I read a very enlightening article over on ENWorld from one of the game's playtesters. It highlighted one of the key differences between 3E and 4E--one of the differences that I've been having a hard time pinning down. I think it's an excellent read for both those who like and those who dislike 4E.
The link to the thread is HERE.
And the post itself is copied below. The author is JDillard.
Got a long one here for you all.
So I'm a long time lurker here on ENWorld. I decided it's finally time to start a thread. I've been playing 4th for a few months now, as an NDA'd friend of a couple WotC employees. While I can't discuss specifics, I can talk about impressions I've gotten, and I feel like I've got a good grasp of the feel of the game and how it works.
Anyway... I'll get around to my point now.
I keep seeing a lot of discussion on many, many threads regarding options. I see a lot of people, both pro and anti 4e, saying that the game is more constrained, you can't do as much with characters, so on and so forth.
I've seen a lot of people try to argue the opposite. They've discussed "party optimization" instead of "character optimization", or compared a 1st level 3e fighter to a 1st level 4e fighter.
Furthermore, in a not obviously apparent, related topic I've seen many, many arguments about how 4e is better in play than it looks from just reading the book. My own experiences agree with that one.
Despite that, I and many others are having an absolute blast playing the game. So, why is that? If the game really is constricting, if there really are less options, then why is it that it's still so much fun? And how does that relate to the recurring theme that it's more fun in play than in read-through?
Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm!
3e - What we're familiar with:
In the previous edition (3.x) which, to put it bluntly, the vast majority of us here are familiar with, the majority of character options were built into the character creation process. It started with the very strong modularity of the system. At any point, at any level, I can take my next level of whatever class I might want (assuming prereq's met). When I want to build a level 20 character, I've got 20 "units" of build, purely based off of class levels. I can take a bit here, a bit there, and go for it. Or I can take all 20 of one class.
Even further, you've got feats and skills. Spellcasters have spells. Tons and tons and tons of options. Given enough time, with just the PHB, I can create hundreds of level 20 characters, all noticeably different. Admittedly, a lot of them would be poor to unplayable (10 Ftr / 10 Wiz for example). Still, that's a *ton* of options.
However, once you've gotten your character built and you're actually playing the game, your options drop dramatically. With the exception of the open-ended spellcasters (and what I mean by that are the Wizard and Cleric types, who aren't constrained by a "spells known" maximum), the rest of the character types were still very limited in what sorts of actions they could take. This is definitely true in combat, but even expands into the non-combat arena.
While your melee fighter type character can choose from many different options to begin with, once he's in combat he's got his one or two things he does over and over again. The heavy armor fighter runs up and stands next to the monster, hitting with his greatsword. The spiked chain fighter does his tripping, or his moving with Opportunity attacks. The rogue gets into flanking position and proceeds to sneak attack. This does not generally vary from combat to combat either, except in situations where the monster is somehow "immune" to whatever your schtick is (undead for the rogue, for example), and then you generally spend the time trying to come up with creative solutions that vary from brilliant to extremely frustrating for the DM.
This isn't just in combat though. Given the lengthy skills list and the ability to have such variance in skill point allocation, you've got a couple different ways a character can be. You can specialize in a few select skills, maximizing their points for your level, or you can try to spread the points out into multiple skills. The first works throughout, but the second generally only works at lower levels. By the time you hit the double-digits your "ok at lots of things" concept starts to turn into "poor at lots of things", and then "barely able to do lots of things" at the top end.
So suppose you stick with the familiar specialist concept. Given how lengthy the skill list is (40ish, right?) you really can only be *really really* specialized in a couple things. You take hide/move silent and great, you're fantastic it it. What do you do in game? You try to solve problems by sneaking around. You take Jump and Swim? What do you do? You try to find ways to jump or swim your way past challenges. From level 1 to level 20 you're trying to sneak past things or jump past things.
So, to conclude and reiterate this point: 3e's paradigm is to provide you with maximal options at character creation. However, this comes at the cost of most characters losing options during actual play. The only exclusion to this is with the open-ended spellcasters, for whom options are maximized nearly throughout. I'll discuss this a bit later.
4e - The New Game:
Contrasting the 3e paradigm is the 4e one. And a contrast it definitely is, as the methods of the system seem designed to flip the situation around to its opposite.
As much as we want to argue that 4e has lots and lots of options, and it does, comparing the sheer number of characters I can create with a 3e PHB and a 4e PHB the 4e one comes out far behind. The system is not modular in the same way. Once I pick my starting class, that's my class throughout. Now, as I level I do have the retraining option, so I can switch things out that I don't like with things that I do. That's nice, but it doesn't mean much when I'm simply creating a new character from scratch.
There are a lot of feats, but they're largely restricted to a race or class. Multiclass options are there, but they mostly allow small uses of another class's power, not a full gaining of that class's skills. The skill list is significantly smaller and the mechanics of skill training and skill usage makes specialization difficult if not impossible in some cases.
The arguments that I've seen for the value of these changes from both posters and designers focus on a couple things: Game balance and Fun. Game balance is easy to see. The "economy of actions" concept keeps the length of a combat round down, and keeps each players turn length fairly similar. The redesign of the wizard, in particular, means that all characters have a "chance to shine", rather than the wizard being able to do basically anything, with the right spell. Hit points are standardized, BAB's are standardized, skill values are standardized, all these things prevent a lot of the swingyness and mean that most characters, of any level, are going to be at least useable if not excellent.
How about the Fun part though? Well, that comes in, in play. 4e's focus is not on Creation Options, but on Play Options. It's a hard concept to explain, but I'll do my best.
Take something simple. Say there's a rogue power that damages an enemy and slides them three spaces (I'm sure there is, but not having played a rogue I don't know the names off the top of my head). It sounds like a simple thing, in read through. In play, it has amazing versatility. I can slide the enemy into flanking position, so next turn I can get to do Sneak attack. I can slide the enemy around the fighter, so if it wants to attack me next turn it has to deal with the fighter's "stickiness". I can slide it away, trying to protect a squishier wizard or warlock in the back. I can slide it off a cliff, into a trap, into a damage zone cast by a warlock or wizard, into rough terrain, and so on, and so on.
It's one power with a simple read through, but once you're actually in combat it gives you a ton of options that are all dependant upon the specific combat situation you find yourself in.
And that's just one of your powers. You've got others. Some deal more damage. Some might blind or immobilize a foe. Others might hit more than one foe at a time. And you can use them in whatever order you want. I can put myself in a position where sliding my foe might be useful, or if it's not, I can merely go for maximum damage. Maybe *now* is a good time to immobilize rather than slide, so I can.
In 4e combat is constantly shifting. Monsters move around, traps and terrain change your ability to move or your reasons for it. The standard/move/minor action concept means you get just as much attack whether you stay in once place or you move around the field, so often it benefits you to reposition during a fight.
Skill use is also adjusted in a similar manner. A reduced number of broader skills means that you can do more with any individual skill. Thievery now covers pick pocketing, sleight of hand, trap disarming, forgery, and maybe even disguise in some cases. One skill, lots of usability. Stealth now covers both moving quietly and hiding. Nature now covers handling animals, knowledge local (in the woods), knowledge nature, and even some alchemy in potion brewing (with the right ritual). Arcana covers both knowledge and spellcraft and even detect magic, as well as lots of rituals. When I choose a skill to train in 4e, I'm now choosing to be better at a long list of different, related things. I'm getting blocks of skills for one training, rather than excelling at individual parts of that block at the expense of other parts.
And even further, rebalancing the way skills work to include the 1/2 level on a roll means that a character doesn't have to be highly trained and specialized to get use out of a skill. A wizard with decent dex can actually succeed at a sneak check now, just not as often as trained rogue. A non-charismatic dwarf might still be able to bluff his way through something. Sure, it'd be a difficult roll, but we're opening up more options during game play here. I wouldn't even try something like that in 3e because the way the system is designed, at mid-high levels your chance of success would be zero.
So to conclude this part: 4e reduces the number of character creation options in the name of game balance, but vastly makes up for it in the amount of "in play" options available.
Still reading? Thanks. Last part!
Finally, to tie up the beginning with the end, here we go. So we keep seeing people saying "it doesn't read well, but when you play it, it's great!" Why? Well, look at what I just said. They took the options we're familiar with, and replaced them with options we're less familiar with. I look at the book and see only a few races, a few classes (both less or equal to what the 3e PHB had), with the removal of a lot of the complexity that character creation used to have. It's more simple to make, easier to "throw something together" and completely lacking in the beloved modularity of the previous game.
You see powers that say "Do 2(w) and slide the target 3 spaces". Does that give you an excited tingle up your spine? No. It sounds pretty bland on paper.
How about "Switch places with an ally as a move action", "Close burst 1, do some damage and teleport 5 + Int mod squares", "Gain concealment when you move more than 3 spaces", and "Gain +5 to sealth checks until the end of your next turn". Individually they all sound pretty simple, not very exciting...
Then I see my buddy's fae-lock use a minor to activate his +5 to stealth checks, do a move to switch places with the fighter who's surrounded and getting beat on, use otherworldy stride to damage everyone around him and uses the teleport it gives to get himself out of being surrounded as a standard action, and then rolls a stealth check at the end because he trained in that skill and has concealment from his other warlock power. He makes a high stealth roll and the enemies can't see him.
The fighter is saved, the monsters are hurt, confused, and can't retaliate on the guy who just screwed them, the DM is boggled and the warlock can sit back and bask in it. Those were "just encounter powers", he's still got his "powerful" dailies left.
Bring on the 4e, bring on the in game options. I loved sitting around tinkering with character builds for hours, but I don't think I'll miss it much. I'm having too damn much fun actually playing the game!
Wow, this guy's awesome, he actually put the fun of 4e in a rather concise explanation. This needs to be spread, now.
I haven't had a chance to read the books yet (have to find someone with them because I won't spend money on a non-OGL product), but it sounds as if they ripped from BoNS whole cloth. Sliding an enemy off a cliff sounded a little...crazy, but I'll reserve judgment on the fun factor until I get a chance to sit down with it.
A nice and detailed review. But it does confirm one of my problems with 4th. The system is heavily focused on tactical combat. The whole fun factor of 4th ed. according to the article revolves around that. Some ppl like this, so great news for them. I am not so enthusiastic about it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Wow, this guy's awesome, he actually put the fun of 4e in a rather concise explanation. This needs to be spread, now.
Or for some of us, the not-fun. 4thE for me has taken the flavor of the game and replaced it with what plays like a board game. I'll probably play it some more, but I feel no urge to run a world with it. And that's the first time I've said that about a D&D edition (OD&D, 1st, UA, 2nd, Player's Option, 3rd, 3.5E included).
|
|
That does sound intriguing. Personally, I quite like the modularity of 3e (a lot) and see it as one of the great strengths. Without having seen the rules for 4e (a huge caveat) what is described sounds like it might be great for a month or two, but if the character classes do wind up being a bit generic would that excitement fade? I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that. I didn't really care too much for the earlier editions of D&D because the characters were not terribly variable. On the flip side, the system sounds quite elegant (if blandly described) and this could be a big, big plus. I would be interested in seeing the views of people who have actually seen the rules and played the, as to whether the above review is a good summary.
Wow, this guy's awesome, he actually put the fun of 4e in a rather concise explanation. This needs to be spread, now.Or for some of us, the not-fun. 4thE for me has taken the flavor of the game and replaced it with what plays like a board game. I'll probably play it some more, but I feel no urge to run a world with it. And that's the first time I've said that about a D&D edition (OD&D, 1st, UA, 2nd, Player's Option, 3rd, 3.5E included).
Alright, I mean if you like repetitive power attacks then have fun. I liked playing the ranger, but I hated having to stay in one spot to get off all my attacks. The only thing that staved off the boredom was the fact that I got an animal companion to flank with.
Now the two weapon ranger gets the mobility it's archer counterpart always had. I can just do a double strike like always, but now I can move in and get both attacks in. Or I can attack and run to a different enemy, or shift two squares to flank and attack the one in front of me. By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.
Not everyone believes that tactical combat is the most fun and important part of their game. If you do, great; have lots and lots of fun with 4th ed. A lot of ppl here don't. And they don't really care if they are able to do two five-foot steps in a round.
A nice and detailed review. But it does confirm one of my problems with 4th. The system is heavily focused on tactical combat. The whole fun factor of 4th ed. according to the article revolves around that. Some ppl like this, so great news for them. I am not so enthusiastic about it.
Thats because WotC is fixated on combat. For reasons that are not particularly clear they accidentally dropped some very interesting non combat options in the rules. Probably some prankster did it while the designers were busy working out the combat powers of Goblins and were not looking. That said they've provided interesting non-combat mechanics and tied them to the XP system.
Now I don't expect WotC to actually make any real use of these mechanics. Cut down on designing encounters where PCs fight monsters after all. But its perfectly possible for some one, Say Necromancer Games, to notice these non-combat rules and design an adventure that does not feature combat - or maybe it only features combat every time you screw up on the non-combat portion. Since the PCs get XP for passing Skill Challenges the adventure would still raise the PCs level at the end of it so it'd work for something like an AP.
Because of the skill system that gives every class skill points equal to 1/2 their level automatically and the fact that there are fewer actual skills in play its possible to design interesting non combat encounters that should work so long as the adventures designer knows the level of the party (even if the designer has no idea what classes are in any individual party that runs through the adventure). This is important because you can now design these non-combat encounters safe in the knowledge that its an absolute certainty that everyone in the party has the Thievery Skill. Needing this skill won't stop a party without a rogue - they players still have a shot at getting past this part of the adventure even if this particular party has no rogue. Thats important if we want to see adventures that support non-combat encounters featuring more use of skills because professional adventure designers have to try and make adventures that will work with every possible party. Know they know that every possible party of 6th level adventurers has a bunch of people with at least Thievery +3 and there are probably one or two +5s in there simply due to the dex bonus.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.
You mean a move action with tumbling? Same effect, different way of doing it.
The new options don't grab or excite me. That's just the way it is. Too much "hit for damage and push/pull/slide" leaves me feeling rather fatigued with the rules.
Now the two weapon ranger gets the mobility it's archer counterpart always had. I can just do a double strike like always, but now I can move in and get both attacks in. Or I can attack and run to a different enemy, or shift two squares to flank and attack the one in front of me. By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.
As a heads up: There really is not two weapon rangers versus bow rangers. I mean it seems like there is because you pick one path but each path just gives you a little bonus. In truth all rangers should carry both two weapons and a range weapon. Nothing in the class at all penalizes you from doing this. You'll be slightly better with one then the other but not even by that much.
Notice also that a lot of the powers are duel nature. They say something like 'if your using a range weapon or if your using two weapons'. In other words a ranger with this power could use it in one encounter using two weapons and then, later the same day use the same power but this time with his range weapon.
Now the two weapon ranger gets the mobility it's archer counterpart always had. I can just do a double strike like always, but now I can move in and get both attacks in. Or I can attack and run to a different enemy, or shift two squares to flank and attack the one in front of me. By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.As a heads up: There really is not two weapon rangers versus bow rangers. I mean it seems like there is because you pick one path but each path just gives you a little bonus. In truth all rangers should carry both two weapons and a range weapon. Nothing in the class at all penalizes you from doing this. You'll be slightly better with one then the other but not even by that much.
Notice also that a lot of the powers are duel nature. They say something like 'if your using a range weapon or if your using two weapons'. In other words a ranger with this power could use it in one encounter using two weapons and then, later the same day use the same power but this time with his range weapon.
Oh no, I'm very well aware I can use either two weapons and a longbow on the same character, it's just now if I want to focus my ranger on two weapon fighting I no longer have to lose my mobility to be effective at it, that's the part I really like.
|
|
Not everyone believes that tactical combat is the most fun and important part of their game. If you do, great; have lots and lots of fun with 4th ed. A lot of ppl here don't. And they don't really care if they are able to do two five-foot steps in a round.
Other than craft and profession what does 3e offer in non-combat situations that 4e lacks?
|
|
Wow, this guy's awesome, he actually put the fun of 4e in a rather concise explanation. This needs to be spread, now.Or for some of us, the not-fun. 4thE for me has taken the flavor of the game and replaced it with what plays like a board game. I'll probably play it some more, but I feel no urge to run a world with it. And that's the first time I've said that about a D&D edition (OD&D, 1st, UA, 2nd, Player's Option, 3rd, 3.5E included).
I have had the opposite reaction. I feel like I can finally create a world and run it. As for combat 4e may seem to play like a board game, and it does to a certain extent, but so did 3e. So I guess I am not sure what flavor was present in 3e that is now lacking in 4e.
|
|
I had a conversation at my FLGS the other day that was enlightening. While two friends were creating all manner of new 4e characters one of the shops regulars offered up a thought provoking reason for his decision to stick with 3.5. It mirrors the quote posted in the OP.
He derived enjoyment from planning out characters from 1st to 20th. To him that was the game. He plays once a month so tinkering with characters is his only opportunity to stay engaged with the game.
Because 4e has flipped the emphasis from creation options to play options he will be missing out on a big part of the game that he enjoys if his group switches to 4e.
I didn't really get it until reading the quoted post above. Hmmmmm. I shall have to think this one over.
Very thought provoking and insightful post.
|
Or for some of us, the not-fun. 4thE for me has taken the flavor of the game and replaced it with what plays like a board game. I'll probably play it some more, but I feel no urge to run a world with it. And that's the first time I've said that about a D&D edition (OD&D, 1st, UA, 2nd, Player's Option, 3rd, 3.5E included).
This is the way my group feels about it (at least those who have played 4E). It plays more like Descent or HeroQuest, which in its own right could be perfectly fun as a boardgame, but it absolutely did not feel like D&D to me. The first time I played I walked to the table excited (and I was the only one who was excited about 4E), and walked away from the table like somebody had kicked my favorite puppy. It's played, smelled, walked, and quacked like a tactical board game. I get it, but I have other options that I prefer if I want to play a game like that. As far as my role-playing games go, I just didn't like the system. Since a lot of my gaming sessions don't involve combat, the new system holds even less value to me because I see it and it plays simply as a tactical game.
I sat down with a coworker of mine that also plays D&D in a completely different group (one that's been playing since the very early 80's). We started chatting 4E and I have to admit some things really came to light in that discussion. His group is uber-gung-ho over 4E to the point that they're switching ASAP and responded to my suggestion about Pathfinder with the comment (not kidding here) "I'm moving forward, not backwards, sometimes you just need to go with a Microsoft because the little guys will get crushed anyway." When I asked my coworker how he felt about this attitude his group had he was generally disappointed. Probing further I discovered that the majority of his group members who are super-excited play D&D like a boardgame with minor non-tactical elements between fights (he and his wife are the two holdouts). So while his group loves 4E, they feel a little left out. My coworker (who plays because they're friends since college days) has never liked their focus on combat, and he's not feeling the 4E love. It was at that point that I really began to see the divide between the players. It's not that those who also like the non-combat portions aren't excited about 4E (many are), but the ones who think combat does make or break the game are the ones that think 4E is the way to go.
Personally, I dislike the new paradigm and don't like the lack of out-of-combat options (specifically mentioned in his little essay), and that's why I'm sticking with Pathfinder (and my other RPGs that have tons of character creation options). Maybe someday soon when I need to take a break for awhile I'll just go back to Shadowrun and leave my D&D days behind me.
|
Personally, I quite like the modularity of 3e (a lot) and see it as one of the great strengths. Without having seen the rules for 4e (a huge caveat) what is described sounds like it might be great for a month or two, but if the character classes do wind up being a bit generic would that excitement fade? I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that.
I mostly agree with what you say here.
Modularity is 3.X' strength and the reason I'll keep playing mostly 3.X.
From my POV, 4e excitement WILL fade after some games, so I'll solely play it from time to time and not for long-running campaigns, BUT I feel that I must defend 4e from comments about its "tactical combat focus"; I really don't think that 4e is more tactical combat focused than 3.X is.
The 4e focus is in everybody being cool _in the same way with different outfits_ while the 3.X / PF focus is in everybody being cool in different ways.
I think that the 3.X paradigm is better for my games and in general for not-only short-term fun, but I understand people that likes the immediate fun-for-today-hunger-for-tomorrow.
|
|
Probably the boardgame comparison is better than the previous WoW-comparisons.
I like the feeling of creating a long and epic story with my friends, _in addition_ to the fun I have at the game time.
Oh don't get me wrong. I think it plays like a boardgame, but when I played it, the MMORPG influences scream and flash like Las Vegas at night.
Probably the boardgame comparison is better than the previous WoW-comparisons.
I like the feeling of creating a long and epic story with my friends, _in addition_ to the fun I have at the game time.
What frikkin' page of the DMG says 'do not create long epic stories with your friends, just roll dice and move plastic around. If someone speaks in character mock them. If an NPC tries to say something not related to the plot shout them down and attack!'?
People seem to really be projecting their misgivings onto the game rather than looking at what is actually there. It is entirely possible to play 4e as a tactical minis game, JUST LIKE 3E. If you put some effort into story, characterization, motivation, funny voices you can make something deeper JUST LIKE 3E.
The 4e focus is in everybody being cool _in the same way with different outfits_ while the 3.X / PF focus is in everybody being cool in different ways.
Maybe a better definition is "on 3.5E spellcaster are cool in different ways, non-spellcasters are uncool in different ways"? Don't start a flame war with me: I'm exageratting. Of course one can enjoy being a fighter or barbarian on 3.5E.
But from my 4E DMing last sunday, it's undeniable that non-spellcasters have a lot of more options both within and outside combat. When we played 3.5E, the only tactical choice the party's orc barbarian did was how much he was going reduce his attack on Power attack. On 4E, we saw the barbarian player (now fighter player) actually thinking on what he was going to do and coordinating his decisions with the other players.
And considering that each skill on 4E is worth 2-3 skills on 3.5E, Int doesn't penalize skills, he has much more capabilities outside combat, too. He is now really the most intimidating guy of the party - unlike on 3.5E, where his Intimidate score was crippled by his bad Intelligence and Charisma. On 4E we have classes that are good at different skills. On 3.5E, instead, we had classes that are "good at skills" and "bad at skills".
While the organization of powers may make all classes seem similar, they are completely different on play, actually far more different in play than 3.5E nonspellcaster classes. The rogue is not only a weak fighter that deals extra damage when flanking; it tries to put himself away from harm while he strikes at his enemies, and move them to disadvangeous positions. The paladin is not only a weaker fighter than sometimes heals his allies; it protects and supports his allies on all his turns, although he has less offensive power than fighter.
|
I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that. I didn't really care too much for the earlier editions of D&D because the characters were not terribly variable.
This is one of the inbuild brilliant methods to achieve high sales even for later splatbooks.
While you basically could build many different PCs with the 8 core classes and the PRCs in the DMG (Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight to combine Arcane and Divine or Arcane and Martial) this modularity is gone in 4th.But there is always a new Base Class lurking in the next Splat Book!
So I see the Arcane-Divine Combo as a new Base Class. The Eldritch Knight as a Base Class, the Rogue-Fighter as a Base Class the Arcane Trickster as a Bases Class and so on.
So the options are not in the Core Books but they will be available some time in the future fo sure.
Probably the boardgame comparison is better than the previous WoW-comparisons.
I like the feeling of creating a long and epic story with my friends, _in addition_ to the fun I have at the game time.
What frikkin' page of the DMG says 'do not create long epic stories with your friends, just roll dice and move plastic around. If someone speaks in character mock them. If an NPC tries to say something not related to the plot shout them down and attack!'?
People seem to really be projecting their misgivings onto the game rather than looking at what is actually there. It is entirely possible to play 4e as a tactical minis game, JUST LIKE 3E. If you put some effort into story, characterization, motivation, funny voices you can make something deeper JUST LIKE 3E.
QFT
Not everyone believes that tactical combat is the most fun and important part of their game. If you do, great; have lots and lots of fun with 4th ed. A lot of ppl here don't. And they don't really care if they are able to do two five-foot steps in a round.
Tactical combat has always been a huge aspect of the D&D game system. Perhaps you should check out a different game system...
For my group, we've always loved a very nice blend of intense tactical combat and plot thick roleplaying.
|
Other than craft and profession what does 3e offer in non-combat situations that 4e lacks?
the most obvious is spells used in a non-combat context. As per RAW, ray of frost can't be used to put out a fire since it "target" is a creature. Now, I know the common refrain "the DM can easily change that"...I am talking about Rules as written.
There are rituals, and it would be s simple matter to include more non-combat spells from previous editions in 4E as rituals.
On the flip side there are non-combat spells that are often used in creative ways for combat in 3e.
This is a distinct difference. But clearly this was by design to 'nerf' the wizard and cleric in 4E.
Contributor
|
That does sound intriguing. Personally, I quite like the modularity of 3e (a lot) and see it as one of the great strengths. Without having seen the rules for 4e (a huge caveat) what is described sounds like it might be great for a month or two, but if the character classes do wind up being a bit generic would that excitement fade? I'm not sure if that is true, or if the 4e rules are really like that. I didn't really care too much for the earlier editions of D&D because the characters were not terribly variable. On the flip side, the system sounds quite elegant (if blandly described) and this could be a big, big plus. I would be interested in seeing the views of people who have actually seen the rules and played the, as to whether the above review is a good summary.
While not meaning to twist your words exactly, I'm going to probably twist your words! ;-)
I had an interesting conversation with one of my friends about 3E, 4E and modularity. My assertion was (and is) that 4E is far more modular than 3E, because 3E is integrated where 4E is modular.
Most class features, feats, spells, and even base ability scores in 3E interact with each other in a very complex way. They come together to create an overall effect, but if you make an adjustment in one place, it's repercussions trickle through the whole character. For example, if you cast Bull's Strength, your to hit, damage, carrying capacity and some skills are all affected, and this could have complex results. If you are a 2H weapon fighter, your damage increases differently. Not that anyone would use this, but if your increased carrying capacity put you in a lower load category, your move rate and max dex change. To go a step further, if you change size categories it increases your strength and adds a bunch of other effects, including changing the relative encumbrance of your equipment (again, most people ignore half of these effects).
The more bits you add on, the more complex these repercussions become, and every new feat, power, spell whatever needs to be assessed based on ever more complex combinations of results.
This makes game design incredibly difficult, but it also makes character design incredibly fun for those of us who like to sit and work out all of those complex combinations that will result in an unexpected benefit.
In 4E, almost all of the class features, powers and whatever are truly modular. They do something specific, that has little impact on any other part of your character. The effects are designed specifically to not trickle through to other parts of the character, at least not in any complex way. There are powers that let you increase the number of times you can use another power and things like that, but I think the most complex effects are the stat-ups when you go up levels (which don't happen on the fly).
This does make character generation less exciting, no doubt about it. But it doesn't make the character less fun to play in game. I'm not sure how to make up for this loss of design fun.
The benefit that it provides is that it makes design easier and safer. As long as all add-ons continue to follow the basic principal of modularity of integration, it will be hard to generate 'broken' material, and easier to simply exclude broken material without affecting some other part of the game in an unanticipated way.
Also, it is one of the things that speeds game play. There will be no more scrambling to recalculate every aspect of your character after Dispel Magic wiped out all of your buffs, or crazy things like that.
One other point: The modularity makes character design less exciting, which I think is what makes people think the characters are all cookie-cutter copies. The options are still there, they just don't interact with each other in the same way. It seems to matter less what you pick when all you get out of a choice is whatever that choice is. Of course, not as many options are there in just the core rules as are in the full range of 3E material as well, but that's a separate issue.
That said, they have put in some false integration that I think was intended to combat this impression, but instead in some ways it has exacerbated it. Several classes have a class-feature selection like the Warlord's inspiring presence/tactical presence. These give a flat benefit, and then certain powers act differently depending which you chose. Unfortunately, IMO, the net result is that once you've made your initial choice, it pretty much by default makes some of your power choices for you. Once you've chosen tactical presence, it's an obvious good choice to choose the powers that are improved by tactical presence. The exception is the ranger, whose powers work with either weapon style, they all just work better with the one you focus on.
[/ramble]
His group is uber-gung-ho over 4E to the point that they're switching ASAP and responded to my suggestion about Pathfinder with the comment (not kidding here) "I'm moving forward, not backwards, sometimes you just need to go with a Microsoft because the little guys will get crushed anyway."
This sucks on many levels.
Tactical combat has always been a huge aspect of the D&D game system. Perhaps you should check out a different game system...
This only sucks on one level.
QFTProbably the boardgame comparison is better than the previous WoW-comparisons.
I like the feeling of creating a long and epic story with my friends, _in addition_ to the fun I have at the game time.
What frikkin' page of the DMG says 'do not create long epic stories with your friends, just roll dice and move plastic around. If someone speaks in character mock them. If an NPC tries to say something not related to the plot shout them down and attack!'?
People seem to really be projecting their misgivings onto the game rather than looking at what is actually there. It is entirely possible to play 4e as a tactical minis game, JUST LIKE 3E. If you put some effort into story, characterization, motivation, funny voices you can make something deeper JUST LIKE 3E.
And indeed quoted again. Well said Dr Jones (or should I just call you Indy?)
Other than craft and profession what does 3e offer in non-combat situations that 4e lacks?
the most obvious is spells used in a non-combat context. As per RAW, ray of frost can't be used to put out a fire since it "target" is a creature. Now, I know the common refrain "the DM can easily change that"...I am talking about Rules as written.
There are rituals, and it would be s simple matter to include more non-combat spells from previous editions in 4E as rituals.
On the flip side there are non-combat spells that are often used in creative ways for combat in 3e.
This is a distinct difference. But clearly this was by design to 'nerf' the wizard and cleric in 4E.
Stedd, how exactly can you use a Ray of Frost to put out a fire in 3E? That use is also simply by DM fiat. I don't think anywhere is a rule saying "X points of cold damage will extinguish a fire" or anything even close.
|
|
What frikkin' page of the DMG says 'do not create long epic stories with your friends, just roll dice and move plastic around. If someone speaks in character mock them. If an NPC tries to say something not related to the plot shout them down and attack!'?People seem to really be projecting their misgivings onto the game rather than looking at what is actually there. It is entirely possible to play 4e as a tactical minis game, JUST LIKE 3E. If you put some effort into story, characterization, motivation, funny voices you can make something deeper JUST LIKE 3E.
True. But when someone buys a "RULE"book they are looking for rules. If you don't need a rulebook for role-playing non-combat encounters, ad you don't really do the whole "combat thing", then I suppose you don't need the rulebook, right?
The unspoken truth, despite complaints of price-gouging, fleecing, etc. is that people want to buy rulebooks, and they want the rulebooks to be about the rules they care about.
4E doesn't have some rules in it that ome people value.
|
|
On the flip side there are non-combat spells that are often used in creative ways for combat in 3e.
You may have something here but I am not totally convinced. Can you give me an example?
But clearly this was by design to 'nerf' the wizard and cleric in 4E.
I see that as a good thing. In 3e you had only a handful of interesting combat options for fighters and out of combat fighters were mostly useless. Wizards and clerics start as bit players in 3e and end up running the show by the time 12th level rolls around.
It is entirely possible to play 4e as a tactical minis game, JUST LIKE 3E. If you put some effort into story, characterization, motivation, funny voices you can make something deeper JUST LIKE 3E.
Well said, and completely true.
4E doesn't have some rules in it that some people value.
Also true :)
|
|
On the flip side there are non-combat spells that are often used in creative ways for combat in 3e.You may have something here but I am not totally convinced. Can you give me an example?
I've seen the following use of non-combat skills in combat encounters:
- Tenser's floating disk used as a stepping stone to reach higher ground
- Knock used to unlock a door so the party could make a hasty getaway.
- Arcane Lock used to lock a door behind the party mid-combat to prevent a TPK.
- Minor image used to create an image of a split
- Minor Image used in so many creative methods it makes me cry to think it's not supported.
- Using water breathing and a waterskin to avoid poison gas (used by a friend of mine in a tournament to survive ever-seeping poison gas effect).
- Using Unseen Servant during combat to deal with the mundane things in-room while combat is occurring (such as picking up a small idol with an effect centered on it and moving it to sweep underneath it).
- Casting Nystul's Magic Aura on a non-magic item to cause the magic seeking critters to attack zero-value targets.
- Using invisibility and disguise self to sneak into the back ranks of a combat (those not visible to the ones in the front) and start to ruin their battle tactics.
- Using erase to prevent a glyph of warding from going off.
- Using rope-trick as a quick-getaway when being chased.
- Create water (or any number of spells that involve massive amounts of water) + swim to gain combat advantage.
- Earth to mud + water walk to change the entire combat arena.
That was what I could remember from my years of gaming in about 5 minutes of brainstorming. To some of us, it's this loss of creativity that 4E embodies. Yes I know it's all a game of imagination, but we're now much more limited in what we can think up in my opinion.
|
|
That was what I could remember from my years of gaming in about 5 minutes of brainstorming. To some of us, it's this loss of creativity that 4E embodies. Yes I know it's all a game of imagination, but we're now much more limited in what we can think up in my opinion.
Many of the spells you have listed are rituals. Some (like illusions) will eventually become a part of the game. But in general I can see your point. My groups have never really used spells as gadgets so I guess I will miss it less than some.
- Using water breathing and a waterskin to avoid poison gas (used by a friend of mine in a tournament to survive ever-seeping poison gas effect).
(forehead slap) I can't believe that one never occured to me! Good one :)
|
|
I had an interesting conversation with one of my friends about 3E, 4E and modularity. My assertion was (and is) that 4E is far more modular than 3E, because 3E is integrated where 4E is modular.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, based on the definition you have of modularity. How do you define "modularity", here?
That will help me understand. Thanks!
Many of the spells you have listed are rituals. Some (like illusions) will eventually become a part of the game. But in general I can see your point. My groups have never really used spells as gadgets so I guess I will miss it less than some.
Indeed, Dragon magazine has an article slated for later this month about putting some Illusions back into the Wizard (I'm excited to see it, since Class Acts was always one of my favorite columns!)
That said, I think a lot of this comes down to the "magic can do anything" idea that 4E is moving away from. There's a reason that my last 3.5 game had two non-spellcasters, and FIVE spellcasters. Simply put, in 3.5 you had magic or you were a chump. Spellslingers in 4E aren't the gods they used to be ... they're about equal with everyone else instead. This was an increase for the non-casters, and a decrease for the casters.
Anyway, looking at your list:
- Tenser's floating disk used as a stepping stone to reach higher ground
Without my books handy, why can't you still do this with Tenser's disk? Does it say it doesn't support people in the description?
- Knock used to unlock a door so the party could make a hasty getaway.
Your getaway won't be so hasty now. Hopefully you have another means of escape (I'm ok with having to rely on non-casters for some things)
- Arcane Lock used to lock a door behind the party mid-combat to prevent a TPK.
Having to hold off the rampaging big bad while the Wizard locks the doors sounds like a good bit of fun to me. Hopefully he has a scroll of it!
- Minor image used to create an image of a split
Like, a sundae?
- Minor Image used in so many creative methods it makes me cry to think it's not supported.
Hopefully, some Illusion-y goodness is injected back in this month in Dragon.
- Using water breathing and a waterskin to avoid poison gas (used by a friend of mine in a tournament to survive ever-seeping poison gas effect).
Why couldn't you do this now with Water Breathing? I'd think it'd work (but again, no books with me ...)
- Using Unseen Servant during combat to deal with the mundane things in-room while combat is occurring (such as picking up a small idol with an effect centered on it and moving it to sweep underneath it).
True, no Unseen Servant. But check out the Wizard cantrips. Mage Hand is better than ever, and actually really useful (I used it myself in some 4E demos to move some carts in the way of oncoming guards!)
- Casting Nystul's Magic Aura on a non-magic item to cause the magic seeking critters to attack zero-value targets.
I'd expect a Ritual of the same affect would be easy to devise. That said, I'm not sure any magic-eaters have made it into 4E yet.
- Using invisibility and disguise self to sneak into the back ranks of a combat (those not visible to the ones in the front) and start to ruin their battle tactics.
Why can't this work now?
- Using erase to prevent a glyph of warding from going off.
I doubt I'd let this fly, even in 3E. At best maybe I'd offer a dispel check, capped at 5 or 10.
- Using rope-trick as a quick-getaway when being chased.
I always thought rope-trick was a little TOO easy of a getaway, so I don't mind its absence. There is still a Leomund's hut type spell though ... I distinctly remember seeing it on the Wizard's list.
- Create water (or any number of spells that involve massive amounts of water) + swim to gain combat advantage.
I don't remember any spells ever creating THAT much water, not fighting in an area watertight enough to contain it all if they did.
- Earth to mud + water walk to change the entire combat arena.
I don't think I'd let you walk through the mud just because you had water walk up ...
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, based on the definition you have of modularity. How do you define "modularity", here?That will help me understand. Thanks!
Didn't you use to be a severed pig head?
I think the idea is that 4E's "modules" can be moved, reorganized, and altered without actually changing the effects of any other "modules" while in 3E if you try pulling one "module" out, other "modules" functionality changes completely, or breaks altogether.
I agree with this, actually, and find it a pretty good insight into the differences of the two systems.
Cheers! :)
By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.You mean a move action with tumbling? Same effect, different way of doing it.
The new options don't grab or excite me. That's just the way it is. Too much "hit for damage and push/pull/slide" leaves me feeling rather fatigued with the rules.
As opposed to the majority of 3e characters just doing "hit for damage"?
|
Contributor
|
I had an interesting conversation with one of my friends about 3E, 4E and modularity. My assertion was (and is) that 4E is far more modular than 3E, because 3E is integrated where 4E is modular.I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, based on the definition you have of modularity. How do you define "modularity", here?
That will help me understand. Thanks!
What I mean by modular is that the pieces are self-contained and easy to add on or take off, in this case specifically the various special effects of the game.
|
Contributor
|
By the way, good luck trying to do two five-foot-steps in one turn in 3.5.You mean a move action with tumbling? Same effect, different way of doing it.
Meant to comment on this earlier. Your solution does not fix the problem of being able to move and multi-attack if you are a ranger, which I believe was part of the point.
Indeed, Dragon magazine has an article slated for later this month about putting some Illusions back into the Wizard (I'm excited to see it, since Class Acts was always one of my favorite columns!)
Since I'm playing a wizard in my Wednesday night game, I assure I wrote that article for completely selfish reasons. ;)
|
|
That was what I could remember from my years of gaming in about 5 minutes of brainstorming. To some of us, it's this loss of creativity that 4E embodies. Yes I know it's all a game of imagination, but we're now much more limited in what we can think up in my opinion.Many of the spells you have listed are rituals. Some (like illusions) will eventually become a part of the game. But in general I can see your point. My groups have never really used spells as gadgets so I guess I will miss it less than some.
I know the list was a little haphazard (like my split sentence regarding silent image because a co-worker walked in), but my group constantly finds creative uses for spells like these. It also doesn't matter that you're not the mage (hell most of my group is more intent on playing the supposedly "underpowered" fighter to the mage class 9 time out of 10) because most of the time it's a group brainstorming session. "Oh my God, Aaron, I've seen you do that cool spell where you do X, think it could work here!?" I hate the concept of a "ritual". I know I've mentioned I generally dislike the game and I have an extensive list of gripes, but this is pretty high on that list just because of how it stymies our use of creativity.
I read the books last week but didn't have time to read every line of the rituals section. What's the casting time on a ritual? My take is that it's not trivial. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, please, explain to me how that turns the ability into a "combat usable ability."
- Using water breathing and a waterskin to avoid poison gas (used by a friend of mine in a tournament to survive ever-seeping poison gas effect).
Sorry, I had to comment on this, it has nothing to do with the thread really or with 4e, so forgive me.
This is a clever idea and on the one hand I would want to reward it as a DM but on the other... Doesn't this present the exact same problems as filling a waterskin with air and breathing from it? There's only so much 'stuff' to breath and it gets used up quickly. If you don't have a problem with it as a DM then why use up the spell when you could have just used an empty waterskin?
Sorry for the interruption, this discussion is very interesting.
|
|
<wrote a bunch here that I snipped>
That said, I think a lot of this comes down to the "magic can do anything" idea that 4E is moving away from. There's a reason that my last 3.5 game had two non-spellcasters, and FIVE spellcasters. Simply put, in 3.5 you had magic or you were a chump. Spellslingers in 4E aren't the gods they used to be ... they're about equal with everyone else instead. This was an increase for the non-casters, and a decrease for the casters.
This is perhaps why some of us don't see a problem. One of my groups contains a druid, sorcerer, fighter, and ranger (who decided to give up spellcasting for other bonuses). My other group has a fighter, rogue, wizard, bard/cleric (who's hardly a spellcasting "powerhouse"), and favored soul. Neither group can be considered to be extremely magical, although we have plenty of magical power, and frankly none of my groups have ever had a problem with four wizards and a fighter. I've never had a "balance" problem, nor do I consider "balance" a problem in the first place. I know this is a big deal with the 4E fans, but frankly, if you have a group that plays well togther, and a DM who knows what he's doing, it's rarely an actual issue.
Everything you've mentioned is now a ritual that really cuts down on combat usability (in my understanding of the rituals). We used Tenser's floating disk during combat. One round later the rogue had high ground. Now you have to remember to cast it well ahead of time as a ritual instead of on-the-fly which allows most of the strategic uses I've mentioned. The same goes for the use of stone to mud, knock, arcane lock, and a variety of other spells I mentioned. I deliberately limited my illusion examples because I was trying to demonstrate how it really is the non-illusion spells that are missing that I have a problem with.
P.S.: Check your comments about Earth to mud and Erase. Both are actually examples specifically permitted by the DMG (rings of water walking work on mud, erase has criteria specifically to erase magical writings).