system with some house rules, but I don't usually bother to tinker with systems too much (except for dragon age).
CMD was a pretty great and innovative thing that really helped unify 3.5 special attack portion of the rules. But your right, it's usually better to just attack than to Bull Rush or Disarm or Trip because it eats your attack. Were I to design it, I would allow anyone the possibility of using a Special Action but it eats up your action and those who specialize in the special attack (Imp. Trip, Imp. Disarm, etc.) can do both, attack and trip and the like.
If that occurs, then I would see people doing it far more often.
But I get what your saying. Honestly I think they would best be served by stopping all edition creation altogether and just create content for 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. Have a supplement, create rules for it that can be used in a multi-edition platform for which everyone will by as it's based on their preferred style. A Races of Giants book, for example, would have rules and stats to use Giants in EVERY edition they have out. Then there can be multi-platform rules that are useful regardless of edition.
I could see that not working so well, since:
for any given book, only about 1/4 of the stat material would be relevant for most gamers. I suppose for flavor material that might not be a huge issue, but would probably factor into how people make purchases.
You would also need 4 different authors for each book, since I would imagine that it would be really difficult for one person to write for four systems all at once, without some rules confusion and inaccuracy setting in. Or you would have a much higher level of editing required. Either way, not sure how cost effective it would be.
But I get what your saying. Honestly I think they would best be served by stopping all edition creation altogether and just create content for 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e. Have a supplement, create rules for it that can be used in a multi-edition platform for which everyone will by as it's based on their preferred style. A Races of Giants book, for example, would have rules and stats to use Giants in EVERY edition they have out. Then there can be multi-platform rules that are useful regardless of edition.
I could see that not working so well, since:
for any given book, only about 1/4 of the stat material would be relevant for most gamers. I suppose for flavor material that might not be a huge issue, but would probably factor into how people make purchases.
Basically this would be just Adventures and maybe the occasional splat book here and there or Setting specific books where the rules come into play. Also, there are supplements that can be edition neutral yet provide setting (generic at this point) features that can be used across editions. This might be world building ideas or certain rules on providing for large scale wars or engagments or supplying an army, etc. These can be separate from actual edition specific rules.
You would also need 4 different authors for each book, since I would imagine that it would be really difficult for one person to write for four systems all at once, without some rules confusion and inaccuracy setting in. Or you would have a much higher level of editing required. Either way, not sure how cost effective it would be.
Currently you can purchase the Sundering adventures that are utilizing the D&D: Next ruleset. They also have PDFs that you can download for free that covert the monsters into v3.5 and 4E right now As seen here. So they're already doing it, which I think wouldn't be too hard. And if it's put into v3.5 then a conversion to Pathfinder is pretty easy-peasy.
Scourge of the Sword Coast doesn't have stats for any system but Next, from what I've seen. The previous two Sundering adventures were systemless, with encounters in bolded text, so you knew what to look up when you downloaded the packet for your system of choice, whereas the most recent is sold with DDN stats right there in the book (well, pdf). I don't mean to quibble with you, I just think the first two were an effort to hook players of all three systems on the Sundering's story before switching to DDN only stats (D&D: Switcheroo)
I kind of doubt that WotC is going to produce three (or more) sets of of the same encounters for every adventure they publish; it just seems inefficient from a cost/profit perspective. On the other hand, I would absolutely love to live in a world where any D&D system could get published in Dungeon (D&D: Whichever), and think WotC could make beaucoup monies from a pdf that allowed conversion between the various additions (D&D: Rosetta).