Has the feel/style of your game changed since you started playing 4E? I started playing 4E about one year ago. My group completed the Savage Tide campaign using the 3E rules last July and it was awesome. I decided to give Second Darkness a shot, but run it using the 4E system (I was leery about doing this and having to do conversion work, but I wanted to try the new game, and I didn't really like the adventures I'd seen by WotC). We have about 2 game sessions left and so far it's been great fun. I'm not sure if I liked it quite as much as ST, but that's more to do with the AP than the game system. I recently got to thinking whether or not the feel of our game has changed with 4E. Certainly there are some big differences to the mechanics of the game, so the potential for a big change to the feel of the game is there. However, overall I haven't noticed a big difference in the feel of our game sessions or our play style. I have found that 4E runs a little smoother than 3E especially during combat, and it feels more balanced in terms of power level between PCs and power level between PCs and monsters. The magic is probably what feels the most different in terms of the feel of the game and how it plays. There aren't as many crazy things the heroes can accomplish with magic. There are fewer PCs flying around, conjuring invulnerable walls of force, and summoning hordes of magical minions etc... I can certainly see how some people might see this as bad thing, and part of me misses it a little, but as a dm its made my life much easier (some of those things could easily derail an entire encounter I'd spent hours putting together or just get too cumbersome and bog down the game). That being said, the heroes still seem to come up with some crazy and effective tactics. Anyhow, I'm just wondering what things other people have noticed about their play styles now that they've played it for a while (this question is posed towards people who have actually given the game a chance and played it for a while, as opposed to people who think they know it but have only played it a couple of times at a convention or read through the rule book).
|
It's hard to be sure, since my 3.5 group fell apart before 4e came out, and with my current group, I've never played anything but 4e with them.
Some of the changes I've noticed:
Everyone, including me, is less concerned about optimizing/min-maxing. 4e PCs seem to be built effectively, but not overpowered, right out of the box, and it's harder to make a "broken" character (although certainly not impossible). That means people seem to be more focused on creating interesting characters, since the mechanics will sort themselves.
There is generally less rules confusion. Questions certainly come up, but there seems to be fewer scenarios where the game gets "stuck" while we sort out some spell effect or rules element.
By and large, though, things feel very much the same.
I have one hard core min maxer in my group, which sometimes made 3E a real headache. His 4E warforged fighter is damn hard to kill, but doesn't feel too overpowered. Now there is more team min maxing- ie. figuring out how to combine powers in effective tactical ways, and a lot of this experimentation goes on during combat (though not in a slow down the game bad way), as opposed to during character creation. The PCs also don't spend time buffing and prepping for fights the way they did in 3E, and this is a change I really like.
It's hard to be sure, since my 3.5 group fell apart before 4e came out, and with my current group, I've never played anything but 4e with them.
Some of the changes I've noticed:
Everyone, including me, is less concerned about optimizing/min-maxing. 4e PCs seem to be built effectively, but not overpowered, right out of the box, and it's harder to make a "broken" character (although certainly not impossible). That means people seem to be more focused on creating interesting characters, since the mechanics will sort themselves.
There is generally less rules confusion. Questions certainly come up, but there seems to be fewer scenarios where the game gets "stuck" while we sort out some spell effect or rules element.
By and large, though, things feel very much the same.
|
I'd agree with the observations above. By and large I would say there is little change to the "feel" of a session - we still roleplay and rollplay much the same. We get through a few more encounters a session, and the rules are simpler to remember. And there is much less pre-fight buffing - well, none. So we are just in and at 'em.
Female elven circus troupe? Now there's an image to conjure with.Cool stuff about the campaign he is in.
Probably not what Aubrey meant (I think that was more along the lines of scantily clad female elves doing contortionism), but that sounds like a very cool campaign idea. I think if I get to run a game again any time soon I might just steal this idea.
I'm with the group that says that the overall look and feel is pretty much the same. There are mechanical differences, play balance differences and power level differences but the core themes are pretty much unchanged and what happens at the table remains pretty similar.
The biggest thing I've noticed (and keep in mind, I've only played in one game) is that you can actually do stuff when it's not your turn. I think this is a good change, because while combat seems to take just as long as 3E, it doesn't feel like it because you're constantly doing things.
The only time I didn't like it is when I had to pee. I fear that many a D&D player is going to suffer from bladder infections as a result of this edition. Very sad.
I am still trying to convince myself I like what they have done in regards to magic items. I like continous affects versus encounter or daily powers.
Everything else I have adjusted to in regards to class abilities and/or balance, skills, rituals, alchemcy, etc. and generally can accept the new system.
One other mechanic that still needs extra work, as a DM, is tracking all the conditions. The one I dislike the most is bloodied.
I don't really play 4E, which i have to say i regret a little, so this really is based on my reading of the material and hypothetical, rather than actual experience.
If I where to run 4E, the stories i would run with it would be very different from those i would run with PRPG, which are in turn different from what i would run with fusion, Storyteller or any other system.
I think i would shift the type of story i run much more towards a linier model, starting in media res, with events picking the characters up and carrying them along. High action, without through adventures, with periods down time between in which to explore elements of the character. In many ways i would keep it very pulp.
As it stands, the only setting i would run 4E in is Eberron, as it is the only setting i have seen which i feel really suits the rule set.
|
|
I don't really play 4E, which i have to say i regret a little, so this really is based on my reading of the material and hypothetical, rather than actual experience.
If I where to run 4E, the stories i would run with it would be very different from those i would run with PRPG, which are in turn different from what i would run with fusion, Storyteller or any other system.
I think i would shift the type of story i run much more towards a linier model, starting in media res, with events picking the characters up and carrying them along. High action, without through adventures, with periods down time between in which to explore elements of the character. In many ways i would keep it very pulp.
As it stands, the only setting i would run 4E in is Eberron, as it is the only setting i have seen which i feel really suits the rule set.
Well, I'm running exactly the sort of game I would have run before. Nothing in the game precludes what might have happened in 3e, though it might be differently skinned mechanically (some spells being converted to rituals being an obvious example). The only vague problem where RP and mechanics meet are the loss of the Profession (x) and Craft (x) skills (as I have a player who wants his PC to be a cook). Maybe I run a pulpy game anyway (though I don't think I am puplier than most) but there is really little difference between the experience of play overall. There is a lot of stuff (and from people who probably should know better) that 4e is a tactical minis game (and your post seems to reflect that view). It really isn't - there is nothing to stop roleplaying or settings of any sort that I can think of. 4e is not actually as radically different to 3e as, say, RQ is (the game I played most recently other than 3e and 4e) where the setting and magic systems are very closely integrated with the world.
|
We saw some differences at the table but I think that had more to do with other influences than the actual rules. Our group had just come off a two-year, 3.5 game set in Monte Cook's Ptolus. The players really knew that setting well and the characters had become remarkably well developed.
I set the 4e game in the default setting and the players decided to change up roles a bit. I think that had an interesting effect on the game and how it unfolded. The setting would have been fine but it didn't feel as "alive" due to constant, initially subconscious, comparisons to the Ptolus campaign. There were some odd shifts in how players interacted with NPCs and each other. As stated, I think this had very little to do with mechanics.
I should also note I ran the WotC adventures and those felt a bit flat. Even after some massive tinkering they still didn't seem to flow well. H2 was the best of the lot and felt most like our "old style" of play. But the others never ignited my enthusiasm and, as DM, I know I set the feel of the game. If I am not excited I can't expect my players to be. I really should have made adjustments much earlier and stopped trying to make those adventures work. They just weren't for us.
So, I would say the feel/style would have remained the same had I set the campaign in Ptolus and ran a different set of modules. Perhaps homebrewed adventures would have gone off even better. I don't think 4e forces an alteration of playstyle nor does it significantly change the assumptions your group might carry.
The players liked the system and they took to it rather quickly. They still roleplayed rather significantly even if it felt like something was off. Had I made different choices the situation would have likely been different in some very specific ways.
I think the feel has changed for us a bit. At first it was a LOT different, but that was mainly due to us focusing too closely on combat. It actually turned me off at first and we dropped it for a B/X campaign.
Now we're trying 4e again and I think I've found the right balance to achieve the feel I prefer. I will say that I miss the way magic used to work, and that the instant effect based design of 4e magic loses some of the mystique that magic used to have for me. This is 4e's primary turnoff for me. I pretty much enjoy the rest of it.
We're playing in Eberron (I thought it would be the best setting to highlight what 4e does well) and the characters just made 3rd level. I find myself wishing I'd stuck to my initial instincts and chosen Golarion, but the die is cast. We're about to finish up Seekers of the Ashen Crown, and I must say none of us are all that impressed with it. I'm actually fast-tracking the adventure to it's conclusion just to be done with it.
Next, I'm going to try running one of Paizo's APs in 4e. I'm trying to choose between CotCT and CoT, right now I'm leaning more toward the latter. I'll have to start it with the PCs at lvl 4 though. Once we have a few sessions of that under our belts, I'll have a definitive opinion on whether the gaming aesthetic I prefer is still possible in 4e.
I suspect it is, but I'm finding I need to work harder to achieve it.
The biggest thing I've noticed (and keep in mind, I've only played in one game) is that you can actually do stuff when it's not your turn. I think this is a good change, because while combat seems to take just as long as 3E, it doesn't feel like it because you're constantly doing things.
The only time I didn't like it is when I had to pee. I fear that many a D&D player is going to suffer from bladder infections as a result of this edition. Very sad.
That happens in 3.5 as well but its generally stuff that is higher level. Hence the difference in 4E is that your much more likely to have some kind of an interrupt at lower levels. Also every class can do interrupts while in 3.5 that was really the domain of the spell casters and Psionics.
I don't really play 4E, which i have to say i regret a little, so this really is based on my reading of the material and hypothetical, rather than actual experience.
If I where to run 4E, the stories i would run with it would be very different from those i would run with PRPG, which are in turn different from what i would run with fusion, Storyteller or any other system.
I think i would shift the type of story i run much more towards a linier model, starting in media res, with events picking the characters up and carrying them along. High action, without through adventures, with periods down time between in which to explore elements of the character. In many ways i would keep it very pulp.
As it stands, the only setting i would run 4E in is Eberron, as it is the only setting i have seen which i feel really suits the rule set.
Probably one of the reasons I don't notice that much of a change is that we were heading in this direction in 3.5 in any case. Also 3.5 at low levels can feel pretty gritty and realistic but the system mitigates against that style as you get up past 10th. In a lot of ways after 10th level 3.5 has a much greater amount of wiz-bang-boom effects then 4E or at least the use of the various spells are much more dramatic, potent and liable to last longer.
Well, I'm running exactly the sort of game I would have run before.Actually, that isn't exactly true - I've never really done a homebrew before, and now I am, so in a sense 4e seems to have inspired me to do something new.
I suppose in that respect I've also experienced a change in the sort of game I run. Before 4e I'd never converted an adventure from a previous edition.
I played 4E at a Mid South Con. Then I made my group (we play 3.5/Pathfinder) try a trial run at 4E. The "feel" of the overall play was the pretty much the same. We roleplayed, rollplayed, and all that. The only thing that got me was that the combat scenarios tended to last a long time. Then the PC's wanted to go back to 3.5 and we never finished the adventure path. I think we started with 5th Level characters and ran the "Heathen" adventure. We played a couple of sessions before everyone wanted to switch back.
With that being said, did anyone else experience something like this? Maybe, if we started from level 1, we would understand our characters better or something?
I'll probably be starting up a Cauldron campaign we have been playing for years on and off. One thing I plan to do differently in 4e is allow the players a lot more flexibility as far as what they want to do.
In other words, I'm going to give the PCs a lot more freedom as to how they want to take go about things. I find this flexibility to be a lot easier in 4e.
I played 4E at a Mid South Con. Then I made my group (we play 3.5/Pathfinder) try a trial run at 4E. The "feel" of the overall play was the pretty much the same. We roleplayed, rollplayed, and all that. The only thing that got me was that the combat scenarios tended to last a long time. Then the PC's wanted to go back to 3.5 and we never finished the adventure path. I think we started with 5th Level characters and ran the "Heathen" adventure. We played a couple of sessions before everyone wanted to switch back.
With that being said, did anyone else experience something like this? Maybe, if we started from level 1, we would understand our characters better or something?
I've definitely found that a new player coming in takes longer to do their turns. The more complex their characters the more you get this.
At some point the players pick up their powers and things speed up. The speed gain happens as they come to understand their powers and that can happen comparatively quickly because its easy to have everything you need to know about a power right in front of you on a card or piece of paper. Powers tend to are much simpler and have less moving parts then a spell and the lack of full round actions for martial characters speed things up in that department.
|
|
I played 4E at a Mid South Con. Then I made my group (we play 3.5/Pathfinder) try a trial run at 4E. The "feel" of the overall play was the pretty much the same. We roleplayed, rollplayed, and all that. The only thing that got me was that the combat scenarios tended to last a long time. Then the PC's wanted to go back to 3.5 and we never finished the adventure path. I think we started with 5th Level characters and ran the "Heathen" adventure. We played a couple of sessions before everyone wanted to switch back.
With that being said, did anyone else experience something like this? Maybe, if we started from level 1, we would understand our characters better or something?
As Jeremy said above the initial delve into 4E compares badly with 3.5 and earlier as everything is so new (combat-wise) it takes forever for each encounter. My usual D&D group gave up on 4E after 3 or 4 sessions due to the combat encounters taking virtually all our playing time. Of course 4E was blamed and written off. My point, new rules = slower game. I play 4E with another group and if you have one player (that's me) with the character gen from WotC then everything you need to play is at your finger tips.
S.
What level did you start at when that happened? I found that at 1st level my group's combats didn't take overly long or feel unmanageable. However they had just come off of running 20th level 3.5 PCs in the Savage Tide, so that might have explained why even though 4E was new a 1st level PC seemed like a breeze to run. They weren't casting dozens of spells on themselves and trying to track the effects of those spells on their stat blocks and all the other complexities that come with a high level 3E game. It also helps to have well put together character sheets so that you can find everything you need.
I played 4E at a Mid South Con. Then I made my group (we play 3.5/Pathfinder) try a trial run at 4E. The "feel" of the overall play was the pretty much the same. We roleplayed, rollplayed, and all that. The only thing that got me was that the combat scenarios tended to last a long time. Then the PC's wanted to go back to 3.5 and we never finished the adventure path. I think we started with 5th Level characters and ran the "Heathen" adventure. We played a couple of sessions before everyone wanted to switch back.
With that being said, did anyone else experience something like this? Maybe, if we started from level 1, we would understand our characters better or something?
As Jeremy said above the initial delve into 4E compares badly with 3.5 and earlier as everything is so new (combat-wise) it takes forever for each encounter. My usual D&D group gave up on 4E after 3 or 4 sessions due to the combat encounters taking virtually all our playing time. Of course 4E was blamed and written off. My point, new rules = slower game. I play 4E with another group and if you have one player (that's me) with the character gen from WotC then everything you need to play is at your finger tips.
S.
We havent played it that much yet having just reached level five, so not sure how qualified I am to comment.
As a player, it definitely feels different to me. Even at low levels, we are fighting what seem to be hordes of opponents relative to what we fought in 3.5. I think the "hero-ness" of the PCs is definitely a part of the feel of 4th edition. In 3.5 it felt like we were better versions of (most) NPCs. In 4th edition, we feel like we're cut from a different cloth - partly due to our ability to fight when seriously outnumbered, perhaps also due to planning out our epic destinies and paths to immortality.
Another difference within each battle is the 'resource management' feel of a combat. In 3.5, things could quickly turn really bad really quick - some unlucky rolls in succession could have a huge difference. We havent found that in 4th edition. If things are going sour for us, we usually know with three or four rounds to go - we start running out of healing surges, daily powers, etcetera etcetera.
Roleplaying suffered initially as we learnt the new game (and spent all that mental energy checking up mechanics). I dont think it has had any material effect now that we're a bit more comfortable with the rules. However, skill challenges are a problem - whether its our inexperience or whether it just doesnt suit us, I'm not too sure. Basically, we find it very difficult to move smoothly from narrative roleplaying into a skill challenge. It feels like we're telling a story, then stop for a minute to play a mini-game, then go back to telling the story. This is no doubt partly a function of our inexperience, however it seems to be inevitable to me that creating a mechanic for anything runs the risk of intruding on the immersive feel. I'm not convinced skill challenges bring more benefits more than they cost.
However, skill challenges are a problem - whether its our inexperience or whether it just doesnt suit us, I'm not too sure. Basically, we find it very difficult to move smoothly from narrative roleplaying into a skill challenge. It feels like we're telling a story, then stop for a minute to play a mini-game, then go back to telling the story. This is no doubt partly a function of our inexperience, however it seems to be inevitable to me that creating a mechanic for anything runs the risk of intruding on the immersive feel. I'm not convinced skill challenges bring more benefits more than they cost.
I wouldn't give up on skill challenges right away. I've certainly experienced what you are talking about, but I've had other moments where the skill challenge mechanic made a basic roleplaying scene into something exciting and memorable.
I'm still learning how to incorporate the skill challenge effectively. It's something new; I get the feeling even the designers are still getting the hang of them. But I think there is a lot of potential there.
However, skill challenges are a problem ... it seems to be inevitable to me that creating a mechanic for anything runs the risk of intruding on the immersive feel. I'm not convinced skill challenges bring more benefits more than they cost.I wouldn't give up on skill challenges right away. I've certainly experienced what you are talking about, but I've had other moments where the skill challenge mechanic made a basic roleplaying scene into something exciting and memorable.
This.
The DM in my last 3.5 campaign tried out skill challenges with mixed results, and I was dubious about them when I started DMing in 4E recently. And to be sure, the ones I've run haven't all been rousing successes, but I've had more good results than bad ones thus far.
One of the tricks I've found, is that I don't generally announce that the players are in a skill challenge. I'll present them with the situation and ask them what they want to do. If they seem stuck, I might hint at a few possible skill uses, but I leave it to them to drive the action. Also, if they can come up with a way to contribute to the success of the challenge using some ability other than a skill, I count it as a success in the challenge-- if it's sufficiently awesome and creative, I'd give them the whole challenge.
I look at skill challenges as a way to structure the XP gained for non-combat situations. It lets my players explore alternatives to combat without feeling like they're losing XP for not bruising for a fight every minute of the game. I'm generous with RP bonuses to XP as well, but it's nice to have an alternative to combat that still provides some objective, structured rewards for the players.
Well, I'm running exactly the sort of game I would have run before. Nothing in the game precludes what might have happened in 3e, though it might be differently skinned mechanically (some spells being converted to rituals being an obvious example). The only vague problem where RP and mechanics meet are the loss of the Profession (x) and Craft (x) skills (as I have a player who wants his PC to be a cook). Maybe I run a pulpy game anyway (though I don't think I am puplier than most) but there is really little difference between the experience of play overall. There is a lot of stuff (and from people who probably should know better) that 4e is a tactical minis game (and your post seems to reflect that view). It really isn't - there is nothing to stop roleplaying or settings of any sort that I can think of. 4e is not actually as radically different to 3e as, say, RQ is (the game I played most recently other than 3e and 4e) where the setting and magic systems are very closely integrated with the world.I don't really play 4E, which i have to say i regret a little, so this really is based on my reading of the material and hypothetical, rather than actual experience.
If I where to run 4E, the stories i would run with it would be very different from those i would run with PRPG, which are in turn different from what i would run with fusion, Storyteller or any other system.
I think i would shift the type of story i run much more towards a linier model, starting in media res, with events picking the characters up and carrying them along. High action, without through adventures, with periods down time between in which to explore elements of the character. In many ways i would keep it very pulp.
As it stands, the only setting i would run 4E in is Eberron, as it is the only setting i have seen which i feel really suits the rule set.
From a player perspective, there are character that have personlly enjoyed playing that i could make and have work in 3.5 and PRGP, that i have not seen a way to make function in 4E. So that to me, would be a demonstrable, hard and fast change of play style. For instance, one of my faverate characters of recent times, was a supernatural traceur, who uses this abilities to enhance their athletism. I originally made her for Vampire the Requiem, and i could with relative ease make a wizard/rogue in 3.5 or PRGP who captured the spirit of that character. I would struggle to do the same with 4e. While this might be in part because i have only players handbook 1 & 2, arcane and martial powers and the forgotten realms campaign setting (aka worst RPG purchase i ever made), i suspect it has more to do with the underlying assumptions of how 4E should be played, inherent in the system. I believe i would need to be able to trade out my encounter and daily powers for utility powers, to be able to play in my usual style with the character. As an aside, i would love to play said mystic traceur in the City of Sharn, as i can think of no play ground better.
It might not be that you run an especially pulpy game, it could equally be that my normal style goes for a very different style normally and that your game which might very well be middle of the road fantasy, seems pulpy to me. Given that i really am pretty new to DnD as a whole, it is more likely that my play style is outside of the norm.
I personally do feel that 4E has a lot in common with Narrative Skirmish Games(A war game that focus on a single individual or small group, which links a series of battles with a strong narrative campaign ), perhapes even more than it does with the vast majority of Roleplaying games. I have in the past expressed the oppinion that it may in fact be a narrative skirmish game rather than a Roleplaying game. That is in no way an insult, GW's inquisitor is a really interesting game which i enjoy a great deal. But the default for 4E is that combat is resolved with models or counters on a flat grid. Combat is the focus of the game, and in many ways, the story exists to give meaning and drama to the combats, rather than the combats resolving conflicts in the story. That said, i wasn't getting at this point in my first post. What i really ment is that the system does not handle social conflict at all, which means that entire areas i would normal handle in a game, cannot, to my knowledge be resolved within the RAW.
For instance, there are no rules for covering what happens if a PC and an NPC, or two disagreeing PCs attempt to convince a 3rd party to follow their choosen course of action. In fairness, 3.5 doesn't contain this either, atleast not in any meaningful manner, however, thanks to the larger array of skills, you can sort of muddle through using contested rolls, which is far less convincing or satifying in 4E.
The loose of profession and craft again is somewhat annoying and does limit somewhat the range of stories i would be happy telling with the system.
|
No it did not change!
The groupe i'm running (some of them playing with me for the last 18 years!)with gave a fair try at 4ED but we did not even finish the first adventure!
Rule wise its solid and sharp but its not just D&D anymore. Everything is based on combat prowess and martial skills. For us who love roleplay and interaction, its sound more like a couple of D&D mini game connected together by some "random" roleplay instead of being the other way around.... lots of role play and intrigue spiced up with some well placed and exiting combat situations!
So no our gaming experience or playstyle had not changed because we simply went back to 3.5 and more recently to Pathfinder.
I know that some devs here simply turn allergic when they ear bad comment about 4ED but its our opinions and for me and my group 4ED was the worst thing that could have happend to D&D.
No it did not change!
The groupe i'm running (some of them playing with me for the last 18 years!)with gave a fair try at 4ED but we did not even finish the first adventure!
Rule wise its solid and sharp but its not just D&D anymore. Everything is based on combat prowess and martial skills. For us who love roleplay and interaction, its sound more like a couple of D&D mini game connected together by some "random" roleplay instead of being the other way around.... lots of role play and intrigue spiced up with some well placed and exiting combat situations!
So no our gaming experience or playstyle had not changed because we simply went back to 3.5 and more recently to Pathfinder.
I know that some devs here simply turn allergic when they ear bad comment about 4ED but its our opinions and for me and my group 4ED was the worst thing that could have happend to D&D.
You have to play what suits your group or there's no point!
I would just say though, that for me 3.5 felt more like a number crunching exercise than 4e ever has. We came back to D&D after a 15 year break (just at the tail end of 3.5 having missed everything from AD&D onwards). I might well have felt very differently if we'd played through all the editions from beginning to end, but the jump from remembered AD&D to 3.5 D&D was very major and the jump from remembered AD&D to 4e was hardly noticeable. For me, at least, it felt more familiar.
It's always interesting to see someone else's perspective. I like the robustness of 4e and don't find it makes any difference at all to the amount of roleplay or not. We have quite a mixed group. Some are always waiting for the next combat, some like to spin out the interactions. We're all pretty happy. Horses for courses.
No it did not change!
The groupe i'm running (some of them playing with me for the last 18 years!)with gave a fair try at 4ED but we did not even finish the first adventure!
Rule wise its solid and sharp but its not just D&D anymore. Everything is based on combat prowess and martial skills. For us who love roleplay and interaction, its sound more like a couple of D&D mini game connected together by some "random" roleplay instead of being the other way around.... lots of role play and intrigue spiced up with some well placed and exiting combat situations!
So no our gaming experience or playstyle had not changed because we simply went back to 3.5 and more recently to Pathfinder.
I know that some devs here simply turn allergic when they ear bad comment about 4ED but its our opinions and for me and my group 4ED was the worst thing that could have happend to D&D.
Weird. I find plenty of opportunity for roleplaying in 4e.
I enjoy DM'ing 4E a lot for many reasons, the main ones being:
- Prep time is now in minutes rather than hours. The monster builder, character generator, encounter generator, and compendium speed up this a LOT.
- Encounters are fun for everybody at all times and roles are clearly defined. Leaders can buff and heal while doing other actions, defenders can "tank" enemies effectively and dish out respectable melee damage, strikers do insane damage and are noticeably more fragile than defenders, and controllers are masters of crowd control.
- Every race, class, skill, feat, and power is useful at some point in the game.
- 15 minute adventuring day is all but gone in my group. My party takes on 2-3 encounters between short rests on average, and actually sleeps at nightfall like regular folks :)
- Magic items are taking a back seat finally, and are not so important anymore. More emphasis on character stats and powers.
- Monsters can be mixed and matched, providing limitless foes for your PCs. Elites and solos feel like bosses without being too powerful.
From a player perspective, there are character that have personlly enjoyed playing that i could make and have work in 3.5 and PRGP, that i have not seen a way to make function in 4E. So that to me, would be a demonstrable, hard and fast change of play style.
Its probably worth pointing out that what most people are talking about when they say their games have not really changed is that they are still pretty much doing the same sorts of things that the did in 3.5 at the table. Probably a mix of combat and non-combat scenes that remain broadly unchanged from what was common in previous editions. For example I have no doubt that if I played under Scott in 3.5 and he ran Rise of the Runelords I would be engaged in much the same activities as would be the case if I played under him in his conversion of Rise of the Rune Lords in 4E. There'd be changes in mechanics etc. but broadly speaking we'd do pretty much the same things in both editions - we'd tell the same story.
How we specifically went about telling that story and how we got the tools to tell that story would be where the differences crop up.
So, in noting that character creation mechanics are different you've come upon one of the mechanical changes between the editions in terms of how we got the tools to tell the story. Fundamentally, if I know I'm playing an AP and I have a rough idea what an AP is then I'm likely to have a similar character in both editions of the game. Knowing what an AP is might well lead me to creating a Barbarian and my Barbarian would do roughly the same sorts of things in both editions. Probably be a somewhat under armoured damage dealer that can take a lot of punishment. Obviously how we derived these characters did change between the editions. 3.5 my class would be built around synergyzing my powerful feat options to work with my class abilities in order to create my build. I might well dip into fighter for a few levels as I'm going to get a lot of utility out of those extra feats and I won't loose a ton from my Barbarian - this is were the mixing and matching of classes and feats in 3.5 is most notable and I can use that, in 3.5, to create a large number of different options. 4E works more on a 'there is a class for that' principle. While there is a fair amount of different things one can do within a class most of the time if your aiming for some kind of archetype you start with a class and that class focuses on that archetype.
Hence 3.5's strength in this department is versatility - almost everything can be mixed with almost everything else and its then just a matter of whether or not this admixture really works or not. 4E is not quite as versatile in terms of total options but it is probably at least as versatile in total number of viable archtypes. In 3.5 you could make it - but it may or may not actually be very good. In 4E every class has an archetype and it'll almost always be very good at that particular archtype since the class is built from the ground up with that archtype as the focus. So, for example, in 3.5 an obvious archtype is Elven Ranger for an archer build. However, because of the way the game is designed that Archtype - while good at being an archer archtype is probably not actually as good as the Human Fighter as an archer archtype. You don't get this in 4E - the Elven Ranger will just be a better archer then the human fighter. The Ranger class has all sorts of powers that will power the bow while the fighter has comparatively few. In choosing to be a human fighter you choose to be a frontline tank, your options in terms of the class will come down to stuff like whether you want to make your fighter a half descent back-up archer or instead focus even more into being an exceptional frontline tank.
For instance, one of my faverate characters of recent times, was a supernatural traceur, who uses this abilities to enhance their athletism. I originally made her for Vampire the Requiem, and i could with relative ease make a wizard/rogue in 3.5 or PRGP who captured the spirit of that character. I would struggle to do the same with 4e. While this might be in part because i have only players handbook 1 & 2, arcane and martial powers and the forgotten realms campaign setting (aka worst RPG purchase i ever made), i suspect it has more to do with the underlying assumptions of how 4E should be played, inherent in the system. I believe i would need to be able to trade out my encounter and daily powers for utility powers, to be able to play in my usual style with the character. As an aside, i would love to play said mystic traceur in the City of Sharn, as i can think of no play ground better.
Unfortunately I'm unclear what a Supernatural Traceur is exactly though I think I have a very rough idea. That said I have to really wonder if you could make this class effectively in 3.5. If you mix your rogue and your wizard together your going to be doing some serious damage to your wizard - furthermore your wizards spells are not exactly designed to really enhance your characters physical abilities - they can be used that way but only with some buffing to begin with. 4E would handle this class by making a class specific to this exact archtype and it would be very good at just this sort of thing. Whats really missing in this regards is the actual class and its possible that no such class will ever come to light. That said I think I tried making something like this myself in 3.5 - I tried using a Monk/psionic warrior multiclass and loaded up on psionic feats that would allow the class to run up walls and throw missile weapons back at opponents - it was a neat idea but if you mix monk and psionic warrior together you get a psionic warrior with low PSPs and a monk that never gets to all his cool later level abilities. Concept was cool but very underpowered for our game and I abandoned it. In 4E what will happen is either there just won't be a class that can do that in which case your SOL or a class will be made that focuses specifically on this archtype. I have a suspicion that the Monk in PHB3 will in fact be this archtype. If so it'll be very comparable in power to the rest of the characters at the table. Hence the weakness of this model is a favoured archtype may just not exist while the strength is that if such an archtype does exist it will also be a viable archtype.
It might not be that you run an especially pulpy game, it could equally be that my normal style goes for a very different style normally and that your game which might very well be middle of the road fantasy, seems pulpy to me. Given that i really am pretty new to DnD as a whole, it is more likely that my play style is outside of the norm.
Here you do touch on something that can come up in terms of comparing 3.5 to 4E. Note that most of the players said that, more or less, the stories they were telling still seemed to be very similar between the two editions. But 4E has a built in design philosophy of making all characters good both in and out of combat. In 3.5 you can build a party that absolutely excels at either combat or no combat campaigns and they are going to be more focused on either of these extremes. So its possible in 3.5 to make a character that never puts anything at all into anything that does not specifically enhance the characters combat abilities. So long as you know that you'll never do anything but fight your going to have a very focused build in this regards - in 4E at a minimium you had to spend time picking your skill training and these won't really come up if you never do anything but fight.
Similar theme on the other hand. In 3.5 its comparatively easy to make a number of characters that will never ever see combat - Maybe their con artists and thieves and and every character is built around skill points or is a bard. You might be lousy in a fight but you'll never fight so that won't be a problem. Do the same in 4E and you can make characters that are better at this sort of thing by using your feats to pick up skill training and skill focus but in the end your automatically going to at least spend some time picking combat powers that won't be of use - or at least not much use outside of combat.
I personally do feel that 4E has a lot in common with Narrative Skirmish Games(A war game that focus on a single individual or small group, which links a series of battles with a strong narrative campaign ), perhapes even more than it does with the vast majority of Roleplaying games. I have in the past expressed the oppinion that it may in fact be a narrative skirmish game rather than a Roleplaying game. That is in no way an insult, GW's inquisitor is a really interesting game which i enjoy a great deal. But the default for 4E is that combat is resolved with models or counters on a flat grid. Combat is the focus of the game, and in many ways, the story exists to give meaning and drama to the combats, rather than the combats resolving conflicts in the story.
You can play 4E like this if you'd like and WotCs material even seems to lean in that direction but there is no real requirement. The system is made to handle a balance and you can lean the balance toward either combat or non-combat to a certain degree but it will work best, and the characters will be able to use all their skills and abilities, if you include at least some amount of both combat and non-combat.
That said, i wasn't getting at this point in my first post. What i really ment is that the system does not handle social conflict at all, which means that entire areas i would normal handle in a game, cannot, to my knowledge be resolved within the RAW.
For instance, there are no rules for covering what happens if a PC and an NPC, or two disagreeing PCs attempt to convince a 3rd party to follow their choosen course of action. In fairness, 3.5 doesn't contain this either, atleast not in any meaningful manner, however, thanks to the larger array of skills, you can sort of muddle through using contested rolls, which is far less convincing or satifying in 4E.
Your describing a Skill Challenge.
Off the top of my head a fun Skill Challenge that deals with this type of encounter might involve the PCs fighting town guards, maybe in a corrupt city like Korvosa. Lets have a noble show up in the middle of the fight.
Players might use history checks to figure out who the noble was - that could give them some leverage. Fighters are often trained in Streetwise. Thats a good skill to use in this challenge as well as it probably takes place at night and a noble out and about at night probably has some interesting dirt that can be pinned on her (maybe she has a secret lover how about a bad boy pirate captain) - a successful streetwise check could allow the fighter to recall some rumours of dirt on the noble and maybe opens up a chance to use an intimidate check in order to start down the road of blackmail. Seems our fighter is a bit of an anti-hero. Threatening to Blackmail nobles for the cause of good.
Chances are if instead we were dealing with a Paladin we'd probably have a class thats skills and training are going to head toward diplomacy so the Paladin would likely try and appeal to the nobles higher nature. If both the Paladin and the Fighter are around then they'll likely take a two pronged approach - its all for a good cause, and by the way if you oppose us then your husband is going to learn - in excruciating detail - certain aspects of your 'affairs'.
The mechanics of a Skill Challenge determine if the players approach succeeds or fails. The DM determines what the consequences of succsess or failure are. If one wants to get into advanced Skill Challenge design one can go with a shades of grey approach that could result in the Noble not choosing sides at all.
A very skilled DM could run this with no prep work but most DMs would want to design this Skill Challenge ahead of time and would therefore plan to have a noble walk in on the fight either in a specific scene or possibly this would be triggered the next time the PCs engage in a fight with the authorities at night in a public area. The DM gets bonus points if the Noble has either shown up in the adventure before or if the DM works her into the adventure later.
A point that should be emphasized here is that the fighter is just as good out of combat as the Paladin - the game is designed that way. It's possible for my fighter to be better then the Paladin if I choose to spend feats improving my skills and the Paladin does not. So I mentioned that the fighter could be a backup archer - another alternative would be some kind of skill build, maybe aiming to be like Roy from Order of the Stick. This choice, however will probably preclude me from being a good backup archer.
I don't have any problem with people saying that they dislike 4E, but what you describe to me seems to be more of a problem with the adventure than the system. If it was one of the 4E WotC adventures than I can easily see how you would arrive at this conclusion, and if you aren't a fan of hack and slash gaming than I would stay away from those adventures, but if you had a 3.5 dm who was running campaigns with extensive intrigue and roleplaying, than I don't really see anything in 4E that would prevent the dm from running that same sort of game with the 4E system.
No it did not change!
The groupe i'm running (some of them playing with me for the last 18 years!)with gave a fair try at 4ED but we did not even finish the first adventure!
Rule wise its solid and sharp but its not just D&D anymore. Everything is based on combat prowess and martial skills. For us who love roleplay and interaction, its sound more like a couple of D&D mini game connected together by some "random" roleplay instead of being the other way around.... lots of role play and intrigue spiced up with some well placed and exiting combat situations!
So no our gaming experience or playstyle had not changed because we simply went back to 3.5 and more recently to Pathfinder.
I know that some devs here simply turn allergic when they ear bad comment about 4ED but its our opinions and for me and my group 4ED was the worst thing that could have happend to D&D.
One other mechanic that still needs extra work, as a DM, is tracking all the conditions. The one I dislike the most is bloodied.
Assuming you use miniatures grab some red hair elastics (small rubber bands) throw one on the mini when it is bloodied (PCs too). Remove if it gets some healing. Simple and really effective on the combat map to see who is in trouble and who is doing just fine! You can also use different colours to represent different effects (black for stunned, blue for dazed, green for marked etc). If you do not use minis I recommend index cards for initiative order (the PCs and monsters stacked up in order on initiative rolls) and then you can write notes on who is bloodied, stunned, immobilized etc.
I haven't played D&D without minis ever (and I've been playing since 1981) so I obviously use the first example. I do also use index cards for initiative order but have slowly been trying to get used to the paizo combat pad I bought years ago.
By level 15 or so, enemies that 'Batman' needs a 20 to hit, his Nomad friend can hit on a 2. 'Batman' has some interesting out of combat utility and skills, but a combination of multiple weak BAB classes, evenly distributed ability scores, and lack of combat feats and items... means his attack bonus is simply terrible in combat. There are just too many 'hidden bad choices' that he...
Wow. You just described our Age of Worms campaign at 15th level perfectly. The poor Rogue.... he didn't even multiclass and sucked so hard it took the focus off of how badly the Scout/Fighter sucked (at least the S/F had a decent AC though!)
Assuming you use miniatures grab some red hair elastics (small rubber bands) throw one on the mini when it is bloodied (PCs too). Remove if it gets some healing. Simple and really effective on the combat map to see who is in trouble and who is doing just fine! You can also use different colours to represent different effects (black for stunned, blue for dazed, green for marked etc). If you do not use minis I recommend index cards for initiative order (the PCs and monsters stacked up in order on initiative rolls) and then you can write notes on who is bloodied, stunned, immobilized etc.
One other mechanic that still needs extra work, as a DM, is tracking all the conditions. The one I dislike the most is bloodied.
What a great idea! Thanks! As a dad with 3 little girls, I'm constantly finding these things all over the place anyway.
Assuming you use miniatures grab some red hair elastics (small rubber bands) throw one on the mini when it is bloodied (PCs too). Remove if it gets some healing. Simple and really effective on the combat map to see who is in trouble and who is doing just fine! You can also use different colours to represent different effects (black for stunned, blue for dazed, green for marked etc). If you do not use minis I recommend index cards for initiative order (the PCs and monsters stacked up in order on initiative rolls) and then you can write notes on who is bloodied, stunned, immobilized etc.What a great idea! Thanks! As a dad with 3 little girls, I'm constantly finding these things all over the place anyway.
lol! You are most welcome. A fellow DM and friend of mine came up with the idea while getting a soda at a D&D Day. He saw a package of them on a hook in the store and had a brainstorm.
|
|
Yeah, I've seen a lot of creative ways to portray conditions like that
I personally think that this rather than "lack of roleplaying ability" (which I don't think is true) is the main issue of 4E. Rounds get too busy with transisent conditions. I think that a simplification (i.e. reduction) of the number of conditions would help. I guess some will argue that less conditions mean less variabililty in effects - I guess this is true to a point. This is the number one reason I dislike DMing 4E, being a player isn't so bad as you only have yourself to look after condition wise.
The ideas presented are good but adding little bits of coloured somethings onto a board with miniatures that already may not be strictly represented just takes me one step further away from the immersion of my character and one step closer to "it's a board game". I enjoy being a player of 4E, a solid system in which some great roleplaying can occur, in fact the bits of 4E I don't really like are all to do with combat - go figure...
S.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of creative ways to portray conditions like thatI personally think that this rather than "lack of roleplaying ability" (which I don't think is true) is the main issue of 4E. Rounds get too busy with transisent conditions. I think that a simplification (i.e. reduction) of the number of conditions would help. I guess some will argue that less conditions mean less variabililty in effects - I guess this is true to a point. This is the number one reason I dislike DMing 4E, being a player isn't so bad as you only have yourself to look after condition wise.
The ideas presented are good but adding little bits of coloured somethings onto a board with miniatures that already may not be strictly represented just takes me one step further away from the immersion of my character and one step closer to "it's a board game". I enjoy being a player of 4E, a solid system in which some great roleplaying can occur, in fact the bits of 4E I don't really like are all to do with combat - go figure...
S.
I've never really experienced significant difficulty in tracking conditions. Marks/curses/etc. get tracked with poker chips beneath mini bases. Everything else is tracked in my head or the players' heads. Yes, occasionally you miss stuff, but the game flows just fine.
|
|
I've never really experienced significant difficulty in tracking conditions. Marks/curses/etc. get tracked with poker chips beneath mini bases. Everything else is tracked in my head or the players' heads. Yes, occasionally you miss stuff, but the game flows just fine.Yeah, I've seen a lot of creative ways to portray conditions like thatI personally think that this rather than "lack of roleplaying ability" (which I don't think is true) is the main issue of 4E. Rounds get too busy with transisent conditions. I think that a simplification (i.e. reduction) of the number of conditions would help. I guess some will argue that less conditions mean less variabililty in effects - I guess this is true to a point. This is the number one reason I dislike DMing 4E, being a player isn't so bad as you only have yourself to look after condition wise.
The ideas presented are good but adding little bits of coloured somethings onto a board with miniatures that already may not be strictly represented just takes me one step further away from the immersion of my character and one step closer to "it's a board game". I enjoy being a player of 4E, a solid system in which some great roleplaying can occur, in fact the bits of 4E I don't really like are all to do with combat - go figure...
S.
As you know Scott I come from a non-miniatures use (in any edition) background so I'm already in unfamaliar territory. I'm not talking about "flow", however that is one aspect, but rather suspension of disbelief and character immersion. Being drawn into a story AS your character.
You don't find the poker chips placement and removal an interruption? Just asking.
Getting back to the OPers question. Yes massive changes in the areas of combat but no with all the other bits that go along with a roleplaying game. Skill challenges are really good fun (no body start on the maths please, it doesn't really matter), and I think if done well they add much to the game. In fact I would say skill challenges are my favourite aspect of 4E. Players like to roll dice and let fate decide, it's more dice rolling during a game so not a bad thing. Roger Moore once said in Dragon "let them roll dice every 20 minutes" - I have to agree.
S.
|
|
The biggest issue I've run into, myself, still comes down to group size.
I see what you mean, as a DM I like a party of 3-4, no more, no less. Perhaps I'm slightly too anti-social to bother with dealing with 5 or 6 people?!
Anyway, I would love to have another bash at DMing 4E with a nice small 3 perhaps 4 players and give it a good go, not just throw out the baby with the bath water at the first stumble. My goal for the coming Xmas holidays I think. Immaterial if I (or others) think that 4E isn't quite D&D, 4E looks like it should be a good RPG to tell stories and have players do heroic things. I'm primarily a DM so I really want to see if I can't do with 4E what I have done with other RPG's - annoy players... :)
S.
You don't find the poker chips placement and removal an interruption? Just asking.
Not really. The placement of poker chips is just another part of the gameplay, usually done by the non-active participant (i.e., if a PC curses an enemy, the DM will place the curse chip under the target while the PC's player completes the rest of his turn).
The biggest issue I've run into, myself, still comes down to group size.I see what you mean, as a DM I like a party of 3-4, no more, no less. Perhaps I'm slightly too anti-social to bother with dealing with 5 or 6 people?!
Anyway, I would love to have another bash at DMing 4E with a nice small 3 perhaps 4 players and give it a good go, not just throw out the baby with the bath water at the first stumble. My goal for the coming Xmas holidays I think.
You might consider steering the players away from certain classes or even certain powers . I think if you have a Warlord then +2/-2 are everywhere but remove the Warlord and it becomes less of an issue. Its only rarely an issue at my table for example. Few defenders, no Warlord and pretty soon your down to the players keeping track of their Oaths (which really barely needs to register for the DM) and dealing with conditions - which does add complexity but conditions are often some of the most exciting aspects of combat and go a long way toward making them something more then a statistical exercise in removing hps so I can't see removing or limiting those.
You don't find the poker chips placement and removal an interruption? Just asking.Not really. The placement of poker chips is just another part of the gameplay, usually done by the non-active participant (i.e., if a PC curses an enemy, the DM will place the curse chip under the target while the PC's player completes the rest of his turn).
Scott has a good point - not sure what happens in your group but in ours some player is always keeping track of initiative, another tracks hps done to bad guys etc. Really we try and keep things moving as well as keep the load off the DM - nothing worse then when the DM is busy computing things and holding up the game. It should always be some one elses job to take care of most of this sort of mundane detail. Busy Work is also often just a good idea in and of itself as it keeps the players focused on the situation at the table and unable to get into distracting side conversations.
Try and delegate busy work to players most likely to otherwise end up distracting people from the game.
The most obvious change for my game(s) since the advent of 4E is that I actually DM. We'll come back to that in a second.
I liked to run 1st and 2nd edition games, but not play them. It was often difficult to get mechanics that represented character abilities and personality. Upon looking at 3rd, I decided I wouldn't touch DMing with a 15 ft guisarme, Combat Reflexes and Spring Attack. It was just way too involved. I really enjoyed playing 3rd, though, since the myriad of options - both WotC and 3PP - allowed me to create pretty much any character concept I could think of. Good stuff.
Now that 4th is out, I enjoy playing and running games about equally. The transparency or streamlining of the system lets me improvise at the table as frequently as 1st or 2nd edition while maintaining a reasonable challenge. (Many people will insert the b-word here. I dislike the b-word, and will not use it) There is also clear room for pure story-based character customization, not unlike the old 2nd ed Proficiencies. I used to find the lack of these sorts of things in the system a bug - I have since come to see it as a feature to be filled in however the players and DM see fit. As a player, there is finally enough material between DDI, two PHBs and two campaign settings that I can make the distinct, quirky characters that I enjoy so much. In many ways, 4th edition feels a little more old-school (not as much as, say Swords and Sorcery, but still) and flexible than 3rd edition ever did.