Is 4e a skirmish simulator.

[Kurald Galain]

Any edition of D&D can.

Not particularly, no. It is obvious from a casual perusal of the rulebooks that 3E (as well as 2E) has extensive and elaborate rules for out-of-combat, which the 4E designers have intentionally left out. This includes entire chapters on exploration, more skill rules; several dozen out-of-combat spells at each spell level; and a long list of mundane tools, goods, and services. So yes, 3E intentionally has a lot of non-combat mechanics, and 4E intentionally has barely any non-combat mechanics; neither is a flaw, both are a choice of design philosophy.

I'm scratching my head because 4e has more comprehensive and detailed rules for skill use than pretty much any modern RPG on the market.

What, you mean three pages of vague guidelines plus the ever-present page 42? There's nothing comprehensive and detailed about any of that, really.

[obryn]

Not particularly, no. It is obvious from a casual perusal of the rulebooks that 3E (as well as 2E) has extensive and elaborate rules for out-of-combat, which the 4E designers have intentionally left out. This includes entire chapters on exploration, more skill rules; several dozen out-of-combat spells at each spell level; and a long list of mundane tools, goods, and services. So yes, 3E intentionally has a lot of non-combat mechanics, and 4E intentionally has barely any non-combat mechanics; neither is a flaw, both are a choice of design philosophy.

Your statement was that 4e is the only edition that can be played as a straight skirmish game. I disagree; you can get 1e, 2e, or 3e characters, set up a battle mat, and go bash monsters using the encounter guidelines, too.

That's D&D's heritage. It's no surprise that it still works for that.

What, you mean three pages of vague guidelines plus the ever-present page 42? There's nothing comprehensive and detailed about any of that, really.

Say what? Pages 179-189 of the PHB or 129-156 of the Rules Compendium are three pages of vague guidelines?

What other modern RPGs are you comparing it to?

[Kurald Galain]

Your statement was that 4e is the only edition that can be played as a straight skirmish game. I disagree; you can get 1e, 2e, or 3e characters, set up a battle mat, and go bash monsters using the encounter guidelines, too.

You might claim that, but the reality is that statements like "4E is a skirmish game" are reasonably common, whereas statements like "3E is a skirmish game" are basically nonexistent. So it strikes me that your claim is inaccurate. Or, if you prefer, "technically, but not really" accurate.

Say what? Pages 179-189 of the PHB or 129-156 of the Rules Compendium are three pages of vague guidelines?

Those two sections are redundant to each other, and mostly cover combat usage whereas I was talking about non-combat usage.

Regardless, you can nitpick the page count but that doesn't change the fact that 4E's skill rules are much less comprehensive and much less detailed than that of any comparable RPG (e.g. 3E, PF, 7A, GURPS, anything by Whitewolf). I get the impression that by "modern" RPGs you actually mean rules light RPGs (rather than, you know, the big players on the current market), but that's not a fair comparison.

[obryn]

You might claim that, but the reality is that statements like "4E is a skirmish game" are reasonably common, whereas statements like "3E is a skirmish game" are basically nonexistent. So it strikes me that your claim is inaccurate. Or, if you prefer, "technically, but not really" accurate.

Maybe now, but in 2000 or so, 3e was called a skirmish game quite often!

Really, though, if you're getting feedback on a game from edition warriors, you're looking at the wrong place!

Those two sections are redundant to each other, and mostly cover combat usage whereas I was talking about non-combat usage.

Regardless, you can nitpick the page count but that doesn't change the fact that 4E's skill rules are much less comprehensive and much less detailed than that of any comparable RPG (e.g. 3E, PF, 7A, GURPS, anything by Whitewolf). I get the impression that by "modern" RPGs you actually mean rules light RPGs (rather than, you know, the big players on the current market), but that's not a fair comparison.

I'm not nitpicking - you made a false statement and I'm correcting it.

Yes, 3e/PF pays a really weird amount of attention to skills for a class/level game; that's acknowledged and accepted above.

I'm talking about modern games that aren't 3e/PF - games which were written in the same late-2000's era as 4e or afterwards. If you want to bring in games from the 80's or 90's, that's making my point for me.

[Talakeal]

In my experience 4E is the most combat intensive version of D&D, but D&D in general tends to be very combat intensive as far as RPGs go.

[Knaight]

You might claim that, but the reality is that statements like "4E is a skirmish game" are reasonably common, whereas statements like "3E is a skirmish game" are basically nonexistent. So it strikes me that your claim is inaccurate. Or, if you prefer, "technically, but not really" accurate.

Back in the 2e-3e edition wars this was common. The broader statement "D&D is a skirmish game" is extremely common, with distinctions between editions not really bothered with. Outside of the D&D community, D&D 3e has a reputation of being an extremely combat focused game with fairly little outside of that.

[Kurald Galain]

Back in the 2e-3e edition wars this was common. The broader statement "D&D is a skirmish game" is extremely common,

...which is why it gets zero google hits. Right.

Sorry, you're going to need some kind of citation or evidence for that one.

[obryn]

...which is why it gets zero google hits. Right.

Sorry, you're going to need some kind of citation or evidence for that one.

Well, I was there for it, and I'm presuming Knaight was. This was 15 years ago, mind you, with peaks from about then to maybe 2004, so the dearth of Google hits is not altogether surprising. You won't find any big fansites with articles back then, but you will find messageboards. Check the archives of sites like Dragonsfoot and TheRPGSite ... and rec.games.* on Usenet if that's not enough! RPG.net may or may not have much; they're pretty down on edition warring in general, but the infamous "My hat of d02 know no limits" came from there, so who knows?

Over on Dragonsfoot, 3e is usually called "TETSNBN," if that helps.

Also, fun facts from the time machine! 3e = Diablo was 2000's 4e = WoW. And Challenge Ratings were seen as terrible, since it always meant you were facing at-level opponents and nothing ever got harder. Really, when it comes right down to it, grog never changes.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, I was also there. The point is that the common complaints about 3E are clearly and obviously extremely different from the common complaints about 4E. Yes, lots of people complain about both games, but for very different reasons; vocal minorities notwithstanding.

[obryn]

Yes, I was also there. The point is that the common complaints about 3E are clearly and obviously extremely different from the common complaints about 4E. Yes, lots of people complain about both games, but for very different reasons; vocal minorities notwithstanding.

If you were there, why are you asking for citations?

No, they're pretty much the same list. "It's not D&D," "It's dumbed down," "1st level characters are is too powerful," "Nobody ever faces threats too powerful for them," "It's a minis/computer game on paper,"... The fact that you agree with some/most of them doesn't change that they're pretty much the same list. We're only missing out on dumb pseudo-intellectual claptrap like 'dissociated mechanics.'

There may be different complaints now, because the OGL and Pathfinder have changed the landscape such that the conversation never moves on. But grog never changes; that's what makes it grog.

[Knaight]

...which is why it gets zero google hits. Right.

Sorry, you're going to need some kind of citation or evidence for that one.

The sentiment is unlikely to be expressed as an exact quote. As for citations, most of where I've seen it has been over IRC and similar (or in person), and I'm not going through IRC logs for this. On the other hand, feel free to take a look at any White Wolf product dominated forum and ask people what they think about D&D. The general tenor is usually "It's not a roleplaying game, just a combat game", and while I consider the "Storyteller system" to be a hilarious misnomer for a clunky, rules heavy piece of junk it does represent a large part of the non-D&D market.

Well, I was there for it, and I'm presuming Knaight was. This was 15 years ago, mind you, with peaks from about then to maybe 2004, so the dearth of Google hits is not altogether surprising.

I've seen records and heard stories; I wasn't there for that. I was about 7 years old 15 years ago, and participated about as much in message boards as one would expect.

[obryn]

I've seen records and heard stories; I wasn't there for that. I was about 7 years old 15 years ago, and participated about as much in message boards as one would expect.

I keep forgetting that, at 40, I'm an old man here!

[Dimers]

I keep forgetting that, at 40, I'm an old man here!

Booyah! Forties 40evah, brah! (I turn 40 in a few months.)

I wasn't involved with D&D much at all, never mind online, when 3.0 came out. What little I know is that my friends were all excited about it and didn't discuss ways it was better or worse than 2e (other than mentioning that it included some Player's Option stuff in core). But in my time since then, I've listened to a lot of conversations online and across the tabletop, and yeah, 3.X gets a lot of flak for its thorough focus on combat, just like 4e does.

Personally I've found it easier to operate believable yet mechanics-driven noncombat scenarios in 4e than in any other TTRPG I've played. I mean, it's still a skirmish game, that's what I love about it, but it's not merely a skirmish game.

[obryn]

Booyah! Forties 40evah, brah! (I turn 40 in a few months.)

High five, almost-40 dude.

Personally I've found it easier to operate believable yet mechanics-driven noncombat scenarios in 4e than in any other TTRPG I've played. I mean, it's still a skirmish game, that's what I love about it, but it's not merely a skirmish game.

Ditto. I actually prefer even lighter games, when it comes down to it, but my players like crunch ... and 4e works great for all of us.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

Apropos of nothing in particular, I'm 46.

IME, all D&D has been primarily about combat since the very beginning. Go to RPG.net and read Old Geezer's tales of dungeoneering with Gary Gygax: they involve battles with almost military precision and tactical planning.

That said, one of the things I have found with 4E is that the intensity of combat means that my players are much more likely now to try and find RP-based solutions to problems and situations. Combat is a big commitment and, in our games at least, really dangerous so my players have become much more RP-oriented. (Yes, Virginia, combat in 4E can be deadly. Did anyone say minion artillery?)

But I also don't find 4E to be a skirmish simulator, per se. It's a great way to run cinematic, set-piece battles that advance the story. If anything I find it the most story-oriented edition of D&D but I can understand some people not sharing that opinion. As with other editions and even RPGs, 4E is more about what happens at the table. The version of 4E we play is really story- and RP-driven, as are most of the actual play threads that I have taken the time to read.

[YossarianLives]

I keep forgetting that, at 40, I'm an old man here!

Don't worry! I think it's great (no seriously) that GiTP is basically a D&D forum for parents in their forties.

[Akodo Makama]

In my opinion, 4e is an excellent action movie simulator. Most modern action movies live or die on their fight scenes, so many people will just use the simulator (4e) to only recreate those, and leave thinking "fight scene game".

But good action movies also rely on chase scenes, clever problem solving, storytelling, and character development, and 4e can free-form those like the previous editions, but it didn't stop there: it tried to create a unified system. Storytelling and character development aren't things that require any rules; The other two get a bit of a short shrift in the core books (skill challenges), but the basic idea was sound: use substantially the same rules for those as for combat (init, actions, success checks with a fixed target(roll vs AC), required successes before completion (HP)), allowing the basic combat rules to do double duty, and not needing the players to learn a new system.

This, of course, made those skill use sections feel like just another type of combat, further cementing many people's prior 'It's just a fight game' feelings. Good GMs could overcome this with good storytelling skills (not letting the players know they were *in* a skill challenge), but average GMs could 'just run it like a combat' and come out OK.

Whether this was a good or bad thing depended primarily on the expectations of the players and skill of the GM.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

In my opinion, 4e is an excellent action movie simulator. Most modern action movies live or die on their fight scenes, so many people will just use the simulator (4e) to only recreate those, and leave thinking "fight scene game".

But good action movies also rely on chase scenes, clever problem solving, storytelling, and character development, and 4e can free-form those like the previous editions, but it didn't stop there: it tried to create a unified system. (snip)

Totally agree. You provided a much clearer explanation that my use of a single word: "cinematic".

I think Chris Perkins' weekly DM's advice series really lays out how 4E works best. Frankly, if there had been a third DMG for 4E I suspect that his column could have provided the bulk of the text. Nevertheless, it still exists and it's free and it's definitely worth reading.

[Boci]

For me, 4th edition has its set backs when it comes to roleplay, because there are a lot of things that take me out of the game in a "it's like I'm there" sense. This may not be an issue others, but they are for me.

A lot of powers work on targets they shouldn't. Every game has these, but 4th edition has more than its fair share of them. How did the rogue just blind a statue? How did the kensai flick the statue's blood into the hobgoblin's eyes? How does the fighter's Come at me bro work? Why exactly do they move next to him? Then you have just general inorganics, like a 23rd level minion being killed by cleave, which wouldn't have even a bloodied a level 1 monster.

The classes are too similar. Someone who has mastered bladework to near perfection, someone who who channels the primal essence of nature and someone who has made a pact with a being that resides beyond the stars, should not have the same template for gaining powers. Different resource profiles adds a lot to games

That said, "skirmish simulator" does sound a tad dismissive. 4e edition is a roleplaying game. But it is more of a skirmish simulator in essence than others are (namely 3e in my limited experience).

[Metahuman1]

I've had to say this before, I'll say it again and then leave since I don't frequent this part of the forum for a reason.

It's a system were at level 4 I can't jump over a 5ft high 2in thick wall. Period.

That should say everything that needs to be said about how 4E handles stuff outside of doing damage to things.



If you want to branch out, I strongly encourage Mutants and Masterminds, and I'm told the Fate system and 5E D&D are good but have not played them myself.

[obryn]

I've had to say this before, I'll say it again and then leave since I don't frequent this part of the forum for a reason.

It's a system were at level 4 I can't jump over a 5ft high 2in thick wall. Period.

That should say everything that needs to be said about how 4E handles stuff outside of doing damage to things.

If you want to branch out, I strongly encourage Mutants and Masterminds, and I'm told the Fate system and 5E D&D are good but have not played them myself.

Hahaha...What?

Your facts are in error. With a running start, this is a DC 25 check, which is very possible for a 4th level character. 20 strength, +2 half-level, and +5 proficiency give you a +12. At higher levels, this becomes trivial, as it should.

(It should also be Difficult Terrain and require no check, but YMMV.)

So....What do you think this says again?

[sakuuya]

Hahaha...What?

Your facts are in error. With a running start, this is a DC 25 check, which is very possible for a 4th level character. 20 strength, +2 half-level, and +5 proficiency give you a +12. At higher levels, this becomes trivial, as it should.

(It should also be Difficult Terrain and require no check, but YMMV.)

So....What do you think this says again?

It's possible that they're mixing up feet jumped and squares jumped...which is understandable, since the description for vertical jumps talks about feet.

[obryn]

It's possible that they're mixing up feet jumped and squares jumped...which is understandable, since the description for vertical jumps talks about feet.

I don't think so, because it's not reasonable to think a character could jump a 5 square (=25') wall at 4th level.

There's a sort of 'common wisdom' about 4e that people seem to get from edition warring, misunderstanding how the rules work, or straight-up dishonesty, that doesn't match up at all with the actual game. These get repeated over and over again until somehow folks think they're actually true. This 'fact' seems to fall into that category (ie: being 'received wisdom' of 4e that doesn't have any relation to the game's rules), since he said he's had to educate people on it over and over again.

[Kurald Galain]

It's a system were at level 4 I can't jump over a 5ft high 2in thick wall. Period.

Wait, what?

Are we going to judge systems now by how well they allow low-level characters to jump over neck-high walls? How on earth does that even make sense?

So let's see, in Call of Chthulhu most characters basically can't jump five feet high. Does that make it a bad system? In Exalted, characters can probably jump about 100' feet high; does that make it an excellent system?

FWIW, 4E has specific rules about how far and high you can jump based on your athletics check. I should know because my wizard character was a frequent user of the Jump spell.

[Metahuman1]

I don't think so, because it's not reasonable to think a character could jump a 5 square (=25') wall at 4th level.

There's a sort of 'common wisdom' about 4e that people seem to get from edition warring, misunderstanding how the rules work, or straight-up dishonesty, that doesn't match up at all with the actual game. These get repeated over and over again until somehow folks think they're actually true. This 'fact' seems to fall into that category (ie: being 'received wisdom' of 4e that doesn't have any relation to the game's rules), since he said he's had to educate people on it over and over again.

More like being my play experience with 4E, and why after a few sessions i decided not to bother with 4E. (Seriously, IRL I can vault myself over a wall of that size. Worse case it would be a "Full Round Action." and if that had been the case I'd accept it. But no, 4E tells me it's a no go for my fantastically powerful adventuring reality defyer to jump over the wall.


Any system that's gonna tell me I can heal my wounds instantly by shouting at them but can't jump a wall but I'm suppose to have the strength and agility of a top level special forces operative has serious, serious problems. )

[sakuuya]

More like being my play experience with 4E, and why after a few sessions i decided not to bother with 4E. (Seriously, IRL I can vault myself over a wall of that size. Worse case it would be a "Full Round Action." and if that had been the case I'd accept it. But no, 4E tells me it's a no go for my fantastically powerful adventuring reality defyer to jump over the wall.


Any system that's gonna tell me I can heal my wounds instantly by shouting at them but can't jump a wall but I'm suppose to have the strength and agility of a top level special forces operative has serious, serious problems. )

I think you might've been playing with some houserules. obryn is correct about the check required:

Your facts are in error. With a running start, this is a DC 25 check, which is very possible for a 4th level character. 20 strength, +2 half-level, and +5 proficiency give you a +12. At higher levels, this becomes trivial, as it should.

(It should also be Difficult Terrain and require no check, but YMMV.)

Furthermore, it's "part of a move action," not a full-round action. Can you point to actual rules that support your claims? Because you're certainly not going by the Athletics rules on PHB p. 182-183.

[Boci]

More like being my play experience with 4E, and why after a few sessions i decided not to bother with 4E. (Seriously, IRL I can vault myself over a wall of that size. Worse case it would be a "Full Round Action." and if that had been the case I'd accept it. But no, 4E tells me it's a no go for my fantastically powerful adventuring reality defyer to jump over the wall.

So you could could jump over a 5ft wall, without touching it, whilst wearing leather armour and carrying a backpack with about 20 pounds of equipment? Sure, the world record if 2.45m (so 8 ft), but that is in ideal circumstances, something D&D generally isn't concerned with modelling. Not to mention an olympic athlete probably has High Jumper as their class, which would be boring to play.

[georgie_leech]

More like being my play experience with 4E, and why after a few sessions i decided not to bother with 4E. (Seriously, IRL I can vault myself over a wall of that size. Worse case it would be a "Full Round Action." and if that had been the case I'd accept it. But no, 4E tells me it's a no go for my fantastically powerful adventuring reality defyer to jump over the wall.


Any system that's gonna tell me I can heal my wounds instantly by shouting at them but can't jump a wall but I'm suppose to have the strength and agility of a top level special forces operative has serious, serious problems. )

So your complaint is that you can't use the high jump rules to model vaulting over something? As in, the rules that model how high you get your feet off the ground by jumping, not pushing yourself off of an obstacle?

Try a DC 5 or lower Climb check mid move action (it's certainly easier than a rope) followed by dropping down, or if you're being particularly fancy or quick about it, an easy Acrobatics Check.

[obryn]

More like being my play experience with 4E, and why after a few sessions i decided not to bother with 4E. (Seriously, IRL I can vault myself over a wall of that size. Worse case it would be a "Full Round Action." and if that had been the case I'd accept it. But no, 4E tells me it's a no go for my fantastically powerful adventuring reality defyer to jump over the wall.

Any system that's gonna tell me I can heal my wounds instantly by shouting at them but can't jump a wall but I'm suppose to have the strength and agility of a top level special forces operative has serious, serious problems. )

A 5' wall is basically Difficult Terrain. It's Climbable as part of movement, probably at DC 0 ('ladder') or - at worst - 10 ('rope') since you can literally reach the top with your hands. This costs 1 extra square (5') of movement - hence 'difficult terrain.' You can do it on the move and keep going.

At worst it's scaleable by spending a Move action to climb over it, leaving you with your Standard action intact.

DC 25 is for actually jumping over it. Like, during other movement, so you don't even touch the wall and it doesn't slow you down at all.

So ... what's the issue, again?

[Laserlight]

I keep forgetting that, at 40, I'm an old man here!

Age 52 -- if you count chess as "gaming", then I have been gaming for more than twice as long as some of my party members have been alive.