PDA

View Full Version : 4th ed general opinions



Thrud
2008-06-06, 05:24 PM
I see lots of threads about specific questions/issues with 4th ed, but I don't see one here on 4th ed in general. I have never posted to the forum before, having never felt the urge, but I was trying to get a general opinion about 4th ed from a range of people, and this seemed the best way. I work in a book store, and have had acces to the books for a couple of weeks now, before we were allowed to sell them, so I have done a little skimming, though I freely admit that I haven't read them in huge depth. But I wanted to post my opinion about the game and get some feedback.

First, a little history. I started playing D&D using those little white books that most people have never even seen. This is pre- basic D&D. And the game sucked. A lot. But we didn't know any better and it was pretty ground breaking at the time. So we enjoyed it. Then Basic D&D came out and didn't really make the rules that much better, though everything was definately organized better. And hey, if you kept buying the books you could eventually become a god. Ehh, I was about 12, so it seemed cool at the time. Next was AD&D, which solved some problems, and introduced more. Then 2nd ed, which was a great improvement from AD&D. Through each of these systems I had a fair level of excitement, then played them for a while, and settled down to being reasonably happy, until the next system came out.

Then came 3rd ed. I think this was one of the greatest reimaginings of a game system ever. It was awesome. I loved every bit of it, because at this point I was a veteran gamer of 15+ years and knew enough to put in house rules where they were needed.

Then came 3.5, which I responded to with not much more than a feeling of ehh, whatever. Liked some tweaks, didn't like others, and resolved to stick with my own heavily (by this point) modded 3rd ed. And my players seemed happy enough to stick with it.

Then 4th ed came, and I have read through it and came out with a feeling of the most profound horror imaginable. I truly loathe this game. It is really nothing more than World of Warcraft the roleplaying game. Powers that are gained in skill trees? Wizards having an at will magic missile (or better?). Everyone has the use of every skill, and the only difference between being trained and untrained is a 5 point bonus? What the hell? And don't even get me started on damn rituals vs spells. All the fun spells you used to have to memorize and choose carefully have been made into rituals that you must have a book and expensive material components to perform, but that you can otherwise do at will? And apparently anyone can do them as long as they succeed at the skill check, which seems to be open to everyone? Then there are healing surges, which everyone can use to heal themselves, which is now necessary because dang magic users can pop off magic missiles at will, at range, and every single power level seems to have been cranked too dang high.

This game reads to me like it is trying to be D&D for dummies. It has none of the heart and soul of any of the previous D&D games. Don't get me wrong, I like WoW, but it is a computer game. Tabletop games are about roleplaying. And 3rd ed gave skills and feats as an aid to roleplaying. it was about puzzle solving and finding the way through to the prize at the end. Not about blasting everything with all the cool new powers I can gain access to by being a dragonborn who can breathe fire, or fighters being able to cleave people at will at first level.

This new game is all about combat, and that is all. All the dang powers seem to be all about getting advantage in combat through mobility, or doing damage. And that was not what skills and feats were all about in 3rd.

Computer games are all about hacking and slashing your way through hordes of enemies until you reach the goal at the end. D&D has always been about creating a character and interacting with the DM's world. Not just killing it.

Maybe I am getting old and set in my ways, and curmudgeonly, but I have not yet found any redeeming features to the 4th ed.

So please, guys, restore my faith. Tell me there is some sort of redeeming value to this edition.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-06, 05:37 PM
Power trees? What D&D 4E are you playing, again? Because that's not how it works.

Why should anyone restore your faith? What sort of imperative is there to switch to a different game you don't like?

Thrud
2008-06-06, 05:46 PM
Power trees? What D&D 4E are you playing, again? Because that's not how it works.

The game has these powers that you gain as you go up in levels, and get to pick encounter/daily use powers. They seem to be there only to up the combat monster appeal, letting more hacking and slashing occur, just like a video game, with no actual role-playing assistance.


Why should anyone restore your faith? What sort of imperative is there to switch to a different game you don't like?

Sorry, just my basic cynicism showing through. I have worked in the corporate world for a long time. 4th ed screams to me of something along the lines of:

Presedent of Hasbro - sales of 3.5 stuff have slacked off, after we put that out simply to drag more money out of everyone who had bought 3.0. So come out with a 4th ed please.

Whereas to me, the earlier editions seemed more like a bunch of gamers sitting around saying

Gamer 1- You know X-Y-and Z rules. They really suck. Lets try to fix them in a new edition. And hey, that will get us more money too.
Gamer 2- Yeah, you are right, those rules do suck. Plus we could always use more money.

It just seems that since Hasbro ultimately owns everything now, this was a corporate bigwig looking to get more cash, simply for its own sake. Whereas earlier it always seemed like they were actually trying to improve the game. (though of course, they did still want the money, I'm not trying to deny that.)

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 05:55 PM
The game has these powers that you gain as you go up in levels, and get to pick encounter/daily use powers. They seem to be there only to up the combat monster appeal, letting more hacking and slashing occur, just like a video game, with no actual role-playing assistance.


I'm really, really scratching my head, here. Doesn't levelling up in Third Edition get you new class features (basically, powers)? Don't spellcasters get new spell levels (and most spells are for combat) every other level?
Do the Fighter's bonus feats or the Barbarian's better raging somehow do something for roleplaying that the 4E fighter's powers don't?

Roleplaying is something YOU do. You don't need a "Skill Focus: Basketweaving" feat to do it. You don't need to assign skill points to Profession: Farmer to have a character that used to be a farmer.


It just seems that since Hasbro ultimately owns everything now, this was a corporate bigwig looking to get more cash, simply for its own sake. Whereas earlier it always seemed like they were actually trying to improve the game. (though of course, they did still want the money, I'm not trying to deny that.)
Are you suggesting that the people who worked on 4E weren't trying to improve the game? I can see tons of improvements. Have you looked at the Skill Challenge system? That's more support than D&D has EVER given social encounters; it's an honest-to-goodness conflict resolution system just like you'd expect from... well... any RPG that isn't years behind the times, like D&D is.

Of course they want the new edition to succeed. No one has ever wanted their product to fail, unless they're scamming for money, like Uwe Boll or the guys in The Producers. But they put a lot of thought into the design of the game, and it plays really, really well.
Of course, if you want games without any combat at all, D&D isn't the game for you. But then, D&D never WAS--I mean, what does a 3E Fighter do outside of combat that a 4E Fighter can't?

I will never, ever understand the fannish-entitlement sentiment that says that just because *I* don't like something, the person making it must want to make it bad or be trying to spite me directly.

Indon
2008-06-06, 05:57 PM
Before I had a chance to read any of the actual rulebooks, I was planning on running 4'th edition in a specific, very tactics-strong setting I cooked up (The story is kinda like a fantasy-based Stargate).

After having read the rules and played around with them, I'm not so sure I'll use it for that. I haven't made a final decision yet, but I can say I'll probably never use 4'th edition for anything other than that single setting, if that.

As for comparisons to World of Warcraft, I think people are selling WoW short. WoW is a very solid game.

Jerthanis
2008-06-06, 05:57 PM
I'm not going to respond directly to your points, because then it's just arguments over niggling details that have occurred before. Instead, I'll give my own overarching opinion of 4th edition.

4th edition has solved none of my problems with 3rd edition. Not one. My group never noticed a disparity in power level between casters and non-casters, except in a few niggling instances which were really no problem for us. I didn't NOT play melee characters because they didn't have options, I played them and enjoyed them despite them not having real options. The fact that I can customize my fighting style a bit more is refreshing, but isn't revolutionary. Hell, I even liked Vancian casting systems!

My biggest problems with 3rd edition was in the fact that it was a Class based, Level based game which didn't allow for organic growth of a character and abilities (without essentially burning your character sheet with ineffectualness). This hasn't changed. I hated digging through splatbooks for hours to find the one PrC that would make my concept work, and then the campaign would end before I had taken one level in that class... and now I've got to have a concept that fits one of the already released classes, because there aren't splat options yet. Once there ARE splat options, I'm still going to need to search around to find the class right for my concept, and it's going to be work.

That said, to me, it feels so much like D&D to me that it hurts some times. The locales are the same, dusty tombs, darkened caves, stone towers... the abilities are similar, the game is about managing resources and overcoming challenges. There are traps and monsters and treasure and danger, and everything feels the same as it ever has, because it's being run the same way. It's just that now everyone has resources to manage, and everyone wears down at the same rate. It isn't Fighters begging for a rest because the Heals are out, or Wizards begging for a rest because they're out of spells... but because everyone is worn down equally. Putting teamwork and resource management down as everyone's responsibility feels so much more like D&D than I've ever seen done. Other RPGs are about groups of people who hang out together... but D&D has always been about a team.

D&D 4th is not my favorite RPG system (That's actually Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition for me!). It isn't what I want out of an ideal RPG. It is, however and in my opinion, the very best D&D we've ever gotten.

I've got to go, but I'm going to elaborate later.

MammonAzrael
2008-06-06, 06:02 PM
Have you actually sat down and played it at all? Or is this opinion based just on reading through the books?

Cainen
2008-06-06, 06:11 PM
Well, when a system doesn't solve any of my problems with the previous system and instead keeps a lot of what I didn't like, suddenly turns around and does something in a wholly different manner than I'd like it, and neuters the skill system so now a GM can tell me "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" even more than 3.X's skill system did itself, I see no reason to play it.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 06:15 PM
Why does everyone have to make a thread about their opinions?

*Hasn't read this one, is just tired of everybody and their mother makes a new thread about their opinions*

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 06:16 PM
Well, when a system doesn't solve any of my problems with the previous system and instead keeps a lot of what I didn't like, suddenly turns around and does something in a wholly different manner than I'd like it, and neuters the skill system so now a GM can tell me "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" even more than 3.X's skill system did itself, I see no reason to play it.

Wait, what? How can the DM tell you "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" any more than he could?

quillbreaker
2008-06-06, 06:23 PM
I don't know that I'll miss social skills. Very few players buy social skills because they want to roleplay through social situations. Everyone does that. Unless you are born, live, and die in a dungeon, and do nothing in town but sleep and drink in the inn, you'll do some roleplaying.

They buy social skills because they want to trivialize social situations. They want to stack bluff bonuses so they can talk a constable out of his spear. They want to be able to generate enough awe through oration that they spontaneously ascend to divine rank 2 as the crowd worships every word.

Roleplaying could actually improve. People will try to think in talk in character, and think about what they say, instead of using a +30 bluff stacked with spells and bardsong as a battering ram.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 06:30 PM
This is a horrible attitude!


I don't know that I'll miss social skills. Very few players buy social skills because they want to roleplay through social situations. Everyone does that. Unless you are born, live, and die in a dungeon, and do nothing in town but sleep and drink in the inn, you'll do some roleplaying.
Social skills are still in the game. They aren't as "you do what I want" as 3E's, though.


They buy social skills because they want to trivialize social situations. They want to stack bluff bonuses so they can talk a constable out of his spear. They want to be able to generate enough awe through oration that they spontaneously ascend to divine rank 2 as the crowd worships every word.
This is the horrible bit. Really?! What kind of players are you playing with?! Maybe they buy social skills because they want to have a charming, diplomatic character, or a good liar, or a really intimidating character. Just like they buy combat skills because they want to have a character who's good in a fight, stealth because they want to have a character who's stealthy...


Roleplaying could actually improve. People will try to think in talk in character, and think about what they say, instead of using a +30 bluff stacked with spells and bardsong as a battering ram.
Meanwhile, the ability to play a character who's any better at social things than his player goes out the window...

Thrud
2008-06-06, 06:31 PM
Have you actually sat down and played it at all? Or is this opinion based just on reading through the books?
Nope, that is why I am trying to get other people's opinions.


I'm not going to respond directly to your points, because then it's just arguments over niggling details that have occurred before. Instead, I'll give my own overarching opinion of 4th edition.

Thanks, Jerthanis, that is kinda what I am looking for. I posted a few of my dislikes, I didn't want to get into a specific argument about individual points really, though I will discuss them with people if they want.


I'm really, really scratching my head, here. Doesn't levelling up in Third Edition get you new class features (basically, powers)? Don't spellcasters get new spell levels (and most spells are for combat) every other level?
Do the Fighter's bonus feats or the Barbarian's better raging somehow do something for roleplaying that the 4E fighter's powers don't?

Roleplaying is something YOU do. You don't need a "Skill Focus: Basketweaving" feat to do it. You don't need to assign skill points to Profession: Farmer to have a character that used to be a farmer.

No, there was a lot more to magic than just combat. I remember a game where the magic user in the party memorized 2 unseen servants each day to put up and take down his camp for him every day. He gave up spells to take cantrips (yes, this was a LONG time ago) so he could clean and freshen his breath, and clothing, etc. In fact, of all his spells, I seem to remember that he had 3 that were really combat oriented, out of 30+.

And yet he was an great character in a ROLE playing game, even if he wasn't so effective in a ROLL playing game. . . (sorry to use the old Cliche)

And if everyone can use every skill almost equally well, then where is the point in making a balanced party. Everyone can do everything. That means that the skills are really mostly meaningless, and the customization aspect is now all about how can I make my character a more effective fighter. (edit. Sorry, meant to say "more effective in combat")


Are you suggesting that the people who worked on 4E weren't trying to improve the game? I can see tons of improvements. Have you looked at the Skill Challenge system? That's more support than D&D has EVER given social encounters; it's an honest-to-goodness conflict resolution system just like you'd expect from... well... any RPG that isn't years behind the times, like D&D is.

Of course they want the new edition to succeed. No one has ever wanted their product to fail, unless they're scamming for money, like Uwe Boll or the guys in The Producers. But they put a lot of thought into the design of the game, and it plays really, really well.
Of course, if you want games without any combat at all, D&D isn't the game for you. But then, D&D never WAS--I mean, what does a 3E Fighter do outside of combat that a 4E Fighter can't?

I never said that the older systems weren't about money. I have no problem with that. But I don't think anything in 4th ed was an attempt to make a game that was a direct response to problems with 3rd ed, or RPGs in general. It was an attempt to turn WoW into a tabletop game and maybe try to get some gamers back from MMORPGs. Again, I don't have a huge problem with that as a business idea. But I don't think WoW, or 4th ed, is very friendly to the whole concept of roleplaying. I look at it now and feel like it is all going to be about setting up the table for the next combat, and forget about all that other stuff in-between the fighting, coz it isn't important. Lets just focus on the killing part.


I will never, ever understand the fannish-entitlement sentiment that says that just because *I* don't like something, the person making it must want to make it bad or be trying to spite me directly.

Hopefully you understand now that that is not what I was going for. Like I said, I am very cynical about corporate america, but I did not make my post out of some fannish sense of despair. I want genuine opinions from people who HAVE played, or at least read in great depth, the new game. I do this because my players will undoubtedly ask once again those wonderful words 'are we going to switch to the new edition'. Thus the request for other people's opinions.

Indon
2008-06-06, 06:35 PM
Have you actually sat down and played it at all? Or is this opinion based just on reading through the books?

Dude, Roleplayers can have crazy-awesome fun playing Kobolds Ate My Baby! (and I have), that doesn't make that system a serious roleplaying system.

Thrud
2008-06-06, 06:40 PM
This is a horrible attitude!


Social skills are still in the game. They aren't as "you do what I want" as 3E's, though.


This is the horrible bit. Really?! What kind of players are you playing with?! Maybe they buy social skills because they want to have a charming, diplomatic character, or a good liar, or a really intimidating character. Just like they buy combat skills because they want to have a character who's good in a fight, stealth because they want to have a character who's stealthy...


Meanwhile, the ability to play a character who's any better at social things than his player goes out the window...

Thank you Bearonet, that is part of my point. Having played a huge number of RPGs over the years, all of my favorites have been skill based games. And that is because I personally am not skilled in every skill that players may need to roleplay their way through. Thus the whole idea of the skill points involved gives the GM an overview of hwo things are going in that particular conversation. That doesn't mean the conversation won't happen. But it does mean that the fighter trying to be persuasive is not going to do as good a job as the silver tongued bard, even if the guy playing the fighter is a master disputant, and the guy playing the bard is a borderline autistic. That is the fun of roleplaying games. You get to play characters that are not carbon copies of your own personality and skillset.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 06:51 PM
No, there was a lot more to magic than just combat. I remember a game where the magic user in the party memorized 2 unseen servants each day to put up and take down his camp for him every day. He gave up spells to take cantrips (yes, this was a LONG time ago) so he could clean and freshen his breath, and clothing, etc. In fact, of all his spells, I seem to remember that he had 3 that were really combat oriented, out of 30+.
And 4E wizards get Mage Hand, Ghost Sound, and Prestidigitation at will. They can use these things to freshen up, make dinner taste better, fetch things without moving, and so on. And they can do this without sacrificing their ability to pull their weight as part of the party.

I notice that you also ignored my point about fighters and barbarians. When they level up, all they get is the ability to kill things (I'd phrase it as "grind mobs for loot" if I was one of those people who wanted to imply that an RPG was an MMO).

4E powers don't make the game All About Killing Stuff Without Any Roleplay any more than 3E's Fighter Bonus Feats or Barbarian's Mighty Rage does, or any more than Fighters gaining more attacks in AD&D does.


And yet he was an great character in a ROLE playing game, even if he wasn't so effective in a ROLL playing game. . . (sorry to use the old Cliche)
So far, I've been roleplaying my 4E character quite well.
How did the party roleplay their justification for bringing someone who is no good in combat (3 spells out of 30) into life-or-death situations with them, instead of someone who is really good in a fight?


And if everyone can use every skill almost equally well, then where is the point in making a balanced party. Everyone can do everything. That means that the skills are really mostly meaningless, and the customization aspect is now all about how can I make my character a more effective fighter.
But not everyone can use every skill almost equally well. The difference between an 8-Charisma fighter with Bluff untrained and a 16-Charisma Rogue with Bluff trained is 9 points. That's a LOT.
However, if you want to take Skill Training[Bluff], your fighter will be competent at it. If you then take Skill Focus, he'll be almost as good at it as the Rogue (unless the Rogue takes Skill Focus).
How is this a bad thing? How is this meaningless? It lets you make a nobleman fighter who's also a smooth talker, or it lets you make a gruff fighter who's insightful and perceptive. It lets you make the character you want.

Meanwhile, a 3E fighter is getting 3 skill points a level, and is stuck with exciting class skills like "Jump" and "Climb". Wheee! Want to make a fighter who's also a smooth talker? Sorry, you're out of luck; even if you take 14 Charisma, getting half ranks in Diplomacy isn't going to have a significant effect.


I never said that the older systems weren't about money. I have no problem with that. But I don't think anything in 4th ed was an attempt to make a game that was a direct response to problems with 3rd ed, or RPGs in general.
The designers have plainly stated many of the things they were trying to fix, so either you're being disingenuous, or this is a case of "I don't like it so they weren't trying".



It was an attempt to turn WoW into a tabletop game and maybe try to get some gamers back from MMORPGs. Again, I don't have a huge problem with that as a business idea. But I don't think WoW, or 4th ed, is very friendly to the whole concept of roleplaying. I look at it now and feel like it is all going to be about setting up the table for the next combat, and forget about all that other stuff in-between the fighting, coz it isn't important. Lets just focus on the killing part.
Please stop going, basically, "4E is a MMORPG". It's an argument overused by people who don't want to think about it. I've already posted a quote about it elsewhere, but you're not grinding bosses for loot drops or running instances or anything. You're doing what you've ALWAYS done in D&D, and that includes ROLEPLAYING.


Hopefully you understand now that that is not what I was going for. Like I said, I am very cynical about corporate america, but I did not make my post out of some fannish sense of despair. I want genuine opinions from people who HAVE played, or at least read in great depth, the new game. I do this because my players will undoubtedly ask once again those wonderful words 'are we going to switch to the new edition'. Thus the request for other people's opinions.
I've played the game. It isn't an MMORPG in any way (and I don't think an RPG ever COULD be as long as you play with a DM). Combat is fun, engaging, and well-balanced. Everyone has something to do out-of-combat, in *addition* to being able to roleplay all they like.

Fundamentally, roleplaying is as it always has been: it's up to the players. It doesn't matter what your sheet says, you have to give the character a personality and a voice. And you can do that just as well in 4E as you can in 3E.

Cainen
2008-06-06, 06:56 PM
Wait, what? How can the DM tell you "NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT" any more than he could?

Because it's not quantified mechanically, bad DMs can screw me over by saying I can't do anything my character sheet doesn't say anything about mechanically. He can easily tell me I can't do it, much more easily than he can go "NO, THAT SKILL ON YOUR CHARACTER SHEET DOESN'T COUNT".

Now, don't get me wrong. I prefer looser systems in the first place. The problem is that they don't work whenever someone ignores the warnings typically attached to rules-light systems, and it is a flaw.

Swordguy
2008-06-06, 07:02 PM
Because it's not quantified mechanically, bad DMs can screw me over by saying I can't do anything my character sheet doesn't say anything about mechanically. He can easily tell me I can't do it, much more easily than he can go "NO, THAT SKILL ON YOUR CHARACTER SHEET DOESN'T COUNT".

Now, don't get me wrong. I prefer looser systems in the first place. The problem is that they don't work whenever someone ignores the warnings typically attached to rules-light systems, and it is a flaw.

That's not a system problem. That's a "DM playstyle" problem.

Really, it's the DM being a jackass, and only allowing you to do anything he doesn't want you to on the SOLE basis of the fact he HAS to because your mechanics support it. It's adversarial DMing.

Replace "adversarial" with "bad", at your leisure.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-06, 07:03 PM
Thank you Bearonet, that is part of my point. Having played a huge number of RPGs over the years, all of my favorites have been skill based games. And that is because I personally am not skilled in every skill that players may need to roleplay their way through. Thus the whole idea of the skill points involved gives the GM an overview of hwo things are going in that particular conversation. That doesn't mean the conversation won't happen. But it does mean that the fighter trying to be persuasive is not going to do as good a job as the silver tongued bard, even if the guy playing the fighter is a master disputant, and the guy playing the bard is a borderline autistic. That is the fun of roleplaying games. You get to play characters that are not carbon copies of your own personality and skillset.

This is the exact reason i dislike skill games, which as far as i ever remember thats been D&D in all its forms, yet to play 4th ed though so my only comment i can make is, from what i've -seen- it is the right step in the right direction. So what if its not what you want? You have all those other RPG's you've played. So it didnt fix what you want, play a game where those problems dont exist. If all you see it as is a big money maker from some corporate ghost, dont buy into it. All the problems can be solved by just...taking a step back....and walking away. Play a game before you pass judgement, if you dont like it, back out. Find someone who owns it and does like it, play it with him and who ever else is up to it. Problem. Solved.

Swordguy
2008-06-06, 07:08 PM
This is the exact reason i dislike skill games, which as far as i ever remember thats been D&D in all its forms, yet to play 4th ed though so my only comment i can make is, from what i've -seen- it is the right step in the right direction. So what if its not what you want? You have all those other RPG's you've played. So it didnt fix what you want, play a game where those problems dont exist. If all you see it as is a big money maker from some corporate ghost, dont buy into it. All the problems can be solved by just...taking a step back....and walking away. Play a game before you pass judgement, if you dont like it, back out. Find someone who owns it and does like it, play it with him and who ever else is up to it. Problem. Solved.

You're being reasonable. Stop it. This is the internet.

Bitzeralisis
2008-06-06, 07:10 PM
Yeaah. 4e makes me like 3.5e better. And Exalted. Which is why I'll probably never play/DM a 4e game.

Skyserpent
2008-06-06, 07:10 PM
I myself had a few doubts when I first cracked open that rulebook, it did APPEAR quite stifling and irritating, but then we sat down and got a game going...

Roleplaying was not limited in the slightest. The new Skill system was devised so that the +5 bonus was extremely significant. The skill check system has been updated and streamlined since 3.5 where not maxing out a skill is pretty much the same as failing it every time against a level appropriate DC.

Skill challenges are a new and much more fun way to implement skills in an RP fashion, Puzzle solving has been improved significantly due to it's implementation. We've had encounters where the Wizard is Attempting to Channel the magic out of an energy tower so it doesn't blast the fighter as he holds off legions of minions. It's much more exciting and fun than 3.5 ever was to DM in my opinion. And the Players said it was freaking awesome, so I'll trust 'em on that point.

The combat focus isn't such a bad thing for ME, since most D&D games should have a few battles anyway. After all, what's the point of being a Fighter if you're not going to fight once in a while? The biggest difference now, though, is that while in 3.5 the focus was on Build and the proper character design to be effective, 4e is far more focused on Tactical Options, with far fewer methods to screw yourself over on the Character Generation stages and far more options in ACTUAL combat. It's a tactics based game now.

Which is the biggest difference from World of Warcraft: Build doesn't matter as much towards effectiveness. In WoW, you needed EXACTLY the right point distribution, and EXACTLY the right gear in order to do ANYTHING significant at the highest tiers of combat. And there were very clearly superior choices in the Talent Trees, 4e did away with that and we have less Gear-Dependant and far less Build Dependant Characters, so we got into the game much faster.

It's still D&D, we all still had fun, I believe it was JaxGaret that said 4e reads poorly and plays well. And he'd be right. It still plays like D&D Fighters Wizards Rogues and all that, I don't think It's actually damaged my enjoyment at all.

Honestly, I think that a lot of people go into it with a mindset seeking out every little thing to hate about 4e and make it a point to spew bile at every possible flaw, real or imagined. If that's the case then there's no real helping you... Give it a shot, but I can't really blame you if it's not your style

Mutants and Masterminds ftw!

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 07:15 PM
Because it's not quantified mechanically, bad DMs can screw me over by saying I can't do anything my character sheet doesn't say anything about mechanically. He can easily tell me I can't do it, much more easily than he can go "NO, THAT SKILL ON YOUR CHARACTER SHEET DOESN'T COUNT".
This is... I'm barely sure how to respond, except to say that going to the bathroom isn't quantified mechanically, either.
I think "no, that skill on your character sheet doesn't count" is a FAR more common problem (many people here have stated that they ignore or don't use social skills, instead basing the result on the player's performance) than "your sheet doesn't say that you can sing so you can't sing!"
Any DM who wouldn't let you sing or cook because you don't have a "Singing" or "Cooking" line on your sheet is not going to be redeemed by any gaming system.


This is the exact reason i dislike skill games, which as far as i ever remember thats been D&D in all its forms, yet to play 4th ed though so my only comment i can make is, from what i've -seen- it is the right step in the right direction. So what if its not what you want? You have all those other RPG's you've played. So it didnt fix what you want, play a game where those problems dont exist. If all you see it as is a big money maker from some corporate ghost, dont buy into it. All the problems can be solved by just...taking a step back....and walking away. Play a game before you pass judgement, if you dont like it, back out. Find someone who owns it and does like it, play it with him and who ever else is up to it. Problem. Solved.

You dislike skill games... because they let you play characters that aren't carbon copies of your own skillset?

turkishproverb
2008-06-06, 07:17 PM
I see lots of threads about specific questions/issues with 4th ed, but I don't see one here on 4th ed in general. I have never posted to the forum before, having never felt the urge, but I was trying to get a general opinion about 4th ed from a range of people, and this seemed the best way. I work in a book store, and have had acces to the books for a couple of weeks now, before we were allowed to sell them, so I have done a little skimming, though I freely admit that I haven't read them in huge depth. But I wanted to post my opinion about the game and get some feedback.

First, a little history. I started playing D&D using those little white books that most people have never even seen. This is pre- basic D&D. And the game sucked. A lot. But we didn't know any better and it was pretty ground breaking at the time. So we enjoyed it. Then Basic D&D came out and didn't really make the rules that much better, though everything was definately organized better. And hey, if you kept buying the books you could eventually become a god. Ehh, I was about 12, so it seemed cool at the time. Next was AD&D, which solved some problems, and introduced more. Then 2nd ed, which was a great improvement from AD&D. Through each of these systems I had a fair level of excitement, then played them for a while, and settled down to being reasonably happy, until the next system came out.

Then came 3rd ed. I think this was one of the greatest reimaginings of a game system ever. It was awesome. I loved every bit of it, because at this point I was a veteran gamer of 15+ years and knew enough to put in house rules where they were needed.

Then came 3.5, which I responded to with not much more than a feeling of ehh, whatever. Liked some tweaks, didn't like others, and resolved to stick with my own heavily (by this point) modded 3rd ed. And my players seemed happy enough to stick with it.

Then 4th ed came, and I have read through it and came out with a feeling of the most profound horror imaginable. I truly loathe this game. It is really nothing more than World of Warcraft the roleplaying game. Powers that are gained in skill trees? Wizards having an at will magic missile (or better?). Everyone has the use of every skill, and the only difference between being trained and untrained is a 5 point bonus? What the hell? And don't even get me started on damn rituals vs spells. All the fun spells you used to have to memorize and choose carefully have been made into rituals that you must have a book and expensive material components to perform, but that you can otherwise do at will? And apparently anyone can do them as long as they succeed at the skill check, which seems to be open to everyone? Then there are healing surges, which everyone can use to heal themselves, which is now necessary because dang magic users can pop off magic missiles at will, at range, and every single power level seems to have been cranked too dang high.

This game reads to me like it is trying to be D&D for dummies. It has none of the heart and soul of any of the previous D&D games. Don't get me wrong, I like WoW, but it is a computer game. Tabletop games are about roleplaying. And 3rd ed gave skills and feats as an aid to roleplaying. it was about puzzle solving and finding the way through to the prize at the end. Not about blasting everything with all the cool new powers I can gain access to by being a dragonborn who can breathe fire, or fighters being able to cleave people at will at first level.

This new game is all about combat, and that is all. All the dang powers seem to be all about getting advantage in combat through mobility, or doing damage. And that was not what skills and feats were all about in 3rd.

Computer games are all about hacking and slashing your way through hordes of enemies until you reach the goal at the end. D&D has always been about creating a character and interacting with the DM's world. Not just killing it.

Maybe I am getting old and set in my ways, and curmudgeonly, but I have not yet found any redeeming features to the 4th ed.

So please, guys, restore my faith. Tell me there is some sort of redeeming value to this edition.

I feel for you man, but give it up. Talking on this board about what's wrong with the changes made for 4th is like talking about the fact monks don't' completely suck. It'll get you nowhere because most people are too firmly entrenched in their own worlds to care.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-06, 07:17 PM
You're being reasonable. Stop it. This is the internet.

So...i...shouldn't be reasonable? I think a little reason could go a long way in the flood of 4th ed complaints/opinions/general whineyness......I get everyone wants to tell everyone else just what they think about the new system, and i get that they all think they are valid(None are more so then any other). What i dont get is why they cant just....put their opinion on a single thread, read that, and if they are wondering just what to think about a system they've never played, they can read it, be (mis)informed as their opinon might be, and not clutter the rest of the board up/

With that being said, for some general unreasonableness, i want a puppy, a train system, oh and a bee bee gun.

FdL
2008-06-06, 07:19 PM
I think that 4e is brilliant really. I like it lots. To me it's an improvement from 3.5, and a game that's more fun and focused at playing the game and not things like looking for loopholes in the rules or constructing characters out of playing context with bizarre combinations.

Some will get it, some won't, but it surprises me that someone who's played the game since day one like the OP doesn't see the great improvements of this version.

The WoW comparison that detractors wield is already getting old and lamely inaccurate.

AslanCross
2008-06-06, 07:20 PM
Meanwhile, a 3E fighter is getting 3 skill points a level, and is stuck with exciting class skills like "Jump" and "Climb". Wheee! Want to make a fighter who's also a smooth talker? Sorry, you're out of luck; even if you take 14 Charisma, getting half ranks in Diplomacy isn't going to have a significant effect.


I haven't thought of it that way, and I'm happy to see that such a build is more feasible now. In 3E you'd have to take Able Learner to get as many ranks as you can, and probably Skill Focus too (sacrificing feat slots, which could have gone into adding to your combat ability instead). And even then you only get an underwhelming skill bonus due to your lack of skill points in the first place. At least in 4E, it only takes an investment of one feat (and the pertinent ability score). And it doesn't hamper your combat ability one bit, since that comes from your powers.

ShadowSiege
2008-06-06, 07:21 PM
I'm just going to take this point by point.


...

Then 4th ed came, and I have read through it and came out with a feeling of the most profound horror imaginable. I truly loathe this game. It is really nothing more than World of Warcraft the roleplaying game. Powers that are gained in skill trees?

They already made a WoW RPG. It was d20 if I'm not mistaken, I only ever saw the books twice and thumbed through one of them once. Powers are gained in talent trees/skill trees/whatever. You have a set of powers to choose from, and a limited number of choices. There aren't any prerequisites for any of the powers (Except to use them "No, you can use the fighter's shield ability with a bow). Your statement is simply wrong.


Wizards having an at will magic missile (or better?).

Yup. Beats having a wizard try and pathetically fire a crossbow into the melee, possibly hitting the fighter. The at-will magic missile (or frost ray, or whatever, every class has a few at-wills, only 2 of which they can ever have) allows the wizard to still contribute to the fight when his encounter and daily powers are used up.


Everyone has the use of every skill, and the only difference between being trained and untrained is a 5 point bonus?

No, trained enables you to use skills in certain ways as well. Example of trained only: Arcana lets you detect magic if you're trained it it, and Acrobatics let you reduce falling damage if you're trained in it. Also, 5 points is a big bonus without +skill/+ability items. Add in a +3 from skill focus and the character is ridiculously better at that skill than any untrained character.


And don't even get me started on damn rituals vs spells. All the fun spells you used to have to memorize and choose carefully have been made into rituals that you must have a book and expensive material components to perform, but that you can otherwise do at will? And apparently anyone can do them as long as they succeed at the skill check, which seems to be open to everyone?

Ritual use requires you to have the Ritual feat, which requires training in the Arcana or Religion skills. Some rituals also require skill checks to determine their efficacy. The reason why rituals are a good thing is that a party is no longer dependent upon arcane/divine spellcasters to raise their dead, teleport, travel the planes, enchant and identify their items, etc.


Then there are healing surges, which everyone can use to heal themselves, which is now necessary because dang magic users can pop off magic missiles at will, at range, and every single power level seems to have been cranked too dang high.

This one is all over the place. I'll assume that it was supposed to be some complaint about healing surges before it went into the magical world of Tangentland. Healing surges are a good thing because it puts healing in the hands of every member of the party, and removes the need for a cleric/healbot. Yes, the healer is archetypal for D&D, but it wasn't a role to be relished.


This game reads to me like it is trying to be D&D for dummies. It has none of the heart and soul of any of the previous D&D games.

Arcane and needlessly complex rules are the heart and soul of D&D games? I thought the heart and soul of D&D games was getting together with some friends, pizza, and drinks and killing things, taking their stuff, and finding out why you should have (not?) killed those things and taken their stuff because you accidentally unleashed a great evil upon the land blah blah blah.


Don't get me wrong, I like WoW, but it is a computer game. Tabletop games are about roleplaying. And 3rd ed gave skills and feats as an aid to roleplaying. it was about puzzle solving and finding the way through to the prize at the end. Not about blasting everything with all the cool new powers I can gain access to by being a dragonborn who can breathe fire, or fighters being able to cleave people at will at first level.

4e doesn't affect puzzle solving and finding a prize at the end. All previous editions of D&D have included combat, perhaps with a wizard blowing things to hell with a fireball and often with a dragon breathing fire at you. Dragonborn are new, and I think the designers have come out and said that their design philosophy is based around the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun (if not, that's how I've interpretted it), and Dragonborn are supposed to be cool and fun. Fighters were able to cleave (weak) people in half at first level in 3rd edition, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.


This new game is all about combat, and that is all. All the dang powers seem to be all about getting advantage in combat through mobility, or doing damage. And that was not what skills and feats were all about in 3rd.

Combat is the part of the system that requires the most adjudication, so the rules are most heavily focused on that. This hasn't changed from previous editions, so I don't know why you're complaining about it. 4e builds skill challenges into the system, and all the players are required to be involved in them, even if it is talking your way into the evil overlord's Fortress of Terror.


Computer games are all about hacking and slashing your way through hordes of enemies until you reach the goal at the end. D&D has always been about creating a character and interacting with the DM's world. Not just killing it.

Depends on the DM's style if you're actually interacting with the world or hacking/slashing your way through it, or just being railroaded along. There are CRPGs that aren't about hack and slash, I seem to recall Planescape Torment often being brought up as an example.


Maybe I am getting old and set in my ways, and curmudgeonly, but I have not yet found any redeeming features to the 4th ed.

Doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for them.


So please, guys, restore my faith. Tell me there is some sort of redeeming value to this edition.

Yup, there's plenty of redeeming value. They've chucked the old system that was a steady improvement on past editions and come up with a new one that is leaner, elegant, and according to multiple playtests of people whose opinions I respect on this board, fun.

Thrud
2008-06-06, 07:28 PM
And 4E wizards get Mage Hand, Ghost Sound, and Prestidigitation at will. They can use these things to freshen up, make dinner taste better, fetch things without moving, and so on. And they can do this without sacrificing their ability to pull their weight as part of the party.

I notice that you also ignored my point about fighters and barbarians. When they level up, all they get is the ability to kill things (I'd phrase it as "grind mobs for loot" if I was one of those people who wanted to imply that an RPG was an MMO).

4E powers don't make the game All About Killing Stuff Without Any Roleplay any more than 3E's Fighter Bonus Feats or Barbarian's Mighty Rage does, or any more than Fighters gaining more attacks in AD&D does.


So far, I've been roleplaying my 4E character quite well.
How did the party roleplay their justification for bringing someone who is no good in combat (3 spells out of 30) into life-or-death situations with them?

'Coz in our games, just like life, situations are not perfect. He was a Magic user who taught at the academy and he was thrown in with the group so that they had to make the best of it. And what could the wizard do? He could create a house for the party to live in each night, send messages back to the king, create excellent illusions to confuse enemies (no, we didn't allow the stupid illusion fireball that is just as real as the real thing if you just believe in it) open/lock doors, summon in horses, carry large amounts of stuff on floating disks, jump long distances, climb on walls, find objects, create light, fly, detect magic, etc, etc, etc. . .

Where is all that with the new powers? They seem to be relegated to the rituals. Which means anyone with a high intelligence, a ritual book, and some components can do them all. Kinda takes the mystique out of the wizard.


But not everyone can use every skill almost equally well. The difference between an 8-Charisma fighter with Bluff untrained and a 16-Charisma Rogue with Bluff trained is 9 points. That's a LOT.
However, if you want to take Skill Training[Bluff], your fighter will be competent at it. If you then take Skill Focus, he'll be almost as good at it as the Rogue (unless the Rogue takes Skill Focus).
How is this a bad thing? How is this meaningless? It lets you make a nobleman fighter who's also a smooth talker, or it lets you make a gruff fighter who's insightful and perceptive. It lets you make the character you want.

Meanwhile, a 3E fighter is getting 3 skill points a level, and is stuck with exciting class skills like "Jump" and "Climb". Wheee! Want to make a fighter who's also a smooth talker? Sorry, you're out of luck; even if you take 14 Charisma, getting half ranks in Diplomacy isn't going to have a significant effect.

Sorry, my fault, that is where my discussion of many house rules comes into play. All my players know that if they write up a character backgound with details in it that I can weave into my game, that they will be rewarded with things like having non class skills being made into class skills, or extra skill points, etc. Again, this is why I am asking for people's opinions. 3rd ed I have added in house rules that fix many of the problems you have mentioned. I have never had a single player play a barbarian in any of my games, so I can't tell you how I would mod them out to make them more skill friendly, but I have had a nobleman fighter who due to an excellent and detailed background that inculded hereditary enemies (other nobles out to get him) and a family curse, who was awarded the ability to use various skills like diplomacy, knowledge [heraldry] etc, as class skills, along with some bonus skill points at early levels.


The designers have plainly stated many of the things they were trying to fix, so either you're being disingenuous, or this is a case of "I don't like it so they weren't trying".

Please stop going, basically, "4E is a MMORPG". It's an argument overused by people who don't want to think about it. I've already posted a quote about it elsewhere, but you're not grinding bosses for loot drops or running instances or anything. You're doing what you've ALWAYS done in D&D, and that includes ROLEPLAYING.

I've played the game. It isn't an MMORPG in any way (and I don't think an RPG ever COULD be as long as you play with a DM). Combat is fun, engaging, and well-balanced. Everyone has something to do out-of-combat, in *addition* to being able to roleplay all they like.

Fundamentally, roleplaying is as it always has been: it's up to the players. It doesn't matter what your sheet says, you have to give the character a personality and a voice. And you can do that just as well in 4E as you can in 3E.

Sorry, guess we are at an impass here, then. Coz I don't believe I can do it as easily in 4th ed. I do believe that I CAN do it. I can roleplay in any game, even Macho Women with Guns and HOL, to name a few of the sillier games I have played. But that does not mean that they are games that are geared to making roleplaying easier. I will wait till I hit a gaming con and get to play it to give my final opinion, but as far as I can tell the game is so focused on combat that it might as well be (o.k., if you hate the MMORPG analogy) a tabletop miniatures battle game. Which again, doen't mean I can't roleplay in it. Hell I've roleplayed in BATTLETECH which IS just a tabletop miniatures game. It is just a lot harder, and people with more experience will be much more capable of doing it than people without.

Like I said, I have been playing D&D since those four little white booklets came out, and this is the first time I have felt that the game took a major step backwards. That is why I will leave it for a con. At Con's you can roleplay the game with pregenerated characters and get a feel for the game without spending $100+ on something that, for the second time for me in 30+ years of gaming, really doesn't seem worth it.

And since I happen to know that the street date for the release was today, if you have played them in any real depth already you must be one of the playtesters, which by definition means you are going to biased towards the game. (Either that or you got a hold of the game illegally, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt here.:smallbiggrin:) Still, that doesn't mean that I don't value your opinion, and I thank you for giving it. But the simple fact that you CAN roleplay in a game doesn't mean that it is suited to it.

Thrud
2008-06-06, 07:33 PM
This is the exact reason i dislike skill games, which as far as i ever remember thats been D&D in all its forms, yet to play 4th ed though so my only comment i can make is, from what i've -seen- it is the right step in the right direction. So what if its not what you want? You have all those other RPG's you've played. So it didnt fix what you want, play a game where those problems dont exist. If all you see it as is a big money maker from some corporate ghost, dont buy into it. All the problems can be solved by just...taking a step back....and walking away. Play a game before you pass judgement, if you dont like it, back out. Find someone who owns it and does like it, play it with him and who ever else is up to it. Problem. Solved.

Or I can be reasonable and ask other people's opinions. Oh wait. I did.

:smallbiggrin:

And no, only 3 and 3.5 have been skill based games.

Thrud
2008-06-06, 07:38 PM
I'm just going to take this point by point.



They already made a WoW RPG. It was d20 if I'm not mistaken, I only ever saw the books twice and thumbed through one of them once. Powers are gained in talent trees/skill trees/whatever. You have a set of powers to choose from, and a limited number of choices. There aren't any prerequisites for any of the powers (Except to use them "No, you can use the fighter's shield ability with a bow). Your statement is simply wrong.



Yup. Beats having a wizard try and pathetically fire a crossbow into the melee, possibly hitting the fighter. The at-will magic missile (or frost ray, or whatever, every class has a few at-wills, only 2 of which they can ever have) allows the wizard to still contribute to the fight when his encounter and daily powers are used up.



No, trained enables you to use skills in certain ways as well. Example of trained only: Arcana lets you detect magic if you're trained it it, and Acrobatics let you reduce falling damage if you're trained in it. Also, 5 points is a big bonus without +skill/+ability items. Add in a +3 from skill focus and the character is ridiculously better at that skill than any untrained character.



Ritual use requires you to have the Ritual feat, which requires training in the Arcana or Religion skills. Some rituals also require skill checks to determine their efficacy. The reason why rituals are a good thing is that a party is no longer dependent upon arcane/divine spellcasters to raise their dead, teleport, travel the planes, enchant and identify their items, etc.



This one is all over the place. I'll assume that it was supposed to be some complaint about healing surges before it went into the magical world of Tangentland. Healing surges are a good thing because it puts healing in the hands of every member of the party, and removes the need for a cleric/healbot. Yes, the healer is archetypal for D&D, but it wasn't a role to be relished.



Arcane and needlessly complex rules are the heart and soul of D&D games? I thought the heart and soul of D&D games was getting together with some friends, pizza, and drinks and killing things, taking their stuff, and finding out why you should have (not?) killed those things and taken their stuff because you accidentally unleashed a great evil upon the land blah blah blah.



4e doesn't affect puzzle solving and finding a prize at the end. All previous editions of D&D have included combat, perhaps with a wizard blowing things to hell with a fireball and often with a dragon breathing fire at you. Dragonborn are new, and I think the designers have come out and said that their design philosophy is based around the Rule of Cool and the Rule of Fun (if not, that's how I've interpretted it), and Dragonborn are supposed to be cool and fun. Fighters were able to cleave (weak) people in half at first level in 3rd edition, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.



Combat is the part of the system that requires the most adjudication, so the rules are most heavily focused on that. This hasn't changed from previous editions, so I don't know why you're complaining about it. 4e builds skill challenges into the system, and all the players are required to be involved in them, even if it is talking your way into the evil overlord's Fortress of Terror.



Depends on the DM's style if you're actually interacting with the world or hacking/slashing your way through it, or just being railroaded along. There are CRPGs that aren't about hack and slash, I seem to recall Planescape Torment often being brought up as an example.



Doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for them.



Yup, there's plenty of redeeming value. They've chucked the old system that was a steady improvement on past editions and come up with a new one that is leaner, elegant, and according to multiple playtests of people whose opinions I respect on this board, fun.

Thanks. That is a little more what I was interested in getting out of this thread.

ashmanonar
2008-06-06, 07:45 PM
That's not a system problem. That's a "DM playstyle" problem.

Really, it's the DM being a jackass, and only allowing you to do anything he doesn't want you to on the SOLE basis of the fact he HAS to because your mechanics support it. It's adversarial DMing.

Replace "adversarial" with "bad", at your leisure.

Damnit, I wanted to say this. Why did you have to post 40 minutes before me? ;)

Occasional Sage
2008-06-06, 07:49 PM
Thanks. That is a little more what I was interested in getting out of this thread.

Hold on, somebody (Samthecleric, perhaps?) posted a review of the system that was supposed to be unbiased. I don't know, not having read the new books, but at least the initial replies made the thread appear promising.

You can read it, and the following discussion, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82266).

Skyserpent
2008-06-06, 07:50 PM
'Coz in our games, just like life, situations are not perfect. He was a Magic user who taught at the academy and he was thrown in with the group so that they had to make the best of it. And what could the wizard do? He could create a house for the party to live in each night, send messages back to the king, create excellent illusions to confuse enemies (no, we didn't allow the stupid illusion fireball that is just as real as the real thing if you just believe in it) open/lock doors, summon in horses, carry large amounts of stuff on floating disks, jump long distances, climb on walls, find objects, create light, fly, detect magic, etc, etc, etc. . .



Where is all that with the new powers? They seem to be relegated to the rituals. Which means anyone with a high intelligence, a ritual book, and some components can do them all. Kinda takes the mystique out of the wizard.


Here comes the point on Versatility, Wizards could do EVERYTHING in 3.5, so, since they could do EVERYTHING, they were free to focus on really little things so the party doesn't feel bad, or what have you. This one roleplaying option, though very fun and neat, is balanced out by the fact that by giving all these options to a single player, he can start doing anything else, he has the freedom to run wild with ridiculous abilities, like casting the shatter spell to open any nonmagical lock, dispel-magic along with the shatter spell if it's magical, Fireball and Battlefield Control and all that make Fighters somewhat moot.

Honestly, the "mystique" of the Wizard is that he's all-powerful. Hell, in your party example there could be another Wizard who could do everything the first Wizard could do, but had a completely different backstory that let's him have free reign to do everything the first Wizard did but also cast blasty spells. The only thing stopping this is the players saying "I'll play a Fighter instead" How is that any different from the players saying "I'll take X feat instead of Ritual Casting."?


Sorry, my fault, that is where my discussion of many house rules comes into play. All my players know that if they write up a character backgound with details in it that I can weave into my game, that they will be rewarded with things like having non class skills being made into class skills, or extra skill points, etc. Again, this is why I am asking for people's opinions. 3rd ed I have added in house rules that fix many of the problems you have mentioned. I have never had a single player play a barbarian in any of my games, so I can't tell you how I would mod them out to make them more skill friendly, but I have had a nobleman fighter who due to an excellent and detailed background that inculded hereditary enemies (other nobles out to get him) and a family curse, who was awarded the ability to use various skills like diplomacy, knowledge [heraldry] etc, as class skills, along with some bonus skill points at early levels.

If you fixed 3.5 that's fine for your group. The fact that 4e fixed them differently is still equally valid and playable, it's just that now it comes pre-fixed and so not every person who wanted to pick up the game has to "fix" it. If you fixed 3.5, good for you, but that doesn't make the system any better than 4e. At least in that respect.


Sorry, guess we are at an impass here, then. Coz I don't believe I can do it as easily in 4th ed. I do believe that I CAN do it. I can roleplay in any game, even Macho Women with Guns and HOL, to name a few of the sillier games I have played. But that does not mean that they are games that are geared to making roleplaying easier. I will wait till I hit a gaming con and get to play it to give my final opinion, but as far as I can tell the game is so focused on combat that it might as well be (o.k., if you hate the MMORPG analogy) a tabletop miniatures battle game. Which again, doen't mean I can't roleplay in it. Hell I've roleplayed in BATTLETECH which IS just a tabletop miniatures game. It is just a lot harder, and people with more experience will be much more capable of doing it than people without.
I guess we ARE at an impasse. Because I've played the module they released earlier, Keep on the Shadowfell, and everyone managed to roleplay just fine. In fact, one of our players decided to roleplay a spellcaster he had in 3.5 and did it JUST AS WELL as he did in 3.5, frankly I remember this year playing with someone who had never played D&D before and her choices were almost entirely combat focused, like most of the spells in 3.5 ARE. I don't see how it's tougher to roleplay in 4e. (Maybe I'm blind.)


Like I said, I have been playing D&D since those four little white booklets came out, and this is the first time I have felt that the game took a major step backwards. That is why I will leave it for a con. At Con's you can roleplay the game with pregenerated characters and get a feel for the game without spending $100+ on something that, for the second time for me in 30+ years of gaming, really doesn't seem worth it.

I might note that this may have left you a bit disconnected from new players today. You give kids these days too little credit, Trust me, they're quicker and more clever than you'd think. They're having plenty of fun playing 4e.

I suppose the reason you felt they took a step backwards was because of how significant the changes have been. Indeed they took several radical steps and of course, this could be uncomfortable for someone who has been playing for a long time. Give it a shot though, if you get the opportunity to play 4e with a friend who shelled out the 60 bucks for the new books. You may be pleasantly surprised.


And since I happen to know that the street date for the release was today, if you have played them in any real depth already you must be one of the playtesters, which by definition means you are going to biased towards the game. (Either that or you got a hold of the game illegally, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt here.:smallbiggrin:) Still, that doesn't mean that I don't value your opinion, and I thank you for giving it. But the simple fact that you CAN roleplay in a game doesn't mean that it is suited to it.

We'll leave that one up in the air... heh... But Keep on the Shadowfell has been out for a while and that was a good 5 or 6 sessions of solid 4e if not more...

D&D Isn't really all that suited to roleplaying in the first place. Whitewolf and Mutants and Masterminds both did it better. But mechanically fixing D&D doesn't make it any less suited to Roleplaying than 3.5. Honestly, every system is going to have some odd points of reference as far as realism goes, but from the sound of it, here's the big problem:

You state that it's harder to roleplay in 4e.

You also state that you've been roleplaying for a long time, so I'm going to assume you're pretty darn good at it anyway.

So even if you play 4e and CAN roleplay just as well as before, you could just as soon assume that it was by YOUR own roleplaying skill that you managed it. So honestly, I can't say anything any of us could say here could change your mind.

Once again: I say, give it a shot though, it IS fun...

Kabump
2008-06-06, 07:54 PM
I feel for you man, but give it up. Talking on this board about what's wrong with the changes made for 4th is like talking about the fact monks don't' completely suck. It'll get you nowhere because most people are too firmly entrenched in their own worlds to care.

What you consider "wrong" with the changes, people like. They are just merely offering their opinion, the same as the people offering theirs on why they dont like it. There is no right and wrong answer for everyone, just the individual.

Swordguy
2008-06-06, 07:58 PM
Damnit, I wanted to say this. Why did you have to post 40 minutes before me? ;)

Because the point was self-evident, but evidently had to be made anyway, since people would rather blame the system rather than the way it's run.

And because I'm awesome. :smallbiggrin:

For anybody who feels they "ruined" D&D...

{Scrubbed}

Thrud
2008-06-06, 07:58 PM
I think that 4e is brilliant really. I like it lots. To me it's an improvement from 3.5, and a game that's more fun and focused at playing the game and not things like looking for loopholes in the rules or constructing characters out of playing context with bizarre combinations.

Some will get it, some won't, but it surprises me that someone who's played the game since day one like the OP doesn't see the great improvements of this version.

The WoW comparison that detractors wield is already getting old and lamely inaccurate.

I would just like to point out here, that I didn't realize that anyone else had made that particular analogy. That was just exactly my opinion upon my first skim through the rules. The fact that others have come up with it independantly of me is kind of interesting, however. . .

O.K. thanks guys, I at least have opinions from people who did like the game now. There's a couple of Cons coming up soon. I can give it a try then.

Kabump
2008-06-06, 08:07 PM
Like I said, I have been playing D&D since those four little white booklets came out, and this is the first time I have felt that the game took a major step backwards. That is why I will leave it for a con. At Con's you can roleplay the game with pregenerated characters and get a feel for the game without spending $100+ on something that, for the second time for me in 30+ years of gaming, really doesn't seem worth it.


Tommorrow is "Worldwide D&D" day. Find a local hobby/game shop participating and you can run and and play a premade, quick adventure to get a feel for it.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 08:31 PM
'Coz in our games, just like life, situations are not perfect. He was a Magic user who taught at the academy and he was thrown in with the group so that they had to make the best of it. And what could the wizard do? He could create a house for the party to live in each night, send messages back to the king, create excellent illusions to confuse enemies (no, we didn't allow the stupid illusion fireball that is just as real as the real thing if you just believe in it) open/lock doors, summon in horses, carry large amounts of stuff on floating disks, jump long distances, climb on walls, find objects, create light, fly, detect magic, etc, etc, etc. . .
They had to make the best of it? they couldn't find another wizard, who'd, you know, help them kill their enemies, in addition to detecting magic and making light? They were forced on pain of death to bring this guy along?


Where is all that with the new powers? They seem to be relegated to the rituals. Which means anyone with a high intelligence, a ritual book, and some components can do them all. Kinda takes the mystique out of the wizard.
In 3.5, the wizard can do anything and everything. In 4E, he can't do everything, and other characters can also do some of what he can do (but the wizard, with his class abilities and high Intelligence, will still be better at it).
This is an improvement.

Most of what you mention is covered either by the wizard's at-wills or by rituals.

Easy access to flight was seriously detrimental to the game. As soon as a wizard got Overland Flight in 3E, almost no monster that couldn't itself fly was a serious threat to him. And with Alter Self, he could fly occasionally (not all day long, but consistently) from level THREE on!


Sorry, my fault, that is where my discussion of many house rules comes into play. All my players know that if they write up a character backgound with details in it that I can weave into my game, that they will be rewarded with things like having non class skills being made into class skills, or extra skill points, etc. Again, this is why I am asking for people's opinions. 3rd ed I have added in house rules that fix many of the problems you have mentioned. I have never had a single player play a barbarian in any of my games, so I can't tell you how I would mod them out to make them more skill friendly, but I have had a nobleman fighter who due to an excellent and detailed background that inculded hereditary enemies (other nobles out to get him) and a family curse, who was awarded the ability to use various skills like diplomacy, knowledge [heraldry] etc, as class skills, along with some bonus skill points at early levels.
So you give him class skills and "some bonus skill points at early levels". He's still going to struggle keeping those skills high, and he's going to have to abandon Jump and Handle Animal to do it. This is a far cry from him being able to take Skill Training for any skill that fits the character.


Sorry, guess we are at an impass here, then. Coz I don't believe I can do it as easily in 4th ed. I do believe that I CAN do it. I can roleplay in any game, even Macho Women with Guns and HOL, to name a few of the sillier games I have played. But that does not mean that they are games that are geared to making roleplaying easier. I will wait till I hit a gaming con and get to play it to give my final opinion, but as far as I can tell the game is so focused on combat that it might as well be (o.k., if you hate the MMORPG analogy) a tabletop miniatures battle game. Which again, doen't mean I can't roleplay in it. Hell I've roleplayed in BATTLETECH which IS just a tabletop miniatures game. It is just a lot harder, and people with more experience will be much more capable of doing it than people without.
What makes it a lot harder? 4E isn't any more focused on combat than 3.5E or AD&D (heck, AD&D barely HAS rules for noncombat things). 4E has the excellent skill challenge mechanic.

What about 4E makes roleplaying difficult? It seems like you're stuck on the fact that you get something called "powers" as you level up, when they're really no different from class abilities. You haven't given any examples of what makes it difficult. I certainly have no difficulty doing it; why should I be?


Like I said, I have been playing D&D since those four little white booklets came out, and this is the first time I have felt that the game took a major step backwards. That is why I will leave it for a con. At Con's you can roleplay the game with pregenerated characters and get a feel for the game without spending $100+ on something that, for the second time for me in 30+ years of gaming, really doesn't seem worth it.
This is probably the worst thing you could do. Playing at cons often ends poorly, because the game has to be set up and run to appeal to a group of ranom gamers, which means it'll be shallow, and it won't give you nearly the freedom you'd normally have.
You can try 4E without spending $100+ on it. If you're not willing to have the group all chip in for Keep on the Shadowfell, or play with someone who does have it, or download it illegally off the internet, or anything else, then okay, don't get it. I certainly agree that buying a game you don't think you'll like is silly.


And since I happen to know that the street date for the release was today, if you have played them in any real depth already you must be one of the playtesters, which by definition means you are going to biased towards the game. (Either that or you got a hold of the game illegally, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt here.:smallbiggrin:) Still, that doesn't mean that I don't value your opinion, and I thank you for giving it. But the simple fact that you CAN roleplay in a game doesn't mean that it is suited to it.
Buy.com shipped the PHB early. A number of people got it that way. I also played Keep on the Shadowfell. And, yes, illegal downloading is a possibility--the point is, people have played the game.

4E is at least as suited to roleplaying than 3.5, and maybe more, thanks to characters being more versatile skill-wise, the effects skills have being more reasonable than 3E (no longer can Diplomacy make your blood enemies Friendly towards you!), and skill challenges being an excellent mechanic for all kinds of non-combat encounters.
You haven't said anything that would show a reason to believe otherwise.

tumble check
2008-06-06, 08:36 PM
I'm going to more or less side with Thrud here, quoting him when he said:


But I don't think anything in 4th ed was an attempt to make a game that was a direct response to problems with 3rd ed, or RPGs in general.

This isn't so much because I'm crying like a baby because 4e isn't like 3.5e, but I dislike how WotC decided not to take an evolutionary approach with the series like they more or less have in the past.

There are a plethora of things I love about 4e, and at least an equal amount of things I dislike. I take the stance that many people do: that 4e has inched closer toward the WoW camp in certain ways. Whether WotC meant to do this, you can't deny that even the mention that there are now "roles" in the party does not help.(btw, apparently "controller" really means fireballer. I LOL'd when I saw the wizard spell "frostburn", thinking that they started running out of names to call elemental evocation spells) I believe WotC did this quite explicitly, since WoW has energized and literally created a new cohort of gamers of all ages and genders around the world, and, if you were a WotC suit high-up in his office, wouldn't you recognize the opportunity to migrate your new game edition in a direction toward something with which many new (and old) gamers are now so familiar? Don't the simplified mechanics also make it more accessible? I'm not saying that this was an engine for 4e, but I don't think it can be discounted.

The next 4e comparison is to a wargame like Warhammer, or even a tactical RPG like FF Tactics, which several people have echoed in this board. It is true that classes now have a plethora of interesting options now, but at the expense of overall consistency. The fighter is very sticky, being able move his opponents around the battlefield or also preventing their movement... but so can the warlock, and the rogue, and several other classes. There remain few truly unique things that certain classes can do. I agree that much of the class-based features in 3.5 needed huge revamps and extensions, but many of the powers in 4e are so wildcard that I don't feel they mechanically lend a consistency to each classes's overall direction.

And don't get me started on how the vast majority of power effects only last one round. These short-sighted powers also lend to how capricious and whimsical the classes are. The turn-by-turn strategy that comes about from these powers screams of wargaming and video game RPGs.

And so much of the work done on 4e is done on in-battle mechanics that out-of-rounds encounters seem sorely neglected. This may not be true, however it certainly appears as such. I really don't care about the new sequential skill system, it's still using a severely simplified skill system OVER AND OVER. Again, it may not turn out too bad, but on paper, it really sucks.

There are quite a few things I love about 4e. I love that they stripped the Ranger and Paladin of their spells, I love that Fighters can do things now. I love how Wizard's aren't overpowered. I love how saving throws are now operated by static numbers like the AC. I ADORE the absence of the full attack.

If you couldn't tell, I haven't played it yet, however I've been waiting its arrival and devouring leaked info whenever I could. I stupidly expected it to be "3.7e", but that's not what we got. I'm not completely discouraged. I'm going to play it soon, and I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully, alot of my skepticisms will be allayed.

wodan46
2008-06-06, 08:49 PM
As a deep lover of tactical games of all kinds, I tried playing Keep on the Shadowfell with another of a similar philosophy. He controlled all 5 of the characters, while I DMed around and controlled the monsters.

The combat mechanics worked well, even if we misread of misinterpreted some of them. However, without roleplaying, the game felt stale and unreal. Keep on the Shadowfell was meant to be played using 5 people who are roleplaying, not 1 person who is commanding their heroes like a squad of seasoned green berets that accurately gains combat advantage on each kobold and picks them off. If I want to play a tactical wargame, I will play a tactical wargame. 4e is still a roleplaying game through and through, just one with refined combat mechanics.

If anything, 4e encourages roleplaying more than the past versions. Its combat system is refined to the point that no classes are imbalanced, and players gain little from min-maxing as there is much less clutter and confusion. As a result, new players are likely to spend less time munchkining and more time actually roleplaying. So I would say 4e has plenty of redeeming quality.

As for the Skill system, training a Skill gives +5, which is equivalent to 10 levels. In other words, a Paragon Tier Wizard is as good at making jumps with the Athletic skill as the Heroic Tier Fighter is. Pity that he's playing in a campaign where the important jumps all have the DC appropriate for Paragon now. Skill training makes a huge difference, and decides whether or not you can make the important Skill checks of your tier, not the one below it that shouldn't concern any of the mighty heroes by this point.

quillbreaker
2008-06-06, 10:22 PM
This is a horrible attitude!
This is the horrible bit. Really?! What kind of players are you playing with?! Maybe they buy social skills because they want to have a charming, diplomatic character, or a good liar, or a really intimidating character. Just like they buy combat skills because they want to have a character who's good in a fight, stealth because they want to have a character who's stealthy...

Meanwhile, the ability to play a character who's any better at social things than his player goes out the window...

I don't need rules to adjudicate social interaction. They detract from the actual social interaction. The character isn't in the numbers. Why replace or interject die rolling into the roleplaying bit at all? It just gets in the way. Roleplaying is what you sat down at the table to do, not check whose bluff vs sense motive is higher. Why do you want to replace the roleplaying with the die rolling?

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 10:22 PM
This isn't so much because I'm crying like a baby because 4e isn't like 3.5e, but I dislike how WotC decided not to take an evolutionary approach with the series like they more or less have in the past.
They almost had to. 4E is very tightly designed to be good at what it does, and it couldn't have acheived that if they hadn't been willing to work on that from the ground up.


There are a plethora of things I love about 4e, and at least an equal amount of things I dislike. I take the stance that many people do: that 4e has inched closer toward the WoW camp in certain ways. Whether WotC meant to do this, you can't deny that even the mention that there are now "roles" in the party does not help.(btw, apparently "controller" really means fireballer. I LOL'd when I saw the wizard spell "frostburn", thinking that they started running out of names to call elemental evocation spells)
If you think that 3E does not have party roles, you must never have heard someone say "we need a tank" or "we need a trap guy" or "we need a healer". MMORPGs stole the idea of roles from D&D, not vice-versa!

As for controlling, wizards have plenty of control spells, such as Sleep, Color Spray, Web, and the like. Area damage is one of their shticks, too--but then, the best way of controlling minions is killing them, and area damage has always been a wizard thing.


And don't get me started on how the vast majority of power effects only last one round. These short-sighted powers also lend to how capricious and whimsical the classes are. The turn-by-turn strategy that comes about from these powers screams of wargaming and video game RPGs.
This is one of those "fixing a specific problem" things. Note that abilities like Stunning Fist already only stunned for one round; meanwhile, wizard abilities like Fear only had to work once to basically totally take their target out of the fight! That wasn't a good thing!

Geode
2008-06-06, 10:38 PM
I found the "Races and Classes" (http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Presents-Classes-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786948019/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212807920&sr=8-1) book to be a big help in understanding how 4.0 ended up being what it is. It includes some useful explanations of what they were thinking when they were designing the new edition and what they were hoping to accomplish. Some things were not what I expected, for example the reason for including Tieflings but not Aasimar as player characters (they had trouble getting the celestial-type player character to "sizzle bright enough to hold their own against Bald Mountain lightning storms" as they put it (referring to Fantasia), and so are still working on it.) Beyond the explanations and discussions, it really seems to give some insight into the personalities of the design team and how they worked through some of the decisions. Can't say I like a lot of the changes but it helped to see what they were thinking.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 10:41 PM
I like it. Enough said.

Devils_Advocate
2008-06-06, 10:47 PM
But I don't think WoW, or 4th ed, is very friendly to the whole concept of roleplaying. I look at it now and feel like it is all going to be about setting up the table for the next combat, and forget about all that other stuff in-between the fighting, coz it isn't important. Lets just focus on the killing part.
I don't see how any edition of D&D, or indeed World of Warcraft, either prevents or demands plenty of roleplaying and interaction outside of combat. (And of course, combat and roleplaying are not opposites (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).)

Thrud
2008-06-06, 11:04 PM
I think I have figured out where my instinctive dislike comes from. In 2nd ed. the lousy skill system was based directly off the attributes. And that was the very best change that was made from 2nd to 3rd ed. Now it has gone back to being directly based on the attribute. That was what was so great about 3rd. To compensate for a lower attribute, you could throw more skill points at it to compensate. Now that you can only 'take' the skill once, that is somewhat removed. Because you didn't have to have godly levels of skills to be competent in them. Perhaps it is because of my desire to reward good backgrounds with extra skill points and class skills. Many of the skills would function adequately at a 15. Others in the 20s. And those were achieveable numbers even with a crappy attribute, because it wasn't DIRECTLY based on the attribute. The attribute gave a nice bonus, but you were not totally hosed by having, say, a 9. And THAT is what I hate. That is the loss of versatility that I couldn't put my finger on, and that is why it feels like a step backwards. Because in 3rd the difference between a 10 and an 18 was 4 points. And now the difference is 8 points. And that is not a gap that can be reduced by allocating skill points over time, continuing to put in the points through perseverence, when the naturally gifted person didn't need to keep putting the points in after a while. And so training could eventually catch up to talent, and surpass it.

All the powers and stuff are cool and all. But to me, skills will always be the heart of a game. That was why I loved 3rd ed. That is why I love Hero system, and that is why I love Storyteller system. There are powers and such other interesting geegaws and doodads in those games, but without the skills you are not much to look at. That's why I seriously doubt that I will ever feel the same way about 4th. I'll give it a try, but now that I directly see what was niggling away at my mind, I am not sure it'll ever be a first choice game system for me.

Thanks, everyone, though, for giving me your opinions, and never devolving into a flame war. (I know the mods stop that sort of thing, but still, I am quite happy to be able to have an actual discussion without some teenager deciding to devolve into swearing.)

tyckspoon
2008-06-06, 11:09 PM
And THAT is what I hate. That is the loss of versatility that I couldn't put my finger on, and that is why it feels like a step backwards. Because in 3rd the difference between a 10 and an 18 was 4 points. And now the difference is 8 points. And that is not a gap that can be reduced by allocating skill points over time, continuing to put in the points through perseverence, when the naturally gifted person didn't need to keep putting the points in after a while. And so training could eventually catch up to talent, and surpass it.


Two things: 4E's attribute scale is still the same as 3E's (at least everything 4E I've seen to date says so), and 4E makes it very easy to acquire a modestly good attribute or to raise one later if you didn't already have it. Between the racial bonuses and more common level-based increases, there's not really a mechanical excuse for having a bad stat for a skill you want to be good at. (Roleplay reasons remain valid, of course.)

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 11:22 PM
I think I have figured out where my instinctive dislike comes from. In 2nd ed. the lousy skill system was based directly off the attributes. And that was the very best change that was made from 2nd to 3rd ed. Now it has gone back to being directly based on the attribute. That was what was so great about 3rd. To compensate for a lower attribute, you could throw more skill points at it to compensate. Now that you can only 'take' the skill once, that is somewhat removed.
In 3E, skills were based directly on attributes. If you maxed out Diplomacy with a Charisma of 8, and I maxed out Diplomacy with a Charisma of 18, I would always be five points ahead of you. You *couldn't* throw more skill points at it to compensate--you had exactly the same cap that I did!
In 4E, skills are based in attributes in exactly the same fashion, except there's no "interemediate stage" between untrained and trained. If you have a Charisma of 8, and took Diplomacy as a trained skill, and I have a Charisma of 18 and did the same, I will always be five points ahead of you. Period.
Meanwhile, if you took diplomacy as a trained skill and I didn't, we'll be even. If you take Skill Focus, you'll be ahead--and spending a feat on skill training/focus is much less painful now.


Because you didn't have to have godly levels of skills to be competent in them. Perhaps it is because of my desire to reward good backgrounds with extra skill points and class skills. Many of the skills would function adequately at a 15. Others in the 20s. And those were achieveable numbers even with a crappy attribute, because it wasn't DIRECTLY based on the attribute. The attribute gave a nice bonus, but you were not totally hosed by having, say, a 9.
You're not hosed by having a 9 in 4E, either. It has the exact SAME effect on a character who took the skill as trained: he's got a bonus that's 5 less than the one with an 18.

I think you very much DID have to have maxed-out skills to be competent at them--Diplomacy has flat DCs, but it's notoriously gamebreaking (being able to turn Hostile people Friendly as a full-round action? A little much, don't you think). Meanwhile, things like Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device, Open Lock, all of these had to be maxed out, because the higher level you got, the higher the DCs you had to make got.

Tumbling and Casting Defensively were about the only things you could do with a 15, and you wanted a minimum of +14 in those so you couldn't fail, so you'd effectively be maxing it out anyway.


You can still reward good backgrounds with class skills, or trained skills, or Skill Focus feats.


And THAT is what I hate. That is the loss of versatility that I couldn't put my finger on, and that is why it feels like a step backwards. Because in 3rd the difference between a 10 and an 18 was 4 points. And now the difference is 8 points. And that is not a gap that can be reduced by allocating skill points over time, continuing to put in the points through perseverence, when the naturally gifted person didn't need to keep putting the points in after a while. And so training could eventually catch up to talent, and surpass it.
No, now the difference between a 10 and an 18 is... four points. Take Skill Training and you're head, unless the other guy does too, because he's naturally talented and you're not.

Thrud
2008-06-06, 11:23 PM
Two things: 4E's attribute scale is still the same as 3E's (at least everything 4E I've seen to date says so), and 4E makes it very easy to acquire a modestly good attribute or to raise one later if you didn't already have it. Between the racial bonuses and more common level-based increases, there's not really a mechanical excuse for having a bad stat for a skill you want to be good at. (Roleplay reasons remain valid, of course.)

You see, that is what I don't like. Having to raise an attribute in order to raise a skill.

Skyserpent
2008-06-06, 11:28 PM
You see, that is what I don't like. Having to raise an attribute in order to raise a skill.

I don't see how that's so odd...

During the sports seasons when I want to get better at doing most athletic things, I make it a point to work out and get stronger so that it improves my overall game. You should work at being stronger if you want to be better at athletics, you should work on being smarter if you want to be better at math. Mental and physical exercises all help performance no matter the skill. It makes sense to me...

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 11:35 PM
There is still Skill Focus for +3 to a skill.

Jerthanis
2008-06-06, 11:53 PM
Alright, I'm back and I'm ready to make my next point.

In most RPGs I tend to play aggressive, abrasive characters. People who pick fights with those they probably should avoid. My character and I always jump at the arrival of combat, ready for some derring-do...

...then by the third round, I'm ready for it to be over so I can get on with the game. And this happens in every system. Almost all the time, there's no decisions to be made once blades are drawn, just dice to be rolled and more dice to be rolled. With the many-round spell durations of 3.5, and the cripplingly bad penalties associated with quite a few status effects, a fight was almost always decided WELL before all the dice were rolled out. I remember running an encounter with some ogre thralls and some mindflayers, and the party cast Stinking Cloud into the room. When every enemy but one failed their save, the battle was over... but it still took them a half dozen rounds and more than a half hour to clean them up. The Round-to-round tactics of 4th edition means that spell would provide a huge early-battle boon to the party, but the battle is far from finished.

You see... playing Keep on the Shadowfell, I criticized the game early on for throwing too many combats at you. I still have that criticism, but something truly amazing happened one night when I was on the fifth round of a combat with some no-name goblins. We were maybe 15, 20 minutes into the battle... and I was still having fun! I looked at my dice in astonishment, as if some strange metamorphosis had occurred there. Later that night, we were halfway through the dungeon, had done some exploring, lots of fighting, some roleplaying... and I knew we had to end the session at 10:30 so one of our players could wake up in the morning. We had gotten so much done it had to be almost time to wrap up, so I kept avoiding asking what time it was. Finally, the DM asks, someone looks at their watch, "9:40" he says.

Great, we can keep playing! That's the moment 4th edition won me over for good and for real.

THIS is why I consider 4th edition a huge improvement on previous editions, and is not, in fact, a departure from classic D&D feel. (Almost) Everything I hate about D&D is still lovingly preserved... but several things I never realized I hated about every RPG I've played has been taken out.

Devils_Advocate
2008-06-06, 11:56 PM
OK, Thrud, you don't quite seem to understand how 4E's skill system works. I'm not quite sure what your complaint is, so let me try to address this from both angles.

If you're complaining that characters can't become competent at skills without focusing on them: They do. Automatically. 4E characters get to add half their level to a lot of things, skill checks included. In 3E, you could be a 20th level dungeoneering adventurer who is routinely ambushed by monsters and still not have learned to spot things any better than when you were level 1. You weren't just worse at Spotting than someone focused on it, you were as bad at it as someone with no experience. That makes about as much sense as it would if Wizards didn't get more hit points and better Fort saves just for leveling up.

If you're complaining that there's no longer a significant difference between someone who focuses on a skill and someone who doesn't: There is. It's just no longer the difference between potential success and certain failure, or certain success and potential failure, depending on the DCs involved.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 12:01 AM
I had a similar moment to Jerthanis' in the game I am DMing.

We were running the first big boss battle in KotS, in the cave, and I managed to TPK the two PCs, because they were using 5th-level characters instead of 6th, and I had calculated the Fighter's HPs a fair bit lower than they were supposed to be by accident.

So the two players made two new 6th level PCs to run the encounter again, and we ran it... and it was just as much fun as the first time. The same battle! It was amazing. In 3e that could have been mind-numbingly boring or supremely annoying, but the combat in 4e is so engaging that I loved every second of it.

Later we had to re-do another battle where the Halfling Slinger made his Encounter triple attack and scored two crits and rolled a 19 on the third attack (he needed a 17 to hit), with sneak attack on all of them, to drop the Wizard unconscious with one volley. Then the Guard Drakes finished him off...

Bearonet
2008-06-07, 12:17 AM
THIS is why I consider 4th edition a huge improvement on previous editions, and is not, in fact, a departure from classic D&D feel.

I'd say it is--in previous editions of D&D, combat is definitely not as fun or quick!

ghost_warlock
2008-06-07, 06:30 AM
Okay, I actually have the book now so maybe my opinion will start to count fo something. :smallwink:

Re: World of Warcraft.
Because I've heard this comparions so many times, I have to chime in and say that D&D 4e doesn't feel like WoW. It feels much more like a sexed-up Final Fantasy Tactics - combat-focused and grid-based. Even some of the 4e abilities, such as one of the gnome racials, could easily be a copy-paste job from FFT. I loved FFT so this isn't a problem for me.

In no particular order:

Things I like

Ability score generation - being someone who tends to roll stats like this: 14, 11, 11, 10, 6, 4; I like point-buy ability generation. I just feel it's more fair. I prefer the 4e stat costs to the ones offered in the 3e DMG and will probably use the 4e ones from now on in either 3e or 4e games. I'd probably up the points to 28 (from 22) or so, though. (I like high-powered games.)
Flexible Ability Dependencies - Having the option between using Int or Dex (etc.) for a variety of stats is a massive improvement. I think this method better emulates the ability to do the same sorts of things in different ways. (I think Initiative should be a choice between Dex/Wis rather than just Dex, though.)
Paragon Paths - sort of built-in prestige classes. A very good and cool idea for fulfilling the role of a class while allowing further specialization and differentiation between characters of the same class. Also, the entry requirements have been stripped down to bare-bones (when there are any) so you don't get weird requirements such as a 3e character needing Point Blank Shot to enter the Invisible Blade PrC.
Epic Destinies - PrC that aren't class-restricted and that anybody could conceivably take. Very cool. (Just wish there were more...oh splat, splat, splat :smallfrown:).
Splitting the Eladrin from the Elves - I've felt for a while that the elf race tries to do too much (Nature Boy vs. Sophisticated Magi). I think this is part of the reason why there's ~1500 elven subraces out there.
The new hp system - looks like 1st-level commoners won't be slaughtered by housecats anymore.
Collapsed Skill List/Trained Only Skill Uses - 3e had too many useless skills that should have been tucked into other umbralla skills. 4e accomplishes this well.
Warlocks - I think they did an especially good job on this class. Much more accurate than the 3e version.
At-Will/Encounter Mechanics - No more "OOM!"


Things I Don't Like

Low-Magic Setting - This is admittedly 100% stylistic personal preference. Some people like their fantasy/D&D low-magic, I like it high-magic. 4e's balancing of the classes and handling of magic items makes the default setting for the game low-magic (or, at least, lower-magic that 3e). This is great for some groups but inconvenient for the types of games I like to play/run.
Everyone Uses the Same Mechanic - Other people may like this, but I liked Vancian Preparation vs. Spontaneous Casting, Power-Point Manifesting, and ToB-style Maneuvers to give these types of abilities a completely different feel. People have said that the 4e classes play very different but I'm still skeptical that At-Will/Encounter/Daily [Ability] vs. [Defense] abilities will continue to deliver this difference in style over time, especially after splatbooks start rolling out and you get Ki warriors that use melee [Wisdom] vs. [Will]. Eventually, I think it'll come down to the core, gained at 1st-level, Class Features that'll end up setting everyone apart rather than the Class Powers that'll accumulate in splatbooks. It's too bad that all some classes have for Class Features are Powers.
Too Restrictive Multiclass System - I understand why the system won't allow true multiclassing until 10th, but I don't see any problem with allowing characters to choose more than 1 multiclass feat (other than that they're better than any of the other feats).
All-Or-Nothing Skill System - Some people hated assigning individual skill points, but I liked that system because I could make characters that weren't Really Good or Really Bad at a particular skill. Skills in 4e are either trained or untrained and the amount of bonus points being trained adds means that untrained skills are likely never going to be comparable to trained skills...if that makes any sense. :smalleek: Admittedly, the characters in this system aren't going to be as bad at untrained skills as characters in 3e without any points in a give skill will be, but mediocre is the new suck for 4e. Furthermore, if you want to be decent at a skill that's not on your list of Approved Class Skills, you have to blow a feat. Which means that if a cleric of Melora wants to be trained in the Endurance skill, she'll have to blow her feat to do so. Lame. Even within the list of Class Skills to choose from, I don't feel that characters can train in enough.
Where's My Gear? - Equipment chapter is very bare bones for armor, weapons, and non-magical gear.
Swapping Powers - Why would a fighter have to forget Griffon's Wrath to learn Giant's Wake?
Too Many Cleric/Paladin-Only Divinity Feats - There are 11 Divinity feats, are clerics the new Batman?
A Few Other Minor Nitpicks/Stuff That Will Supposedly Come Out In Splat - no druids, no mind-control, some other stuff not really worth investing too much time in, here. :smallsmile:


The Bottom Line
I'd play 4e, assuming I could find a group near me that's willing, but I think I will always prefer 3e for the high-magic setting/feel.

JackTR69
2008-06-07, 07:33 AM
At the beginning, I didn't really like how 4th edition looked. It seemed like it would be too restrictive, and railroad every class to the same destination. The I took a step back to look at 3.5 and realized that it was already working that way, so 4th couldn't do anything but make it better. In 3.5, there are a plethora of different classes to choose from, with different ways to play these classes. As a result, 80% of the builds you COULD make, you SHOULDN'T make because your character wouldn't even come close to living up to the rest of the party. Looking at 4th, all the classes actually BALANCE. What an amazing concept. So even though it seems you are more restricted on the surface, you end up with more VALID options to choose from. To me at least, most of the other points are a matter of opinion, and are also minor enough that they can be fixed with minimal homebrewing.

wodan46
2008-06-07, 08:02 AM
What are you talking about with regards to Channel Divinity Feats? From what I understand, those are the new version of Domain spells, and each Cleric/Paladin has access to 1, maybe 2 of them, no more.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-07, 08:21 AM
What are you talking about with regards to Channel Divinity Feats? From what I understand, those are the new version of Domain spells, and each Cleric/Paladin has access to 1, maybe 2 of them, no more.

Since you have to worship the specific god to gain access to them, I'd assume you can only have one (but I haven't found a rule specificially stating this yet).

Essentially, these feats are your Domain Spells. The reasons I don't like them is that 1) it seems wonky that clerics/paladins have spells listed in the feats section, 2) they require more explanation/take up more room than any of the other Heroic Tier feats (beside, possibly, Power Attack), 3) since they provide an entirely new Power, these are a lot better than any of the other feats besides the muticlass feats (and, possibly, Expanded Spellbook).

Really, this didn't bother me that much, it just seemed a bit jarring to me.

tumble check
2008-06-07, 08:47 AM
awesome first post, ghost_warlock

two_fishes
2008-06-07, 10:39 AM
I have been reading through the 4e PHB and I have to agree with the impression that it's all fight, fight, fight. 3e was like this, too, but 4e is even more-so. Mechanics for resolving social conflicts seem to be little more than an afterthought. I flipped to the Diplomacy skill and found that it was little more than "roll a d20 to see if you get what you want." I had heard a rumour that there were going to be interesting mechanics for resolving social conflicts, so this was a disappointment to me. It mentioned that the roll might be a part of a Skill Challenge, so that might be what I was hoping for. But, to my disappointment (again!) the Skill Challenge rules are NOT in the PHB, they are in the DMG (wtf?!)

4e seems to have taken the 3e philosophy that fighting is the most detailed and interesting method of conflict resolution and gone even further with it. So I'm gonna play, but what I'm gonna want really fun, exciting combat set pieces with lots of opportunies to use all the fun, fighty powers that are listed on my character sheet. I'm not going to worry too much about talking to the NPCs since it seems like DM fiat is still king in that area.

Bryn
2008-06-07, 10:52 AM
I've never really understood where the 4e=MMORPG idea comes from.

What is an MMO? An MMO is a game where...

The player plays in a persistent game world containing thousands or even millions of players. This is obviously not true in 4th Edition.

All NPCs are controlled by the computer. As a result of this, their actions are extremely simplified, and they behave according to set rules. As 4th Edition is controlled by a GM, this is not true, and NPCs can be as intelligent or unintelligent as he likes.

As a continuation of the previous point, friendly NPCs will stand still to give quests to players. Not true in 4th edition, for the same reason as above.

Conversation options with NPCs are restricted to certain options as it would be impossible to generate original conversations, especially for every one of the thousands of players. In 4th Edition, NPCs say whatever the DM makes them say, and players can say whatever they want too.

Enemies exist for the express purpose of being killed. They will stand in a certain area and roam around it until they are attacked and killed, sometimes attacking nearby players. No such restrictions exist in 4e.

A player will expect to fight many hundreds of enemies, all of whom are exactly the same and behave in the same way depending on their group, and all of whom spawn at random. In 4e, one can expect to fight fewer enemies and for these enemies to exist in a way that does not break verisimilitude.

Combat is real time, as the game world must progress for all players at once, and they cannot wait for one person to complete their turn. In 4th edition, combat is turn-based.

Activities in the game world for players are restricted to either killing things, or doing other activities such as crafting which improve the player's ability to kill things. The actions that characters take in 4th Edition are dependent on what the GM lets them do, but the mere fact that skill challenges and rituals exist means players have more options than your standard MMO character.

In combat, placing is only important insofar as you are in range to use your abilities. Flanking, positioning in the environment, and the like are not considered. However, in 4e, positioning is relevant and can have an effect on the outcome of the battle, especially when it comes to characters such as the Rogue who use combat advantage to great effect.

If they are present, actions such as climbing, swimming etc. are limited. In 4th Edition, the characters can climb any surface the DM allows them to, etc.

The abilities that a character can use depend on the amount of time since that ability was last used. In 4th edition, powers are based on encounters and days, both times that have no relation to MMORPGs.

A standard tactic in combat, at least at low levels, is to pick a certain ability that is powerful and use it repeatedly. In 4th Edition, the ability can only be used once in that fight if it is an encounter power, or once per day (a timescale completely nonexistent in the reasonably fast-paced MMO, since characters can't skip time by resting). However, there is some similarity between the powers system, in that everyone gets powers.

Due to the large numbers of players, it is important that characters are heavily optimised in order to compete with others. In 4e, a group can be as optimised or unoptimised as you want it to be.

The presence of many other players means that there will be numerous other heroic adventurers simultaneously fighting monsters, far more even than NPCs. In 4e, the players are the only group unless the DM feels the need to add another party of adventurers; there will certainly not be hundreds of fellow heroes.

The game world will not change as a result of the players' actions, except in some cases, and even then it follows certain rules and only a few states can be seen. In 4e, there is nothing stopping the characters having a large effect on the game's world.

Interaction with the community uses a text-based format which needs the players to type quickly, resulting in colliqualisms and chatspeak; on roleplaying servers, conversations will progress slowly due to the text-based communication. While this effect is lessening due to the increase in microphone headsets, emote actions are also limited by the game. 4e allows interaction to proceed at whatever rate the players want.

An MMO is presented using computer graphics, which will almost never be as impressive as what a player can imagine themselves (although modern graphics can create some stunning images, these appear mostly in single-player games and multiplayer games with few players, due to the problems of graphical synchronisations). 4e appears as well as the players imagine it, and the art in the book is more detailed than any real-time MMO can be.

I am open to anyone pointing out that I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, 4e is very much a tabletop game rather than an MMO. The only similarity that I observe is the powers system, but the presence of a powers system only means that 4e has a powers system and certainly will not result in any of the negative aspects of the MMORPG (an obnoxious community, dull level grinding, repetitive fights)

The people who compare 4e with a tabletop wargame might have more justification, but personally I feel that 4e is still very much a tabletop RPG, albeit a tabletop RPG in which there is a detailed combat system (which is what DnD always was).

Rutee
2008-06-07, 11:08 AM
I am open to anyone pointing out that I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, 4e is very much a tabletop game rather than an MMO. The only similarity that I observe is the powers system, but the presence of a powers system only means that 4e has a powers system and certainly will not result in any of the negative aspects of the MMORPG (an obnoxious community, dull level grinding, repetitive fights)

The thrust of your argument is correct. Listing exceptions to specific points would be fitting on TVTropes, but not in an actual discussion. A big one you missed is gear and build reliance, though build reliance is going down as more and more MMOs are taking the sensible option of adding respec options (4th and 3rd ed's retraining rules are pretty clearly inspired by these). The other hting is that most MMOs only need you to be as optimized as a DnD game for most things. Sure, if you want to raid, or PvP Well, you need to be optimized for it, but you can get through the lion's share of the game without it, in a lot of new ones. (In some games, this isn't true, natch.)

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 11:36 AM
Since you have to worship the specific god to gain access to them, I'd assume you can only have one (but I haven't found a rule specificially stating this yet).

Correct, unless you worship multiple gods, you can't take more than one Channel Divinity feat at the moment. If a future splatbook releases more of them per god, then you would be able to take more than one.


Essentially, these feats are your Domain Spells. The reasons I don't like them is that 1) it seems wonky that clerics/paladins have spells listed in the feats section, 2) they require more explanation/take up more room than any of the other Heroic Tier feats (beside, possibly, Power Attack), 3) since they provide an entirely new Power, these are a lot better than any of the other feats besides the muticlass feats (and, possibly, Expanded Spellbook).

Really, this didn't bother me that much, it just seemed a bit jarring to me.

The Channel Divinity class feature lets you choose amongst several options to use as a 1/encounter power. Taking a Channel Divinity feat simply gives you one more option on that list. You can only Channel Divinity 1/encounter, period.

Note that Paladins also get Channel Divinity, and so are eligible for those feats too.

wodan46
2008-06-07, 11:50 AM
Channel Divinity feats do not give you more powers. You can only use one Channel Divinity power per encounter, Channel Divinity feats just give you more choices of what to do with it, which is a reasonable price to pay. I like it, in part because that means you can use Turn Undead effectively as a Cleric should, but if there are no Undead around, you can use the Channel Divinity for something else, or just a +1 bonus to something.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 11:57 AM
Channel Divinity feats do not give you more powers. You can only use one Channel Divinity power per encounter, Channel Divinity feats just give you more choices of what to do with it, which is a reasonable price to pay. I like it, in part because that means you can use Turn Undead effectively as a Cleric should, but if there are no Undead around, you can use the Channel Divinity for something else, or just a +1 bonus to something.

Agreed. It seems not at all overpowered, rather quite balanced.

Also note that a Paladin of Pelor can take their Channel Divinity feat to pick up Turning similar to the Cleric's.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-07, 11:59 AM
Correct, unless you worship multiple gods, you can't take more than one Channel Divinity feat at the moment. If a future splatbook releases more of them per god, then you would be able to take more than one.

The Channel Divinity class feature lets you choose amongst several options to use as a 1/encounter power. Taking a Channel Divinity feat simply gives you one more option on that list. You can only Channel Divinity 1/encounter, period.

Note that Paladins also get Channel Divinity, and so are eligible for those feats too.

Even as limited as Channel Divinity is, the feats provide a completely new option for use rather than modify a specific use of it (as most of the other class feats do). They're a bit better than most of the other feats, but I'm not going to lose any sleep nitpicking over this. :smallcool:

The jarring bit was finding what amounts to Divine Spells in the Feats section. They seemed misplaced, but I guess they really wouldn't fit anywhere else as they are available to both clerics and paladins (and, presumabley, all future characters with the Divine power source - I expect Channel Divinity to be a common feature to this power source).

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 12:11 PM
Even as limited as Channel Divinity is, the feats provide a completely new option for use rather than modify a specific use of it (as most of the other class feats do). They're a bit better than most of the other feats, but I'm not going to lose any sleep nitpicking over this. :smallcool:

They are good feats, I'll grant you that. At least, some of them are. The Melora's Tide and Raven Queen's Blessing CD feats are the two best, but even then they aren't that strong. The others are pretty mediocre.


The jarring bit was finding what amounts to Divine Spells in the Feats section. They seemed misplaced, but I guess they really wouldn't fit anywhere else as they are available to both clerics and paladins (and, presumabley, all future characters with the Divine power source - I expect Channel Divinity to be a common feature to this power source).

Pretty much. It's entirely possible that it will be a feature of all divine power source classes.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-07, 08:52 PM
Computer games are all about hacking and slashing your way through hordes of enemies until you reach the goal at the end. D&D has always been about creating a character and interacting with the DM's world. Not just killing it.

I seem to see this opinion popping up everywhere, and I have to say that I find it monstrously misplaced.

Essentially, the logic of it is that because 4e rules are geared towards combat, therefore playing the 4e will be combat-centric. The problem is, it doesn't work that way.

Roleplaying is about playing your character, that works without a single rule backing you up. If you see a goblin in 4e, you can still try to talk to it rather than killing it, you just won't have the rules telling you exactly how it happens.


Moreover, I, for one, find roleplaying skills to be extremely stifling. In D&D 3.5, you could think up an excellent, clever thing to say, but if you're a fighter who had to dump-stat CHA and didn't invest in diplomacy, the system says "You can't play your character".


Furthermore, I find that most of these opinions seem to be, "I looked at the rules, dislike it, and will never play it."

You need to actually play the system to determine that RP doesn't enter into it.


I'm sure I'll be dismissed as "entrenched in my opinion", but frankly I think 4e is a solid system.

Bleen
2008-06-07, 09:00 PM
I call bogus on all 4ed=WoW arguments.

I mean, if you have to draw a MOREPIG comparison, City of Heroes minus spandex makes more sense to me.

Seriously people get it straight

Autumn Blooming
2008-06-07, 09:03 PM
WTF alignment changes?!

Gamgee
2008-06-07, 09:14 PM
The general consensus seems to indicate it is streamlined. The people who like DnD 4e call it streamlined the people who hate DnD call it dumbing down and they are essentially the same thing.

So now you either hate it or love it and I think this edition is on the fence with the population as I have seen an equal amount of do not like to like posts... maybe just a TAD more on the do not like side.

So if you want a simpler but faster game go play 4e if you want more details go 3.5e and get on with your life. Actually everything is essentially the same since the first dungeons and dragons because the point is to role play the rules are only there to set limits on the roleplay so your not a god with other gods terrorizing.

So in essence it has been the same game with variations and changes since it started. DnD will always be DnD.... the funny thing is there will always BE balance issues or simplicity. I bet once we hit the simplicity peak we will start decending into the complexity valley and wind up with another original DnD called dnd10th edition but it will essentially just be the original game.

Meanwhile wizards is sucker punching everyone with each new edition as it is just slight changes to the same god damn ****ing game!!! It is like every damn model of car you see every year where they slap a new number add a minute ****ing change and call it new when it is essentially the same thing as last year.

The differences only become noticeable everyfew generations so this means upgrade to 5th and not fourth because if you stay with 3.5 then it will be a signifigant enough change to be considered different but heres the trick its still a roleplaying game. Then those who complain about 5th being to complicated will stay with 4th and then upgrade to 6th when they dumb it down again!!!!

So in essence all of this is freaking moot shut up and go play whatever ****ing DnD you want to go play because while there may be vast differences from 1st to fourth the game is essentially a role playing game!!!

Feels like I am taking ****ing crazy pills some days!!!!! I will probably upgrade to 5th when it comes out just for the record.

Rutee
2008-06-07, 09:16 PM
I call bogus on all 4ed=WoW arguments.

I mean, if you have to draw a MOREPIG comparison, City of Heroes minus spandex makes more sense to me.

Seriously people get it straight

Hm.. I dunno. Gear is still a fairly big deal, it's just not, you know, your character.. hm..

Indon
2008-06-07, 09:25 PM
Hm.. I dunno. Gear is still a fairly big deal, it's just not, you know, your character.. hm..

Lord of the Rings Online, perhaps - there's strong gear, but you only encounter gear reliance at the very end of the game, or in competitive environments, and obviously the latter won't happen and by RAW, you're encouraged to quit a 4'th edition character when it hits max level. LoTRO even models the stronger tactical emphasis through Fellowship Combos. (Edit: Plus, it's fantasy themed)

You just have to get rid of the racial penalties, probably a couple other details.

Bleen
2008-06-07, 09:50 PM
Hm.. I dunno. Gear is still a fairly big deal, it's just not, you know, your character.. hm..

Enhancements, yo. Especially since the Invention system.

(Edit: Of course, you know, that's if we had to make a comparison. Really, there's a huge enough difference between 4e and any MOREPIG in that a human DM is far more adaptable than a few lines of code, let alone the other things that set it apart)

Rutee
2008-06-07, 09:52 PM
Enhancements, yo. Especially since the Invention system.

Inventions! Which everyone complained turned CoH into WoW! But yeah, I s'pose if all your Enhancements were Inventions, the analogy would fit. Especially since they have nerfed movement that makes the fanbase go into NERD RAGE too

ghost_warlock
2008-06-07, 09:54 PM
So now you either hate it or love it and I think this edition is on the fence with the population as I have seen an equal amount of do not like to like posts... maybe just a TAD more on the do not like side.

Hmm... I'd like to see actual polls/statistics on this. I'm not a big fan of 4e, either, but I think more people I've talked with like it than hate it. But it could be confirmation bias on either/both of our parts - you like to be on the side you think of as 'right' and I like to feel like a persecuted minority! :smalltongue:

Indon
2008-06-07, 10:03 PM
Really, there's a huge enough difference between 4e and any MOREPIG in that a human DM is far more adaptable than a few lines of code, let alone the other things that set it apart)

Well, when you bring in that fact, you aren't talking about the RAW anymore, now are you - you're talking about the players. And a good player can have fun playing almost any system. A good player can DM a fun game with almost any system.

So when it comes to talking about the system, we can only talk about what the system promotes. Not how people can expend extra energy on fixing it.

After all, just because D&D 3.5 is run by an adaptable human DM doesn't mean it's not broken and unplayable.

Fanatic-Templar
2008-06-07, 11:35 PM
I think I'll start with some background, so people can understand my perspective here.

One thing to know is that I and my group have consistently played very low levels. By that i mean that we rarely got to level 3. Part of it was because many of us like to accomplish great things with only our wits, a bit of rope and a vial of alchemists' fire. MacGuyver is our patron deity. Another is that we like to regularly change characters as new ideas come boiling through. Maybe we have attention deficit disorder or something.

Another thing is that I play a generalist wizard. I hear that at high levels, they can do everything, but at low levels, they can't. They can only do anything. Which is why I love them so. I started playing in 2nd Edition AD&D and was the only player in our group with the dedication to wizardry to continue playing characters with no valuable skill outside magic, 1 spell per day (two if you specialised, but I never did) and 2, 500 xp needed to get to level 2 (Rogues needed half as much, and Clerics 1, 500.) Where I'd get a second spell.

When 3rd Edition came out, most of us staunchly declared that we wouldn't switch. We'd spent so much time learning the rules to AD&D, why would we learn a whole new ruleset? What fools we were. When I realised that I'd not only get a bonus spell for high intelligence, but also a handful of cantrips, a normal experience table and proficiency with an actual weapon (the crossbow) it was the beginning of a whole new world. And I hadn't even figured the possibilities of the Scribe Scroll feat yet.

So I was pretty optimistic about 4th Edition - if it improved half as much as Third Edition did, then it was surely worth it. So I got it yesterday and have been reading through it. I won't be running a game soon, unfortunately, because I'm currently DMing a campaign in 3rd Edition - my players are 4th level (a new record) and excited about their new feelings of omnipotence. I can't let them down now. And the setting really wouldn't convert well to 4th edition - which brings me to my observations about the game.

- It seems a lot more heroic. As I've said before, the 'glass man syndrome' which afflicted young characters in earlier edition was significant factor in our gameplay style. My settings and houserules have, as I've gained experience as a DM, been driven ever more into making the game grittier, to the point that in my current setting, horses are considered treasure. Magical items are practically impossible to obtain. I'm going to have to dramatically change my play style to convert to Fourth Edition.

- The comparisons to World of WarCraft amuse me because I've recently started a game based on that RPG. I've never played World of WarCraft, but I have played WarCraft III, so I know enough about the lore. The system is pretty much D&D 3.5, to the point that it doesn't even have a mana system, I've had to houserule one from scratch, because spell preparation was fine for D&D, but does not fit in WarCraft. It has been loads of fun so far, and my player (It's a solo campaign for a friend who has moved to France, over the internet) is now on his way to Stromgarde, unknowingly in the employ of the Kirin Tor.

Frankly, I would sooner draw a comparison to WarCraft II. On paper, all the abilities look very similar, just different flavour. I hope this is an illusion and once I actually play, it will be revealed as such, but for now it seems that 'balancing' has eliminated individuality instead.

- As I said, I used to play a generalist Wizard. Sure, you could cast Magic Missile and pretend to be useful in combat (Oh! Look at me, I can do as much damage as a 12 str. rogue with a throwing dagger! Once per day!) or learn Sleep and actually be useful in combat (so long as you weren't facing Undead, or Elves or something) but really, most of it was non combat stuff. Illusions and charms, feather fall and spider climb (that was boosted to lv2 in 3.5, because apparently WotC realised how awesome it was) disguises and alarms and so on. In comparison to that, I feel like I'm being forced to play an Evocation specialised Sorcerer (Yes, I know that's not really true, but consider where I started from...) Sure, it's great that you can now be useful in combat even at low levels, and I'm sure other players will enjoy you not upstaging everyone at higher levels, but it seems like I've lost my favourite character.

I wonder if I could build a wizard class that's good at everything except combat? We'll see when we get there.

- Despite these complaints, I have to say the game looks great. I like the progression in 'saving throws' - in Second Edition, they were completely stupid, being completely independent from the enemy's skill, one of the worst facets of the game. Third edition was a great improvement, with caster-dependent DCs and victim-enhanced saving throws. 4th Edition seems to be even better. Now it works exactly like an attack roll. Even better, you get a choice of two abilities for your defense modifiers, which gives you much better flexibility.

- While I complained of hit point increase earlier, I have to say that the decrease in hit points per level sounds promising. No more lv20 dwarf barbarians jumping from the Empire State Building into a sea of acid and getting out barely hurt.

There's plenty of other stuff too, but these are the things that came to mind first. Overall, it looks very promising. I can't wait to play a game.

Ominous
2008-06-08, 12:44 AM
I finally played 4th edition for the first time, as well as looked over the books, and I'm unimpressed. Furthermore, I see where the MMO comparisons are coming from; though, I think that's an innaccurate comparison. What has happened was described at rpg.net.


Having just finished reading the first three core books, it strikes me that Wizards has decided to target a very specific audience with this edition, people who like the "game" aspect of role-playing games.

That's not a bad thing, mind you. Most role-playing games attempt to appeal to one type of player of another. Nobilis, for example, is wonderful if you like deep immersive storytelling, but would suck if you dig tactical combat.

D&D is now, more than ever, a miniatures skirmish game, and a decent one at that. And yes, they have chosen to emulate online game experiences like WoW or Everquest. But that isn't so terrible either, as a lot of people play them.

D&D is great for people who think of characters in terms of "what they can do" rather than "who they are." The idea of character roles, for example, encourages you to design a character with a combat role in mind (Leader, Striker, Defender, whatnot). The very specific, detailed Powers for each class change the game from a general "I jump into the midst of the Goblins and swing my sword!" to "I use 'Dance of Steel'" or "I use my 'Reckless Strike.'" The way you feel about this depends on why you game. I suspect a great many people are going to love it.

Some of us don't, and that's fine too. If you like more free-form "D&D" there is still Classic D&D, Labyrinth Lord, or Castles & Crusades. I think Wizards went the more "game" route to make their product different from such games.

Is it a bad game? Of course not. Will it appeal to everyone? Nope. But then again, no edition of D&D ever did.


That's the "problem" with 4th edition: it's in the gamist corner on the GNS triangle, more so than any other edition of D&D. I'm a simulationist/narrativist, so this system is not what I'm interested in, and I'm guessing that those that are complaining about simplification or it being like MMOs are actually unhappy with the fact that it's gamist.

Rutee
2008-06-08, 12:59 AM
Actually, 4th ed is G/N, in that order. It only discards the veneer of Simulationism it formerly adopted. The "Game" is only as important as third ed.

This is why I hate GNS theory as espoused by whats his name. Very rarely is anything one or the other.

Incidentally, as someone who's played MMORPGs for.. oh my god I feel older now. Okay, having played them for the last 10 years or so, I promise you, 4e shares almost as much with MMOs as 3rd ed. The similarities are only cursory, and limited. 3rd ed's disgusting amount of gear reliance honestly places it far closer then any superficial connection that either of them have.

Ominous
2008-06-08, 01:17 AM
Actually, 4th ed is G/N, in that order.

Yes, and? I never said that 4th edition was only Gamist. I only said that it was more Gamist than previous editions.


It only discards the veneer of Simulationism it formerly adopted. The "Game" is only as important as third ed.

Huh? Your statement makes no sense. I never said that 4th edition ever adopted a "veneer of Simulationism".

I disagree with the statement that 3rd Edition was just as Gamist as 4th Edition. Just looking over the wizard power list shows me that's not true. Almost everything the wizard has is focused on combat. Here and there there are spells that a "real-life mage" that wasn't focused only on combat would have, but not to the extent that 3rd Edition had them.


This is why I hate GNS theory as espoused by whats his name. Very rarely is anything one or the other.

I never claimed that RPGs were only one or the other either. That would be similar to assuming that I, as a proponent of free market capitalism, am an anarcho-capitalist. That would be a foolish assumption for anyone to make. Yes, I believe in free market economies, but I don't think that the private sector is the best place for national defense, road paving, etc. The same is true for GNS. No RPG has only one or even two of those three. Thus my original assertion stands, 4th edition has more gamist qualities and less simulationist qualities than previous editions.

Gamgee
2008-06-08, 01:23 AM
Okay I apologize for the rant above about the versions ect. I was being very very dumb. There IS a big difference between this and 3.5. Actually after spending hours upon hours looking at the book I have come to my personal decision that 4th edition sucks monkey balls. I regret downloading them and even reading them. The heretical knowledge will now never be gone from my mind... I feel tainted... for reading that book.

Not to mention it looks horrible rare art, and a basic power point design on every ****ing page that alone is enough to drive me mad....

Bearonet
2008-06-08, 01:30 AM
Not to mention it looks horrible rare art

Yeah.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6057/theifchicamg1.jpg
That's awful.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3272/dwarfclericla1.jpg
Terrible.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7125/dwarfwizardrz6.jpg
HORRIBLE.

Rutee
2008-06-08, 01:32 AM
Yes, and? I never said that 4th edition was only Gamist. I only said that it was more Gamist than previous editions.
Implication, m'boy. Though you must enjoy being wrong just the same.


Huh? Your statement makes no sense. I never said that 4th edition ever adopted a "veneer of Simulationism".
Ah. More clearly, "Dungeons and Dragons in previous editions posessed a veneer of Simulationism that it happily discarded with its many abstracted rules, but pretended to carry, in its tone."



I disagree with the statement that 3rd Edition was just as Gamist as 4th Edition. Just looking over the wizard power list shows me that's not true. Almost everything the wizard has is focused on combat. Here and there there are spells that a "real-life mage" that wasn't focused only on combat would have, but not to the extent that 3rd Edition had them.
Hint: Read Rituals. They're not just Wizard Material anymore.



I never claimed that RPGs were only one or the other either. That would be similar to assuming that I, as a proponent of free market capitalism, am an anarcho-capitalist. That would be a foolish assumption for anyone to make. Yes, I believe in free market economies, but I don't think that the private sector is the best place for national defense, road paving, etc. The same is true for GNS. No RPG has only one or even two of those three. Thus my original assertion stands, 4th edition has more gamist qualities and less simulationist qualities than previous editions.

Oh, it certainly has fewer sim qualities. I won't debate that. It's picked up Nar. in their place. And GNS is only useful as a vaguely accurate label either way. But.. then again, just because their creator is irresponsible with them doesn't mean everyone is.

Recaiden
2008-06-08, 01:59 AM
I actually like 4th edition. From everything i heard about it before the release, it sounded terrible. In a fit of insanity, i bought it anyway, and I found out that it is actually pretty good. I feel that it streamlines rule-based gameplay (not necessarily options, although there are less), allowing more time for what the players want. Although the first time i played a lot of time was spent being confused because of changes from 3rd edition. The Core of D&D is the roleplaying provided by the players. The simpler rules, for me, make that easier. Roleplaying was important to me, but in 3.5 the combat system was so cumbersome that it took up too much of gameing time.
As some have mentioned, what edition or even game doesn't matter in terms of an ability to roleplay. For many, the system that is easier to use is preferable so that there is more roleplaying. (although this may not occur, depending on the players). I roleplayed equally well in 1ed, 1.5 that we made up, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th, but I find 4ed to be a better system than 3 in most respects.
One thing that i liked the most was a "moment" similar to those below where combat continued to be fun and adaptable, with all things not set in stone at the begginning. That is the most important part of a combat system.

Also, what are "gamist", "GNS", and "Nar."?

Ominous
2008-06-08, 02:04 AM
Implication, m'boy. Though you must enjoy being wrong just the same.

How was it an implication when I clearly stated that it was "more so than any other edition of D&D"?

Being wrong would require that this discussion be about something objective. It's about opinions, something subjective, and there is no right or wrong.


Ah. More clearly, "Dungeons and Dragons in previous editions posessed a veneer of Simulationism that it happily discarded with its many abstracted rules, but pretended to carry, in its tone."

Better; though, I disagree. Even the illusion of simulationism adds to the simulationist feel. If a group has deluded themselves into thinking that the rules model reality better than other system's, then it is more simulationist than if it removed that illusion altogether. However, I disagree that the previous editions had only the "veneer of Simulationism".


Hint: Read Rituals. They're not just Wizard Material anymore.

Hint: Buy Arcana Unearthed for 3rd Edition and read Incantations, which were a whole lot better.

Furthermore, that small list of rituals doesn't make up for what was lost by a long shot.


Oh, it certainly has fewer sim qualities. I won't debate that. It's picked up Nar. in their place. And GNS is only useful as a vaguely accurate label either way. But.. then again, just because their creator is irresponsible with them doesn't mean everyone is.

I'll disagree that it picked up Narritivist qualities. I'd say it probably lost some. I haven't played with it enough to evaluate it thoroughly, nor do i intend to. I played it enough to realize that it's not for me.

I also disagree with it being a vaguely accurate label. It's all relative, but I have found that I can easily place one system with regards to another using GNS. Using that information and the knowledge that I prefer Simulationist and Narrativist games, I can much more easily determine which systems I will enjoy.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. I only posted to state that what I think people who claim that 4th edition is similar to an MMO are actually trying to say that they disagree with how gamist the system has become.

TheGreatJabu
2008-06-08, 02:07 AM
Well, I've tried to read most of the previous posts just to be fair, but once we start getting into the ol' point/counterpoint duels I kind of drift in and out. Anyway, here's my thoughts after toying around with a few baby-games in the new system.

1. Reading the "chapter" on the classes is an overwhelming experience for me. That's a heck of a lot of powers, and just when you think you're out, the next class's list starts. Sure, the spell list was long in ol' 3.5, but it was politely tucked away at the back of the book where I could hide from it until absolutely necessary.

2a. 4th seems to emphasize "playing your type" pretty heavily as far as classes go. Making a fighter with more Dexterity than Strength, or a rogue whose highest attribute is Strength really seems to hurt you combat-wise when it comes to your powers. Since there's no such thing as the 3rd edition-version of Base Attack, everyone's attack modifiers are based off of half their level, items, proficiencies (when appropriate), and their critical attribute modifier. The later inclusion of a feat similar to Weapon Finesse would easily fix that though, so until then I'll need to content myself with stealing powers from other classes than my primary.

2b. Heck, for all I know, that power-swapping IS 'the new Weapon Finesse'. In theory, you could use that to make a wizard who can be a decent sharpshooter with a bow, or a cleaving rogue. It's just not feasible until you start hitting those paragon levels, though. Kind of a drag, but not game-ruining.

3. Does anyone else think it's lame to give halflings the same base speed as humans? As a humanoid who stands at a height greater than four feet, I find this to be a completely unreasonable claim, and I hearby challenge anyone of smaller stature to a footrace to prove my stance on the topic.

4. Is it just me, or does it seem like there are several powers in various classes that perform similar functions, and on many occasions the lower-level power seems to be BETTER than its higher-level counterpart? I'm not simply confusing Daily powers with Encounter powers either, so I'll cut that guess out for you right now. Example:


Cleric: Level 23 Encounter Power
Haunting Strike. Attack - Strength +2 vs AC. Hit - 4[W] + Str mod damage. Next attack roll you make against target gains +2 to hit.

Level 27 Encounter Power
Punishing Strike. Attack - Strength +2 vs AC. Hit - 4[W] + Str mod damage. The end.

Things like that seem to happen from time to time in all of the classes. Think they'll get errata'd or something?

5. Oh, and there's no longer any charm spells of any kind, and fear effects only last for one round before your foe (or character) comes to their senses and asks themselves "Hey, why did I run sixty feet this direction again?". That's not the good, old-fashioned 'just-soiled-myself-from-dragon-fear' fear that we all know and love! The fact that every type of spell or effect that was previously just mental now has to deal damage and cause some type of random status effect until the end of your next turn is kind of lame.

Apart from that stuff, the only thing I'd really bellyache about 4th edition for is the fluff for the races. It seems that EVERYONE has to have a sob-story for their background. The Dragonborn have a fallen empire. The Tieflings have a fallen empire. The Elves got mad at the Eladrin and left Feyworld. The mighty human empire collapsed. The dwarves were slaves of the giants until they rebelled a while back. Heck, only the half-elves, halflings, and eladrin don't seem to be carrying a boatload of boo-hoo in their racial backstory. Again, I realize that has no bearing on 4th edition as a game - I'm just stating my opinion, here.

Oh, and I get confused when looking at the illustrations in the book because I keep forgetting that the Dragonkind and Tieflings are 'good guys' now. I know, I know; it's fantasy racism. I blame my Dragonlance upbringing. However, just because they don't LOOK like normal people doesn't mean that they don't have feelings too. :smalltongue:

Vaskre
2008-06-08, 02:13 AM
I read about the first page of this thread, and I'm going to stop there and simply states my opinions on 4E.

First, a little background about myself:

I've been playing D&D since 3E. I played AD&D, but I lacked people who took D&D seriously enough to play with consistently, and thus I didn't *really* get involved until 3E. That being said, I've been in various roles as DM and Player throughout 3E and 3.5E.

Fourth edition is quite interesting to me, I've already played two sessions (as a DM) and been involved with helping my players learn the new system. I don't have everything down yet, but I'd say my grasp on the core mechanics is 'solid.'

If I have to say anything about 4E, I'd say... it's fun. It's just honest fun that I didn't really get to experience much in 3.5E. The game has taken a step down from being a munchkin game into a more casual experience.

A few of my players were VERY hardcore power gamers in 3.5E, and 3.5E was a system that catered to them with it's vast plethora of PrC's, feats, and base classes that could be used to 'break the system.' In 4E, they haven't done that. I doubt it's because of a lack of ability on their part, but rather that the system is more streamlined and balanced than before.

Anything involving rolls isn't painful anymore, and doesn't bog down the game and kill your suspension of disbelief because you get sucked into the rollplay. My gamers have actually taken an interest in my plot for once, and in their own characters. I attribute this partially to the fact that 4E isn't solely based around character advancement and breaking the game, and more about developing a character that you actually want to play and connect with. (If you don't believe me, grab a copy of the Player's Handbook from a friend. Wizard's practically holds your hand through developing at least a basic background, character tendencies, quirks... If you follow the basic guidelines for a character, you'll actually come out with something special.)

That has changed the game for my players, and myself. My players actually want to get together and D&D now. My players keep poking me about "When's the next session going to be ready?" Instead of me asking them if they want to play and getting the usual "meh" responses. I think part of that, at least for them, is the fact that they're doing more than just building characters now. They've actually been drawn into roleplay, and farther away from rollplay.

That being said, I do believe 4E does an extremely good job of also catering to those who enjoy rollplay more than roleplay. There is an extremely solid battle system in the game, which is very balanced and gives everyone something to do. No one feels useless. There's no more of this 3.5, "The Wizard casts Maximized Fireball / Wail of the Banshee / Powerful Spell X and the encounter ends." that leaves everyone feeling deprived of fun from the combat.

Honestly, I came into 4E feeling pretty badly about it, and looking at the books, my feelings got worse. I looked at the end game powers and thought, "This all looks the same." But it wasn't until that I actually sat down with my players and gave it a chance that I knew I was wrong. There's a very big difference between a warlock and a wizard, a very big difference between a fighter and a paladin, a rogue and a ranger... Every class has a distinct feel, and options that let you build your character in a way that lets you suit your roleplay. Do you want to be the cleric who's up front with the warriors, wielding shield and morningstar and banishing the darkness in Pelor's name? Or would you rather be the pacifist in the back, tending to the wounded and only invoking the powers of your deity when absolutely necessary? 4E lets you be either.

The best advice I can give you is to tell you to borrow a copy of the system from a friend. Give it an honest try or two, and see if you can get a feel for the game. If you don't, what is the worst that happened? You wasted a few hours but learned that once and for all you simply don't like 4E? You've really not got much to lose, in my opinion, and honestly, you lose even more if you don't give 4E a chance.

Just my two coppers.

P.S.
Before anyone asks, yes, I did register specifically to make this post.

Edit: Oh, one thing I really found interesting, is build options particularly in more hybrid classes. I found it very interesting that I could build a paladin around charisma and still be 100% effective in combat without having to sacrifice roleplay concepts.

Rutee
2008-06-08, 02:14 AM
Better; though, I disagree. Even the illusion of simulationism adds to the simulationist feel. If a group has deluded themselves into thinking that the rules model reality better than other system's, then it is more simulationist than if it removed that illusion altogether. However, I disagree that the previous editions had only the "veneer of Simulationism".
Hit Points. Levels. Classes. These are core concepts to the game, and are completely unknown ICly. Veneer.


Hint: Buy Arcana Unearthed for 3rd Edition and read Incantations, which were a whole lot better.
I'll pass on Monte Cook.


Furthermore, that small list of rituals doesn't make up for what was lost by a long shot.
Good. Objectively speaking, from an in-character standpoint, if your character was not a wizard, or sorceror, or some other caster, they were stupid. Magic could solve everything. Trivially, at that. Now not being a wizard might actually be a good IC decision.


I'll disagree that it picked up Narritivist qualities. I'd say it probably lost some.
You can't lose what you don't have. Notwithstanding that measuring time in dramatic terms is a pretty sure sign, as is, as is rather clearly stating out loud that narrative intentions are what the game is there to support.



I also disagree with it being a vaguely accurate label. It's all relative, but I have found that I can easily place one system with regards to another using GNS. Using that information and the knowledge that I prefer Simulationist and Narrativist games, I can much more easily determine which systems I will enjoy.
Mm. Perhaps I'm jaded after seeing those morons on the forge, since "Narratavist" means "What the guy who runs the Forge likes".


I'm not going to argue with you about this. I only posted to state that what I think people who claim that 4th edition is similar to an MMO are actually trying to say that they disagree with how gamist the system has become.
You're probably right on what they mean, sure.

Ominous
2008-06-08, 02:14 AM
Yeah.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6057/theifchicamg1.jpg
That's awful.

Actually I think it is. I'm not an artist or an art critic, so I can't describe what it is I dislike about it, but I don't like it.


http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3272/dwarfclericla1.jpg
Terrible.

This one is OK.


http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/7125/dwarfwizardrz6.jpg
HORRIBLE.

This one is good.

I can't stand the artwork on the covers. I don't like any of the art by that particular artist. I didn't like it in Eberron, and I don't like it now. I wish there was more Lockwood artwork. I might buy the books just for that.


Also, what are "gamist", "GNS", and "Nar."?

GNS theory is a theory about RPG design. It stands for Gamism, Narritivism and Simulationism. Narritivism focuses on storytelling and plot, Simulationism focuses on verisimilitude, and Gamism focuses on more game-like qualities. If something is more Gamist, it focuses on speedy, more exciting, easier, etc. combat at the expense of verisimilitude and/or storytelling.

Serpentine
2008-06-08, 02:22 AM
I'm with the OP in his "D&D for Dummies" comment. There are some good things about it that I'll probably grab for my games, and it sounds like it makes for quicker encounter creation, but generally it looks pretty meh to me. Some thoughts on what I've seen/heard of it:
- Non-customisable skill points. What the hell? Skills were one of the quickest, easiest ways you could make your character distinct and interesting, and they've completely taken that away? Nuh-uh. The new skill groupings, on the other hand, I'll seriously consider adopting.
- Racial progression, good idea. Definitely will look more closely at this.
- Saves turned AC-style. Seems like the only difference is in who rolls the dice. Players like rolling dice, so in that regard I'd say it's a change for the worse, but on the other hand if they want to use save-inciting spells/abilities against enemies, they'll get to roll dice then... six to one and half a dozen to the other, really.
- Minions. A very good idea. If they don't matter except to be scary and soften up the heroes, don't bother keeping track of HP - if they're hit, they're dead, easy. Seems more of a "good DMing trick" than something rules-worthy, though, more common sense than brilliant new development.

I've heard that the combat mechanics are greatly improved, but I haven't looked at them so I can't really judge, except to say that if they really are that good, I'll probably grab 'em.

On the art, I had a look at some Monster Manual and PHB stuff, and an awful, awful lot of it seemed to be art from the 3.5 books, redrawn almost exactly the same but, say, shinier. I was really looking forward to seeing brand new art, and that was a real disappointment. Even in 3.5 books you could see different artists' interpretations of the same creature or character, and the rehashing of this art for 4th ed is just... disgustingly lazy.

Ominous
2008-06-08, 02:28 AM
Hit Points. Levels. Classes. These are core concepts to the game, and are completely unknown ICly. Veneer.

Abstractions have to be made for the system to work. Name an RPG that doesn't use any abstraction whatsoever. Now name an RPG that doesn't use any plot or storytelling whatsoever. Finally, how about an RPG without any verisimilitude whatsover. I can't think of any. An RPG system has to have all three or it won't work.


I'll pass on Monte Cook.

I meant Unearthed Arcana. My bad. Though, Monte Cook is great. I ditched 3.5 for Arcana Evolved, added in Tome of Battle, and topped it off with Iron Heroes. It made some fantastic homebrew.



Good. Objectively speaking, from an in-character standpoint, if your character was not a wizard, or sorceror, or some other caster, they were stupid. Magic could solve everything. Trivially, at that. Now not being a wizard might actually be a good IC decision.

I added incantations, Tome of Battle, sanity checks for wizards, power points for magic, and a slew of other home rules, and a fighter could go toe-to-toe with a wizard.


You can't lose what you don't have. Notwithstanding that measuring time in dramatic terms is a pretty sure sign, as is, as is rather clearly stating out loud that narrative intentions are what the game is there to support.

Of course 3rd Edition had Narrativist qualities. As I said earlier, all RPGs have all three elements. Stating that an RPG system doesn't have any Narrativist qualities is ridiculous. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you couldn't have a plot at all with the 3rd Edition rules?


Mm. Perhaps I'm jaded after seeing those morons on the forge, since "Narratavist" means "What the guy who runs the Forge likes".

Narrativism has to do with storytelling and plot. If the game sacrifices verisimilitude and game mechanics for greater storytelling and plot, than the system is Narrativist. Freeform Roleplay is extremely Narrativist. MUSHes and MUCKs are also extremely Narrativist. MMOs lack much Narrativist quality; though, some, such as Asheron's Call, do better than others.



You're probably right on what they mean, sure.

It's nice to see that we've reached an agreement on something.

TheGreatJabu
2008-06-08, 02:32 AM
Racial progression, good idea. Definitely will look more closely at this.


Hate to be a party-pooper, but I don't think racial progression actually made it into the PHB. Either it's coming in a future edition, another book (there are already frequent references to the next PHB they'll be producing in this book, which will include the barbarian, monk, ranger, and psionicists of some variety), or something, but in the PHB it is not. I had also been looking forward to that, sadly.

Ominous
2008-06-08, 02:34 AM
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I don't think racial progression actually made it into the PHB. Either it's coming in a future edition, another book, or something, but in the PHB it is not. I had also been looking forward to that, sadly.

I too was looking forward to it, but I didn't see it.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-08, 02:38 AM
- Non-customisable skill points. What the hell? Skills were one of the quickest, easiest ways you could make your character distinct and interesting, and they've completely taken that away? Nuh-uh. The new skill groupings, on the other hand, I'll seriously consider adopting.

Except, in practice, it was an ugly system. On certain skills, you had to keep them optimized just to have a hope of making DCs. On others, you could drop in a few and always make any meaningful DC. On others, you got no real benefit and were effectively wasting skill points to invest in.

The 'customization' it offered was a trap, luring people into customizing their character and then sticking them with innefectuality once they did.


This system, which also appeared in Star Wars Saga Edition, works much much better.


Also, if people don't want a game with no roleplaying, they need to learn to roleplay without the game rules doing it for you. If I want my character to be able to dance, I say he's able to dance. I shouldn't have to waste skill points on a 2 skill point per level class just to say something that doesn't give me any actual benefit.

This whole GNS paradigm doesn't apply to D&D, because the extent to which it is a narrative game is based on what your DM does.
The rules focus on combat/tactical gameplay because that is what a ruleset is necessary for. Social situations are the extension of roleplaying. Putting a ruleset on that only stifles roleplaying.

Rutee
2008-06-08, 02:45 AM
Abstractions have to be made for the system to work. Name an RPG that doesn't use any abstraction whatsoever. Now name an RPG that doesn't use any plot or storytelling whatsoever. Finally, how about an RPG without any verisimilitude whatsover. I can't think of any. An RPG system has to have all three or it won't work.
No, it doesn't. RPG systems can work just fine without verisimilitude (The system just doesn't have to care about realism. Most Console and Computer RPGs number among this), plot/storytelling (The system just doesn't have to care about plot/storytelling, which, well, you've read DnD3rd ed. That one pretty clearly doesn't). If anything, Gamism is the only universal constant.

That said, if you want to be simulationist, you do not begin in abstraction. You have failed at simulation if your starting point is a concept that is abstract, and left that way. Levels and Classes are step one or perhaps step 2 in determining anything in Dungeons and Dragons. They are the beginning, not the end. A system needs to abstract, but it places those Abstractions as far down the road as is humanly possible.

Here's another simple example, FYI:
Picks. The first job of a pick is to tunnel, not do damage. They can not feasibly break past stone's hardness.


I meant Unearthed Arcana. My bad. Though, Monte Cook is great. I ditched 3.5 for Arcana Evolved, added in Tome of Battle, and topped it off with Iron Heroes. It made some fantastic homebrew.
I have UA. I'm pretty sure I don't recall any Incantations, but the book is ruined so I can't look through it, sadly. I liked a lot of its variants.


I added incantations, Tome of Battle, sanity checks for wizards, power points for magic, and a slew of other home rules, and a fighter could go toe-to-toe with a wizard.
And this is in any sense core because? Seriously, that's a lot of work to do to make being a PHB class /a not stupid choice IC choice/. Do you know how fundamentally flawed that is?



Of course 3rd Edition had Narrativist qualities.
Really. Perhaps you can elucidate what systems in 3rd ed core are narratavist.


As I said earlier, all RPGs have all three elements. Stating that an RPG system doesn't have any Narrativist qualities is ridiculous. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you couldn't have a plot at all with the 3rd Edition rules?
What I can do with a system, and what the systems actually support, are completely different things. What systems in Dungeons and Dragons 3rd ed (Notably the core, because if you add enough splatbooks everything tends to gain more support. Well, not Sim, in DnD) explicitly exist for the sake of the plot? MnM 2e has Action Points. Exalted has Stunt Bonuses. WotG has Style Rolls. And those are just fast examples off the top of my head.


Narrativism has to do with storytelling and plot. If the game sacrifices verisimilitude and game mechanics for greater storytelling and plot, than the system is Narrativist. Freeform Roleplay is extremely Narrativist. MUSHes and MUCKs are also extremely Narrativist. MMOs lack much Narrativist quality; though, some, such as Asheron's Call, do better than others.
A system with an actual nar element has actual sections within it devoted to enhancing storytelling and the plot.

Rockphed
2008-06-08, 02:51 AM
The rules focus on combat/tactical gameplay because that is what a ruleset is necessary for. Social situations are the extension of roleplaying. Putting a ruleset on that only stifles roleplaying.

I am going to disagree with you about the Social Situations. Some people are, in real life, bad at actually crafting the speeches and dialog needed to get through social situations. On the other hand, some people cannot be less than perfect in such situations if they try. As such, it is good to have rules to resolve social situations. On the other hand, roleplaying social situations is much fun even though I am bad at it. Getting up and actually trying to give the speech is more fun than saying "I use Bardic Music to fascinate the people with my Perform Oratory. I roll a 32. Now give me my hoards of minions."

Serpentine
2008-06-08, 02:58 AM
Except, in practice, it was an ugly system. On certain skills, you had to keep them optimized just to have a hope of making DCs. On others, you could drop in a few and always make any meaningful DC. On others, you got no real benefit and were effectively wasting skill points to invest in.

The 'customization' it offered was a trap, luring people into customizing their character and then sticking them with innefectuality once they did.I suspect that much of the new groupings of skill points will deal with a lot of the wasted points problems. Anyway, I'll take an interesting, distinct character over one uberised at the expense of flavour any day, especially in my game where optimisation is incidental if in existance at all. I also try to reward creative use of skills, which I hope would encourage players to think more broadly on the application of these "wasted" skills.

Jerthanis
2008-06-08, 05:03 AM
I'll pass on Monte Cook.


I think I just fell in love with you a little bit. (j/k, I just hate most of the things Monte Cook is responsible for)



Good. Objectively speaking, from an in-character standpoint, if your character was not a wizard, or sorceror, or some other caster, they were stupid. Magic could solve everything. Trivially, at that. Now not being a wizard might actually be a good IC decision.

Yeah, D&D Magic has always broken the Donkey rule. Everything and everything was 10 times easier to do with magic than without. Any economy which accounted for the capacity for magic would shatter instantly. Now, in 4th edition, the fact that most spell effects require powerful reagents which make these elements less cost effective than producing the results without the aid of magic, it makes some amount of sense that the world is still stone-and-mortar castles and farming village style medieval life. In some cases it'll be faster and more efficient to have a ritual on hand. Most of the time people can do well enough without. Makes perfect sense to me.

I also agree about 4th having a shift towards narrativism, but I really have nothing more to add on to that, so...

Lyinginbedmon
2008-06-08, 05:19 AM
My general opinion of 4E is the same as virtually everyone I know's:

"Oh god, oh god, we're going to murder them with fire"

50-70% of it is trash, almost a completely new game system in and of itself. D&D Lite, perhaps, good for introducing new players or for a very quick laugh in a short lunch break, but definitely not a D&D system. Hail to the 3.5, baby.

They'd already solved quite a few issues that they've now trounced over. For example, Vancian casting getting your wizard down? Pick a Reserve feat from Complete Mage and then act like an intelligent person and save a spell to use it! (The diviner in our group likes to keep a teleport on hold for this purpose). Dead Fighter levels letting that Bugbear toss you around? Why not use a Warblade or a Swordsage!

The remaining 50-30% of it is add-on material, the kind of stuff they should have put in new sourcebooks, like rituals, healing surges, the fighter redux etc.

Kabump
2008-06-08, 09:42 AM
My general opinion of 4E is the same as virtually everyone I know's:

"Oh god, oh god, we're going to murder them with fire"

50-70% of it is trash, almost a completely new game system in and of itself. D&D Lite, perhaps, good for introducing new players or for a very quick laugh in a short lunch break, but definitely not a D&D system. Hail to the 3.5, baby.

They'd already solved quite a few issues that they've now trounced over. For example, Vancian casting getting your wizard down? Pick a Reserve feat from Complete Mage and then act like an intelligent person and save a spell to use it! (The diviner in our group likes to keep a teleport on hold for this purpose). Dead Fighter levels letting that Bugbear toss you around? Why not use a Warblade or a Swordsage!

The remaining 50-30% of it is add-on material, the kind of stuff they should have put in new sourcebooks, like rituals, healing surges, the fighter redux etc.

And here the argument is again! Comparing 4e core to 3.5 w/ splat. In order to be fair to both systems, you can only compare core to core, because no one knows whats going to become of 4e once the splat starts arriving. I understand its difficult to do sometimes, especially if your someone like me new who only played 3.5 for a few months before 4e came, and so splat books were very much ingrained in how you played. However it can be done! And am I the only one who likes BOTH systems? I honestly dont think one is any better than the other, they both have their good points and bad points. Its all a matter of sticking with what works for you. However I CANNOT understand when people say 4e makes roleplaying harder, that argument just holds NO water in my opinion. Roleplaying is what you make of it, yes rules can help in tricky situations, but just because they lack specific rules doesnt mean roleplaying is any harder. My 2cp.

tumble check
2008-06-08, 09:44 AM
GreatJabu,


Your points 4 & 5 of one of your previous posts comprise some of my biggest criticisms of 4e.

How the hell they can make an edition of DnD without enchantment, I'll never know.

Fawsto
2008-06-08, 09:48 AM
My only grief about 4E are the new races... Somehow they made D&D look a lot like medieval Star Trek... :smalleek:

But everything else seems fine. More simple. You character is based on himself in terms of power. Item, Feats and etc are complements now. Something you add for falvor. Of course there are some very good Items and Feats, but your real power comes from your Powers (does it sound dumb? I guess so).

Play 4E for a small adventure. Go for 3 or 4 levels. Use the mechanics. Try it, and I am sure you will find something to your liking.

Serpentine
2008-06-08, 09:48 AM
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I don't think racial progression actually made it into the PHB.Forgot to say this before: Aw spoot. :smallfrown:

Indon
2008-06-08, 10:36 AM
I too was looking forward to it, but I didn't see it.

Yeah, same here.


Except, in practice, it was an ugly system. On certain skills, you had to keep them optimized just to have a hope of making DCs. On others, you could drop in a few and always make any meaningful DC. On others, you got no real benefit and were effectively wasting skill points to invest in.

You pretty much nail the problem, friend - that each skill was wildly different in usefulness, and DC's were not remotely uniform.

That problem has absolutely nothing to do with using a point-based skill system or a trained/untrained system such as 4'th edition uses. You could use a point-based system for skills just fine when you have a good set of skills for it, and there is a plethora of systems that do exactly that (and often even more expansively).

So, no, the customization wasn't a 'trap'. Not remotely. And again, we see an instance of Wizards making the same mistake as you have - failing to identify the specific problem and take appropriate action, and as a result, scrapping a feature of the system to correct a previous error.


This whole GNS paradigm doesn't apply to D&D, because the extent to which it is a narrative game is based on what your DM does.

Dude, you're exactly saying that 4'th edition does absolutely nothing for the narrative. That's equivalent to saying 4'th edition is not the least bit narrativist.

Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are about a game system having mechanics to support that aspect of the game.

Some narrativist features found in games include:
"Story"-oriented mechanics such as Virtues in Exalted.
Trope-facilitating mechanics such as chase scenes in 7'th sea, or (dare I say it) minions in 4'th edition.

Personally, I don't think 4'th edition is more or less narrativist than 3.x. 3.x made big strides with the establishment of the encounter as a game concept, and 4'th edition has just run with that.

TheGreatJabu
2008-06-08, 11:03 AM
Forgot to say this before: Aw spoot. :smallfrown:

You don't have to be 100% dismayed, at least. There's a few feats that you can only select as a member of a certain race, whose sole function is to boost one of your racial bonuses/powers/whatever. That's kind of like progression, but you're having to pay for it. Feats are a lot more abundant than they used to be for all classes, so it's not a heart-wrenching inconvenience to "burn" a few feats on something anymore.


GreatJabu,

Your points 4 & 5 of one of your previous posts comprise some of my biggest criticisms of 4e.

How the hell they can make an edition of DnD without enchantment, I'll never know.

I had practically forgotten what my 4th and 5th points were - I just typed up the whole thing, then went back and added in numbered topics just to make it look more clean. :smallredface: It's possible they'll add enchantment spells later - in the section that discusses status effects, they DO have a status called "Dominated" right now. I just haven't read a class power that imposes that status yet. Keep your fingers crossed for the future! As far as the occasional slip-up of balance between higher and lower level class powers, they'll probably clean that up in the next few months.

Star Wars Saga Edition needed a decent bit of errata'ing when it was first released; we can't reasonably start blowing our noses with our 4th edition PHBs until we've given Wizards time to polish it up a bit.

Serpentine
2008-06-08, 11:19 AM
You don't have to be 100% dismayed, at least. There's a few feats that you can only select as a member of a certain race, whose sole function is to boost one of your racial bonuses/powers/whatever. That's kind of like progression, but you're having to pay for it. Feats are a lot more abundant than they used to be for all classes, so it's not a heart-wrenching inconvenience to "burn" a few feats on something anymore.But they already have that in 3.5 :smallconfused: In splat books, yeah, but it's still not exactly new or innovative.

Indon: Thanks for validating my not-very-well-thought-out opinion :smallsmile: That was, indeed, more or less what I was trying to get across.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-08, 02:50 PM
You pretty much nail the problem, friend - that each skill was wildly different in usefulness, and DC's were not remotely uniform.

That problem has absolutely nothing to do with using a point-based skill system or a trained/untrained system such as 4'th edition uses. You could use a point-based system for skills just fine when you have a good set of skills for it, and there is a plethora of systems that do exactly that (and often even more expansively).

So, no, the customization wasn't a 'trap'. Not remotely. And again, we see an instance of Wizards making the same mistake as you have - failing to identify the specific problem and take appropriate action, and as a result, scrapping a feature of the system to correct a previous error.

Except that that problem was inherent to the skill rank purchasing system...to buy different levels in different skills meant that some would be maxed and some wouldn't.
Then, every DC would necessarily have to be set around someone having the Skill Maxed and therefore anyone who invested partially wouldn't have a decent chance of doing it, and would have wasted the skill points. Or, the DC would be set around someone having a few ranks, and then anyone with it Maxed would have no chance of failing, even with fewer ranks, and would have wasted the skill points.


When I play Spycraft 2.0, which uses the same skill point system is 3.x, even when it is more balanced, has no 'dead' skills, and has decently set DCs, you still basically either have the skill maxed and can use it, or have a few ranks and can't.


Also, the "improving of the system" you're talking about is exactly what they did, they shifted to a skill system that works better, is simpler, and doesn't have the problems of the skill point investment system.

There's no reason why D&D has to keep the skill point system if a better skill system is available.


As for the GNS paradigm, I suppose I'm not used to the definitions. But as far as I think, the only 'Narrativist' tool that D&D needs is allowing for the DM as storyteller...I've only ever found "Story Rules" to be stifling of actual, organic roleplaying.

Rogue1stclass
2008-06-08, 04:21 PM
Hmmm...I'm so torn on 4e

Background: Started playing D&D nearly 30 years ago, along with just about every other system that came along. Cheerfully updated to 2e. Grudgingly updated to 3e, and cheerful again to 3.5. Was waiting for 4e as I thought it would do to 3e what 2e did to 1e, that is, put the game back in the DMs hands.

Well, it did that. The DM end of 4e is great! 3e gave more options, but I love that idea that maybe I can show up for a game with nothing but a handful of encounter cards and wing it again, without having spend hours fighting with CRs and ELs so I don't break the advancement rate.

However, I'm not thrilled with the player end. If you look at it, they didn't so much streamline game play as dump it all on you when you start. Character creation, which is always the most frustrating and trying time for a new player, has become an incomprehensible mess. Just looking that the pages that explained the power entries nearly made my eyes bleed.

I'm sure the game plays smooth as silk now, but it's not gonna matter if my casual gaming friends are just gonna idly flip through the book for two minutes, get confused, and then whip out the Munchin deck.

I also don't like hard coded, "click and use" powers with cheeseball anime names (first time someone stikes a pose and shouts "DIRE WOLVERINE STRIKE" I'm coming over the table), but the steep and sudden learning curve is my biggest gripe.

Well, that and some of the strange, arbitrary design choices. Like Archons being Elementals and Eladrin being High Elves. What do we just have no Celestials now? Or Asmodeus being a god, in fact, quite a few of choices in god just seem odd. And didn't Elves have masculinity issues without actually making them Fairies? The one that really chafes me, though, is why in Hell are Succubi devils now? It's such a tiny little thing, but the fact that someone actually took the time to change it bugs me to no end.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-08, 04:34 PM
However, I'm not thrilled with the player end. If you look at it, they didn't so much streamline game play as dump it all on you when you start. Character creation, which is always the most frustrating and trying time for a new player, has become an incomprehensible mess. Just looking that the pages that explained the power entries nearly made my eyes bleed.


Really that's just a problem with the way they built the book. They left all the rules near the end after they expect you to have already built your character.

Once you actually read through the Combat chapter, making a character is exceptionally easy.

tumble check
2008-06-08, 08:28 PM
Am I the only one here who actually liked the complexity of 3.5? I'm not saying that 3.5 didn't have huge problems of its own, but I don't see the fact that 4e is simpler or more streamlined as a good thing in the least.

Temp.
2008-06-08, 09:31 PM
And here the argument is again! Comparing 4e core to 3.5 w/ splat. In order to be fair to both systems, you can only compare core to core, because no one knows whats going to become of 4e once the splat starts arriving.That's absurd. Why should we judge 4.0 by rules which don't exist yet? Why shouldn't we judge 3.5 by all the rules included in the system?

Once splatbooks have provided 4.0 a way to practically replicate what I see as some of the most definitive magic abilities--manipulation, illusion, conjuration and transformation--I will be much more friendly toward the system. Until then, I feel 3.5 shines by comparison.

Indon
2008-06-08, 09:34 PM
Except that that problem was inherent to the skill rank purchasing system...to buy different levels in different skills meant that some would be maxed and some wouldn't.
Then, every DC would necessarily have to be set around someone having the Skill Maxed and therefore anyone who invested partially wouldn't have a decent chance of doing it, and would have wasted the skill points. Or, the DC would be set around someone having a few ranks, and then anyone with it Maxed would have no chance of failing, even with fewer ranks, and would have wasted the skill points.

Or, you could have multiple levels of success with varying DC's, which is exactly what 4'th edition did, now isn't it? Only they removed the majority of the customizability of that system at the same time they implemented everything they needed to make such a system work.


As for the GNS paradigm, I suppose I'm not used to the definitions. But as far as I think, the only 'Narrativist' tool that D&D needs is allowing for the DM as storyteller...I've only ever found "Story Rules" to be stifling of actual, organic roleplaying.

Are you familiar with any RPG's with stunt systems?


Am I the only one here who actually liked the complexity of 3.5? I'm not saying that 3.5 didn't have huge problems of its own, but I don't see the fact that 4e is simpler or more streamlined as a good thing in the least.

Well, in my view, there's good complexity, and there's bad complexity.

THAC0 was bad complexity - the simplifcation to using BAB was a definite improvement, because it ultimately had no impact on the system except for streamlining.

Similarly, using a different system for AC attacks and saves was also needless - Streamlining everything to an Attack vs. Defense system is functionally identical to the system 3.x used, but it's simpler and faster.

But on the other hand, say, Level Adjustment. Had LA been replaced with a more complex system - racial progression, it would have been by far superior. Instead, racial progression didn't happen, and the system was made less complex in a bad way, by scrapping one of its' features.

4'th edition is a much simpler system than 3'rd edition. Some of that simplification is undeniably good, but some of it very much was not.

Ominous
2008-06-08, 10:48 PM
I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere as far as GNS goes. One side is interpreting it as there needs to be mechanics designed for one of the three for a system to be able to say that it has elements of Gamism, Simulationism, or Narrativism.

My interpretation is that, for an RPG to be Gamist, it has to have some game-like quality (game mechanics). For it to be Simulationist, it has to resemble real-life and/or have verisimilitude on some level, even if it is extremely minor (the world has humans, trees, magic has a system, etc.). For it to be Narrativist, the system has to support the ability to tell a story (if a player or GM can think of a story to describe everything they are doing, the system has succeeded in having narrativist qualities). As every Pen & Paper RPG in existence has these, all RPGs have some Gamist, some Simulationist, and some Narrativist qualities. What matters is how strong those qualities are in an RPG. Is 3.X D&D a strong Narrativist system? No, it's a weak to very weak Narrativist system. Did 3.X have Narrativist qualities? Yes, me and my group have managed to have storylines as a part of our 3.X D&D game.

Talya
2008-06-08, 10:54 PM
Am I the only one here who actually liked the complexity of 3.5?

Not at all. I love it.

Zeful
2008-06-08, 11:18 PM
My general opinion of 4E is the same as virtually everyone I know's:

"Oh god, oh god, we're going to murder them with fire"

50-70% of it is trash, almost a completely new game system in and of itself. D&D Lite, perhaps, good for introducing new players or for a very quick laugh in a short lunch break, but definitely not a D&D system. Hail to the 3.5, baby.

They'd already solved quite a few issues that they've now trounced over. For example, Vancian casting getting your wizard down? Pick a Reserve feat from Complete Mage and then act like an intelligent person and save a spell to use it! (The diviner in our group likes to keep a teleport on hold for this purpose). Dead Fighter levels letting that Bugbear toss you around? Why not use a Warblade or a Swordsage!

So because wizards didn't decide to kill the D&D name by transferring all 75+ base classes, 175+ prestige, hundreds of thousands of feats, spells, and skill tricks, resulting in a book larger than an encyclopaedia set, costing more than a car, it's bad? Wow, that's quite a leap.

In other words comparing 4e core to anything other than 3e (or 2e or 1e) core is like comparing an Olympic athlete to a quadriplegic, there are some things one can do that the other can't.


The remaining 50-30% of it is add-on material, the kind of stuff they should have put in new sourcebooks, like rituals, healing surges, the fighter redux etc.

You realize how badly that would have failed right? As a tack on to 3.5 no one would accept rituals "neutering the controller" concept, the would have decried the new fighter as "too-anime", and healing surges would make "no-sense". So it was do nothing or make a new edition. Apparently they made their choice.

Vazzaroth
2008-06-08, 11:28 PM
It always surprises me how people will FIND things to hate on purpose. The art? Really?

Bag_of_Holding
2008-06-08, 11:45 PM
OK, I read through all three books and even though my initial impression was less than satisfactory I'm quite happy with how the system got fleshed out in the end. While I could complain about how 4e had eliminated the individuality, 3.5 with all those hideous ways of optimisation had pretty much the same result in that aspect.

I'm pretty sure I'll get to like the system once I get the hang of ability progressions (and that ugly layout of abilities; plain eyesores, they are).

Helgraf
2008-06-09, 12:22 AM
Hate to be a party-pooper, but I don't think racial progression actually made it into the PHB. Either it's coming in a future edition, another book (there are already frequent references to the next PHB they'll be producing in this book, which will include the barbarian, monk, ranger, and psionicists of some variety), or something, but in the PHB it is not. I had also been looking forward to that, sadly.

Okay, what they did was they gave each race a few race-only feats. Now, what they will likely do with it long term is a lot more like the "Warforged" writeup on D&D Insider, which not only has the 'race-only' feats, but some powers and some racial paragon paths that warforged can pursue.

That's a much better example of the 'racial progression' they're aiming for than (sadly) what the core PHB gave us. However, since they've got it up on D&D Insider, this highly suggests the same sort of treatment will be done for the already extant races at some point. Yeah, it may be a splatbook release; hard to say. But I'm wagering you will see it realized.

Helgraf
2008-06-09, 12:26 AM
I added incantations, Tome of Battle, sanity checks for wizards, power points for magic, and a slew of other home rules, and a fighter could go toe-to-toe with a wizard.


In other words, you had to Rule 0 the system to make it work. EG, the rules as written didn't work, so they had to be fixed.

Grynning
2008-06-09, 01:59 AM
This seemed as good a thread as any to throw in my 2 cents on 4th ed., so here goes...

First, what I know about 4th: I've DM'ed a session of KotS, and read most of the PHB and skimmed the MM and DMG, which I do not yet own (I ordered my copies a while ago, but they haven't arrived yet...:smallyuk:).

Overall, I think it is a good system. Not a better or worse system than 3.5, just different and equally good. The classes are well-balanced, the powers are very cinematic and fun (Our Wizard player was having a blast, pun intended. Being able to use an area fire spell at will makes him giggle like a child and he acts out his casting every time he does it. It's awesome.), and the rules are fairly easy to learn.

I did want to respond to the miniatures war game comparison that many have brought up. I saw this similarity as well, and O have mixed feelings on it myself, but for anyone who thinks this is a "new direction" for D&D, think again. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned previously, but The Gygax himself based the original D&D game off of a miniatures war game called "Chainmail." D&D has always been about strong combat rules with role-playing elements left up to the players and DM.

My own laundry list of little things that bug me about 4th:

*Limited Build Options: Yes, all the classes are good and look fun to play, but there is less flexibility in character creation than in 3.5 no matter how you slice it, mainly because of the multiclassing system. Limiting multiclassing was probably a reasonable decision, but it also seems like WotC is trying to discourage creativity (4th is about the same as 2nd ed. in this regard if you ask me).

*Not enough Skills: I like the skill system, it works fine. I just want MORE. I also don't agree with some of the "folding" that has been done -swimming and climbing are very different skills, as are picking locks vs. picking pockets (pick locks and disable device I can see putting together, but why throw sleight of hand into the same skill?)

*The "saving throw" - Not the F/R/W defense numbers, that was a good change. I'm talking about the save to end an effect or stabilize. Why is it a d20 with no modifiers? Why is every single save a 55% chance of success (10 or higher), regardless of the effect being resisted? This just seems very odd and random to me, if I mis-read this rule, please correct me, but if it works the way I think it does, it's getting house-ruled out real quick.

That's about all I got. Overall, I recommend people try the system out...variety is the spice of life, and this is just like any other new game at the store...it has positives and negatives and will be as fun as you make it.

HeirToPendragon
2008-06-09, 02:14 AM
Gryn ignoring the rest of your post, the saving throw thing works how you say it does, but they kind of had to make it work that way. Your F/R/W thing will go up every two levels, so eventually you'd ALWAYS win.

Honestly there are so many many abilities out there that improve your saving throw (or give you more) that it is really not to much of an issue. Could it have been done differently? Well yeah. As it is now though it's at a very simple form, easily customizable and flavorful (hell, if I beat that saving throw, skrew the whole "body beats poison" thing, I'm sucking that poison out) and easy to help.

Serpentine
2008-06-09, 05:35 AM
It always surprises me how people will FIND things to hate on purpose. The art? Really?I didn't go looking to hate the art - as I said, I was quite looking forward to it. It's just that an awful lot of it really looked as though someone just copied another person's picture and made it shinier. In fact, I think that may well be what happened.

Gryn: They combined Disable Device and Slight of Hand? :smallconfused: So a juggler-magician is fully qualified to dismantle complex machinery now? :smallconfused: Bugger that for a joke.

Oh, and I, too, was quite happy with the flexibility (or, if you will, the complexity, to some extent) of 3.5. I thought there was quite a lot of superfluity, especially in the extra classes and prestige classes - why ninja or samurai rather than just tweak the flavour of your rogue or fighter? Why blackguard and not a variant evil paladin? :smallconfused: - but they're easy to deal with - you just ignore them.

People keep going on about the pointlessness of saying you prefer to stick with an edition if you add houserules to it, because the fact of the matter is no set of rules will ever satisfy everyone. It is utterly impossible for Wizards to predict the power of the imaginations of thousands of people, nor should they try. The rules are the base from which every game is adapted. I'm afraid that 4th ed. is innately more difficult to adapt and alter than 3.5, but I could well be mistaken about that. It also worries me that it seems as though they've gone out of their way to ensure that it's difficult to adapt 4th ed. stuff for a 3.5 game, but that's a different matter. I do seriously doubt that many long-term gamers will stick to 4th ed. pure RAW, no matter how wonderful you think the system is. Anyway, the fact that people adapt the game to their own needs is entirely irrelevant. The fact is, they start from 3.5, and don't think they could or would want to start from 4.0.

Reinboom
2008-06-09, 05:58 AM
I adore 4e.
I hate 4e.

The very base of the system I find wonderful. The set up of powers, the growth of things such as will, ac, etc just makes it feel more fluid. Also, I want to play a paladin now. Which is a first since... well, it's a first.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed with a lot of it. Mostly because of "what could have been" and ultimately what did not. That is, the system has wonderful grounds for a great multiclassing system, yet, it wasn't taken advantage of.
Also, every class a thrown in to its set without expanse being able to be chosen by the player individually. Personally, I LIKE playing a character that is ultimately complicated, more so than what the classes in 4e allow in their rather strict limitation on the number of each you can use.
Options are too few, yet there are so many.

I'm also disappointed in not seeing the early ideas for making races level. To me, that was a decent idea.

Also - I'm already houseruling 4e. *taps fingers together*

The Batman
2008-06-09, 06:02 AM
I disagree with TS. Admiteedly, the influence of MMORPGS os there but hell, they work. Its also ironed out some fo the worst problems. The classes are more equal. Wizards dont find themseleves powerless mid-dungeon. Its simpler and if you dont like it then hell, carry on playing 3rd edition. Personally, off what I saw from the Excerpts, i was won over.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-09, 06:07 AM
General opinions:

Like: The general changes from 3E. I like the powers setup, I like the restrictions on multiclassing (because really, what's the point of a class-based game if you're not going to pick a damned class and stick with it), I like that it's actually got some reasonably interesting rules for noncombat encounters, and that first level characters are actually competent now.

Dislike: So. Many. Hit. Points. Combined with a lower general damage output, it does look like combat will be a bit of a slog. Sure, my first level rogue was doing 15 damage a time with a sneak attack, but the damned Kobolds could take it and smile. Kobolds, man, kobolds!

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-09, 06:49 AM
These 2 cents are burning a whole in my pocket, and some of what I will say has been said already, but here we go.

I'm not that old (24), so don't look too far into it when I say, "When I started..." Anyway, when I started roleplaying, I did it for one reason: creation of a world I enjoyed. I wanted something that was a little more exciting than the doldrums of small-town, middle-class, American life (and perhaps something a little less exciting than East St. Louis).

And Dungeons and Dragons very rapidly became my favorite game (I wasn't really exposed to many other systems). Though, I actually started before I knew DnD existed with a game of my own design based on Bill Watterson's "Spaceman Spiff" from Calvin and Hobbes. I was about 10 or 11, and my system included a reward for killing bad guys and a cost of new weapons, with a basic description of what they did. It was a lot of fun.

But other people didn't like it so much, they liked rules. And from what I have seen, the people with whom I play will like a simplification of any system they play. I am serious about gaming, and my players just want to have fun. (This is why my brother, in fact, left DnD for WoW. WoW is less work :-p.) I have also been quite confident in the past that the people who work on DnD core products pride themselves in their work, and it means there is a certain amount of quality derived from people who care in each book.

Streamlining combat? I will thank them for that. And roleplaying and puzzlemaking were always in the hands of the players and DM anyway. In fact, I don't know that I would like the creators to come up with hard and fast rules for either. I mean, think of 3.5e traps, which were basically just save vs take damage (or, without a rogue, just take damage). I think most players are gonna love the changes to characters, especially casual players. In my group, I own all the books, which the players can borrow at their leisure, but it meant less PrCs from the get-go.

Bah, either way, until they do something to outlaw pizza or staying up all night, I'm still in. And I guess I could always Rule 0 those back in, should they one day up and leave.

Cainen
2008-06-09, 07:29 AM
In other words, you had to Rule 0 the system to make it work. EG, the rules as written didn't work, so they had to be fixed.

Right - I don't think that's what he's trying to defend, though. He's trying to defend how -he- has the system up and running, which is totally different.

That's also the reason a number of SR3 players didn't move up to SR4 - it wasn't a real improvement from what they were playing.

Talya
2008-06-09, 10:09 AM
It always surprises me how people will FIND things to hate on purpose. The art? Really?

The 4e artwork is awesome.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-09, 12:41 PM
The 4e artwork is awesome.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that it is awesome but it is definatley an improvment over 3.5 Core, generally speaking.

TheGreatJabu
2008-06-09, 09:26 PM
Just looking that the pages that explained the power entries nearly made my eyes bleed.

Glad I'm not the only one. I've been reading my PHB off and on since the release date, and I still haven't read every page of the powers yet. I can't just make myself do it. That's just me being whiny, though.


I'm sure the game plays smooth as silk now, but it's not gonna matter if my casual gaming friends are just gonna idly flip through the book for two minutes, get confused, and then whip out the Munchin deck.

I also don't like hard coded, "click and use" powers with cheeseball anime names (first time someone stikes a pose and shouts "DIRE WOLVERINE STRIKE" I'm coming over the table), but the steep and sudden learning curve is my biggest gripe.

Hah! My friends will have the exact same reactions, I fear. I think I'll do my best to handwalk them through making characters, and then declare creative martial-law at the gaming table. I'll only let my friends use their powers if they can come up with a character-specific description of each of their powers. I'm not blaming WotC or accusing them for any reason, but I just plain got tired of reading the words "radiant", "silvery", "slash", "dire", being used to in the fluff to describe 50% of the cleric's, paladin's, ranger's, and warlock's powers, respectively.


The one that really chafes me, though, is why in Hell are Succubi devils now? It's such a tiny little thing, but the fact that someone actually took the time to change it bugs me to no end.

They've become more diabolical and cunning in their strategies of spreading the luvin' around. When they were still chaotic evil, it was basically just spin-the-bottle for them to determine whose soul was getting stolen that day. :smalltongue:



Bah, either way, until they do something to outlaw pizza or staying up all night, I'm still in. And I guess I could always Rule 0 those back in, should they one day up and leave.

I'm with you on that one. D&D is ultimately about goofing off with your buddies, and changing the rules of the game only alters how much time you spend arguing instead of the aforementioned-goofing. Sad as it sounds, I somewhat HOPE that none of my friends ever develop a strong grasp on the rules. The best games I've ever seen were the ones where the players were all brand-new and the DM was the only one with a strong grasp of the system being played. The game still has a sense of wonder and excitement, then.

Vazzaroth
2008-06-09, 09:49 PM
So far the only thing that I've seen that worries me is the sheer amount of damage dice dealing powers. Every class has a majority of them over other effects. Seems like alot of classes will play VERY similarly with minor differences. Now the main difference in classes is not in what you do, but where you do it. Warlocks do damage at short ranges, Rangers do damage at long ranges or melee, Fighters do damage in melee, and Wizards do damage in clumps. I wouldn't mind this, but it's pretty much all the same damage. ToB did it right, in adding lots of cool things you can do IN ADDITION with damage, but now, even if you do something extra, its not anything really cool most of the time. Woo, they moved one square. Amazing.

The point is, I need to see it in action, and I will friday, but it SEEMS like it has the potential to be mind numbing.

And thank the late Heironious that they got rid of the Paladin's *&@#ing horse! I might actually play one! At least as far as I've seen its gone.

Thurbane
2008-06-09, 10:16 PM
I played my first 4E at Game Day, playing a sample adventure.

I have to say, I was less than impressed.

There were only two players, so I took the Dwarf Fighter, and the other PC was the Human Cleric. We walked our way relatively easily though the adventure. I really didn't get into the whole at will/encounter/daily ability schtick - it works OK, but just doesn't feel like D&D to me. The DM and other player were similarly unimpressed.

Another player turned up later, and the guy I originally played with sat out, so we ran the same adventure again. This time, I took the Eladrin Wizard, and he took the Half-elf Rogue. This time, we got butchered at our first encounter with a pair of hogboblins.

We flicked through the core books, and what I read just didn't grab me. It all seems OK, but not enough for me to switch from 3.5. The at will etc. special ability system doesn't grab me at all, and just doesn't feel like D&D to me. YMMV.

As someone who has been playing for over 20 years, cutting my teeth on the BECMI and AD&D 1E editions, I just don't care for the dynamic of 4E. I was initially very skeptical of 3.5 when we first switched over from 2E (we had a hiatus, and skipped 3E altogether), but I warmed to it very quickly, to the point where it is now my favorite edition. 4E seems mechanically sound enough, but just feels somehow a bit hollow, and too far divorced from earlier editions for my taste. I know it's cliche that people hate, but it just feels to "videogamey" tome...

So, in a nutshell, 4E just isn't for me. I'm sure plenty of people out there will enjoy it, but it's just not my cup of tea.

Turcano
2008-06-10, 02:23 AM
I haven't played 4th Edition and I don't really plan to, so you can call this uninformed if you want, but my first impressions were bad. A lot of stuff feels like a step backwards or otherwise disagrees with me. A lot of stuff touted as new really isn't (and a lot of that seems to have its origins in Unearthed Arcana, most of which can be found for free here (http://www.d20srd.org/) in the Variants section). And the few things that seem interesting in no way justify spending $105 to replace my 3.5 core set (especially as I only got it two years or so ago).

Also, I'm not going to jump in the "4E is a mumorpeger" bandwagon, but it does seem that they introduced it for its own sake rather than to actually fix anything.

banjo1985
2008-06-10, 05:51 AM
I've done a single playtest of 4E, and have bought the books to have a look through, and my impressions are mixed.

- I don't like most of the artwork. While the game itself doesn't deserve all the WoW comparisons, it's hasn't exactly helped itself with the artwork.

- I like the simplified and streamlined character creation system, and the combat seems quicker. These are a bonus for my group at least.

- Seems like the utility of the Rogue has been taken away somewhat.

- Dragonborn? Please no...

- I really like the new magic system. In my eyes it's far easier to work with, though utility spells have been done away with to a fair extent.

All the above I have gathered from an initial flip through of the books and my one playtest at the UK Games Expo, so I wouldn't exactly call them reasoned. But overall I can see myself liking 4th better than 3.5, which I always had serious issues with. I'm sure I won't stop playing 3.5, but I guess WotC have a 4th edition convert right here.

tumble check
2008-06-10, 07:18 AM
Now the main difference in classes is not in what you do, but where you do it.


Sounds like a pure table-top game to me.



Also, yes, the differences between the classes are minimal now. I see how they did that for ensured balance. The addition of damage to just about every ability also ensures easy math for calcuating encounter difficulty and balance, but by god, it seems supremely boring. I haven't played yet, but I'm trying to remain optimistic. It's hard.