|
For those who adopted 4e early, has the game started to lose any of its luster?
I enjoyed the game out of the gate but some things are really starting to wear on me. I have played a great deal of 4e since its release and there are some subjective issues that are really starting to tarnish the game for me.
Powers
I am actually starting to dislike how powers are designed in 4e. Sure, they are easier to ajudicate and they don't really effect the world outside of combat, making them easier to track, but they are kind of limiting as well. Here are my reasons for disliking powers:
1) While powers provide something cool for everyone to do, I don't see how using a power is any different than colorful descriptions in combat. In fact, due to their rarity they get kind of repetitive. When you hear "magic missle, magic missle, magic missle" or "twin strike, twin strike, twin strike" over and over again you get kind of tired of it. It would be nice if powers were a bit more dynamic and less like pushing the button to execute a move in a video game. In fact, one of my main complaints about World of Warcraft (despite how much I like the game) is this idea. My gnome warlock does nothing but cast "shadow bolt, shadow bolt, shadow bolt" in combat.
2) Powers remove some of the in-game treats that made D&D what it was. No more spell scrolls (I will get back this this in a minute), no more spellbooks filled with new spells, and no more spell development. New powers can be added to the game, and players can certainly re-train into those powers, but they lose the old powers in the process. I don't like that.
3) Re-training powers makes no sense and I don't think I like how it works. Wizards have a self-deleting spellbook. Fighters suddenly stop using an effective move that served them well over the first part of their career. Characters are very much "in the moment". You forget everything you have done in the past. It strains credibility for me.
4) Powers loom large in the game and eclipse other combat options. Moves like bull rush, grapple, trip, and utilizing improvised weapons all seem to disappear when people can use a more effective power over and over again. Things like rituals get forgotten when you can unleash a magic missle every round. Powers cause the game to be focused on combat as opposed to other features the game has to offer.
Spells
This deserves a seperate section. Spells are "blah" now. Every class has something comparable. Powers even the playing field in an uninteresting way. I like the idea that sometimes the wizard will be the master of a combat because of his spell choice. But other times he is useless because the creatures are more easily handled with other strategies. Spells are great utility effects as well, allowing other characters to become stronger, faster, and more capable of doing their job right.
Spellbooks filled with new spells and spell scrolls are gone. I think rituals are supposed to fill this gap but their inclusion doesn't really solve the problem. So rituals do a good job of handling raise dead, for instance, but I can't provide a scroll for scorching ray or orb of acid. These spells can be made into powers but that means a character has to abandon something to take them. Which leads me back to point #3 above.
Creatures
I enjoy the new statblock. I hate the new limitations on creatures. Rituals really do nothing to fill the gap either. Creatures have had a lot of what made them unique taken from them in the interest of making them useful in combat. So a devil might have an effective combat power but there is nothing provided to fulfill his express purpose, which is the temptation of mortals. No skills, no out of combat abilities, and guidelines on how they make this happen. 4e design conceit doesn't allow for much in the way of noncombat creature development. I can develop this on my own (and I will I am sure) but the DMG doesn't give me any guidelines on what I can do to avoid unbalancing the game.
Anyone else having issues now that we have reached the two month mark on the game?
Let's keep this discussion mature please. We are discussing subjective opinions that can be deeply personal. Let's keep that in mind.
For those who adopted 4e early, has the game started to lose any of its luster?
I'm still having fun with it, but it in no way replaces my 3.5E game. One thing that worried me out of the gate was that people would become bored with it too quickly. It's a nice shiny system, but I much prefer older editions.
That said, when I get to play 4E (or run it) I'm still having a lot of fun. But it is one of many games I'm involved in so it's not like the only thing I play, in which case I think I'd probably tire of it more quickly than older editions.
|
|
For those who adopted 4e early, has the game started to lose any of its luster?I'm still having fun with it, but it in no way replaces my 3.5E game. One thing that worried me out of the gate was that people would become bored with it too quickly. It's a nice shiny system, but I much prefer older editions.
That said, when I get to play 4E (or run it) I'm still having a lot of fun. But it is one of many games I'm involved in so it's not like the only thing I play, in which case I think I'd probably tire of it more quickly than older editions.
I am running two games, one of them is 4e and the other is 3e, and I definitely see what you are saying. I think I would have hit this point sooner if I was only running 4e.
I am still having fun, but I am not sure it is the game I want to run in the long term. Which is disappointing because I was having a hell of a time with it until I hit these roadblocks. One is quite major (powers) and sort of determines the future of the game with my group.
I can see playing it every so often but I am not sure it fits my playstyle the way I thought it would.
On the other hand, I had some issues with 3.5. I am keeping a much closer eye on the next version of Pathfinder. Come August 14th I guess I will see.
I'm the opposite, I keep finding little nooks and crannies that just keep my interest bubbling over, so hasn't lost its interest yet!
|
|
It would be nice if powers were a bit more dynamic and less like pushing the button to execute a move in a video game. In fact, one of my main complaints about World of Warcraft (despite how much I like the game) is this idea. My gnome warlock does nothing but cast "shadow bolt, shadow bolt, shadow bolt" in combat.
Yikes, I didn't mean for this to be insulting or to beat a dead horse. I apologize if it did. It was the metaphor that occured to me, I admit. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Still haven't really played the game enough to get a sense of whether or not its gelling with my players. Ask me again in a couple months.
|
|
I've wrote something like that in a thread in another website and I'm writing this again.
Firstly, let me clarify that I'm no newbie rpg gamer nor any youngster. I can easily rank myself amongst the mature gamers in the world. Hence, this isn't any "I hate 4th ed" thingie. Actually, i've collected everything 4th ed so far yet also games in 3.5 ed and even D&D basic (kind of a retro gaming with my many many years gaming buddies) and occasionally AD&D (even other rpg gamings).
Back to the topic. I've played one 4th ed game so far as a DM and understand me when I said that its too combat oriented. I've read through "Rescue at Rivenroar" and "Thunderspire and it kinda enforced that thinking.
Let's be objective here. Previous D&D editions had evolved over the years but this 4th ed is drastically different. WoTC must have realized its losing its shine over the internet gaming and multiple online player games over console. Hence, it needs something that doesn't take forever to play, almost no brainer, full of actions and very combat intensive (they didn't deny that too).
I'm not going to write this without supporting this point. Here's one very clear-cut evidence on this.
Spells.
If anyone takes a comparison between all spells from D&D basic to D&D 3.5 and the spells (or power or abilities) in 4th Ed, you'll notice that these spells are missing:
Cleric 1st level:
bless water
detect [alignment]
detect undead
deathwatch
hide from undead
protection from [alignment]
Cleric 2nd level:
augury
calm emotions
consecrate
delay poison
eagle's splendor
make whole
owl's wisdom
status
undetectable alignment
zone of truth
Cleric 3rd level:
create food and water
daylight
glyph of warding
locate object
magic circle against [alignment]
obscure object
speak with dead
stone shape
water breathing
water walk
There's some much more to name here and no, rituals don't cover enough of it at all.
These spells are mostly not combat oriented and its these spells that are removed from 4th ed. If they're not combat oriented, they're there to assist in role-playing.
Even utility powers/abilities are so geared towards combat...sigh...maybe 4th ed will be called hack & slash.
I'll still play it as new challenges are my cup of tea. However, its too different from any other rpgs. D&D in itself is somewhat less rp intensive as compared to some other gaming systems and 4th ed just pushed it further into the abyssal pits of rp.
4th ed losing its luster? I've just did one game and I'll try some more. As a game, its still fine but if compared to previous D&D, it doesn't shine at all. In terms of RP, its possibly the last nail in the RP coffin.
Still lovin' me some 4th edition, and the love will just keep getting stronger when people can start publishing under the GSL!
I am still loving it. I have a few minor complaints (think paper cuts)
Powers): Yes some of it does get repetitive. Even my favorite stories have the heroes using the same talents over again. Naruto uses Shadow Clones like they are going out of style, but that's his trick and it works for him. I encourage my players to rename their powers. This helps take the edge of it. One eladrin has an ice, blue, and frost theme. Another has this whole Autumnal theme going on(His fey step leaves autumn color leaves in his wake)
As more powers are available, the diversity will grow and the repetitiveness should lessen. I think their is a definite need for more at will powers.
House Rules I am looking at trying to resolve this: Invent more powers, Allowing you to keep your powers as you level up (via TS's house rules), Encourage the players to create there own powers,
Errata): There is an ungodly amount of it. And we cannot download the DDI: Compendium to our laptop for easy rule adjudication. Sure its online. Love that, I am not always online however and would like to read the latest rules. Marvelous tool at the table(if your online).
DDI's failure to launch is another pea under my matress but does not detract from my table game.
I would love to see a fan kit (like you get for video game websites) for 4e. Like tools (preformatted word doc) to help you create Campaign guides etc.
I agree. I like 4e mainly on the basis that it runs smoothly and combat is intuitive enough that my 'beer and pretzel' players can jump in and not feel overwhelmed or hesitant.
That being said, I like grit, realism, and a healthy dash of noir to my fantasy -- and 4e takes some work to make this happen.
I am really considering running a different system (mine eyes have just been opened to Riddle of Steel) within in Golarion or perhaps Logue's Razor Coast to quench that other thirst.
Of course, this all comes witht he caveat that the player's make the final choice. I may want to run a gritty Riddle of Steel game or dark PFRPG game, and they may not.
Bottom line is 4e is interesting. I like it and hold out hope that it improves. Perhaps some 3rd party people will add to it in amazing ways, as well. My players love it, and really that is all that matters.
|
Bottom line is 4e is interesting. I like it and hold out hope that it improves. Perhaps some 3rd party people will add to it in amazing ways, as well. My players love it, and really that is all that matters.
I agree with these sentiments. All of the players I DM Scales of War for really like 4E. And I enjoy it as a player in some homebrew action. I still think the powers are fun to use and offer so many options in each encounter.
I earnestly hope some other publishers add some material to 4th Edition. I regret that I do not have time to convert Pathfinder material, and wish that it was 4E. What 4E needs, and Wizards of the Coast is not providing, is story telling. I don't think that has anything to do with the rules. We just need somebody to provide us with a story alongside a 4E ist of encounters. I think Dungeon 155's "Heathen" comes close. But we need more story, mood and theme, and it's not coming from WotC.
So, I guess you can say I tire of WotC's combat only adventures. I certainly am not tired of 4E.
Don (Greyson)
|
|
Bottom line is 4e is interesting. I like it and hold out hope that it improves. Perhaps some 3rd party people will add to it in amazing ways, as well. My players love it, and really that is all that matters.
This might be where I am at. My players like it, though the spellcasters are feeling a bit neutered by the new edition. I can understand that.
I think what we like about the new edition has very little to do with the rules though. Shorter prep time, less book keeping, and interesting encounter design. Unfortunately these aren't exclusive to 4e.
I want to play D&D. I guess I will see what the PFRPG does to help alleviate the DM burden and go from there. That is the big one for me and if PFRPG introduces some interesting options in the regard I will be onboard.
The other issue, high level play, is a major hurdle for Pathfinder and I hope they found a way to address that. I am not sure if 4e handles that well yet or not. I will know better when we actually move into the paragon tier. If the game stays exactly the same through all 30 levels I imagine I will get real bored, real fast. It is a hard balance to strike. The game has to change enough to remain exciting yet remain static enough to provide an consistent play experience.
To the OP:
No.
|
|
I'll still play it as new challenges are my cup of tea. However, its too different from any other rpgs. D&D in itself is somewhat less rp intensive as compared to some other gaming systems and 4th ed just pushed it further into the abyssal pits of rp.The problem with this assertion is that it's entirely subjective. Two weeks ago my 4e game had a session where not a single dice was rolled. Compare that with a MLWM or Heroquest or any other narratavist game. In other words, your games of D&D might have less roleplaying, but D&D in and of itself does not prevent roleplaying any more than any other game.
CPEvilref, any gaming system can be rp-ed. There's nothing subjective about it. I'm not anti-4th ed neither.
However, its merely a statement how supportive a game system is of it. Hack & Slash can be rp-ed. Troll and Tunnel can be rp-ed. Even minaiture wargaming systems like warhammer can be rp-ed (go! go! my minions of darkness! Destroy those manlings of the empire! I seek redress for the death of my katrina!!) but how much of the gamerules supports rp?
An analogy: A fork can scoop just like a spoon but how well geared is it and how much can you scoop it? And how much work you need to put in to scoop? And it also depends on what you want to scoop (ice-cream works with fork too but to a lesser degree)
Ask these questions: How much of the 4th ed game system u used when no dice was rolled? No combat was done? How much? So how much of the abilities/feats was used? None? So how much of your previous game requires 4th ed and is based on that?
And I think you missed the whole point of my posting. I've quoted one example whereby RP is drummed down in 4th ed as compared to the previous edition, missing non-combat spells (ritual as a watered down alternative had been relegated to a mere 5 pages)
Many are considering that streamlining the gameplay is something that 4th ed had improved on in terms of combat yet in several dragon articles, that's the opposite of the designers intentions (read article of dragon 364).
Anyway, I'm not saying that 4th is no fun. As of now, I'm still having my kicks out of it but as a experienced gamer (and many others), 4th ed game system and rules lean towards combat and powers and after a while, it may lose its luster as mentioned by this thread's title.
Question: You and your party are in a tower of undead but an illusion casted by a necromancer of great power had granted all the inhabitants a decaying undead look and feel. There's a group of villagers held hostaged and charmed. Now there's 3 groups of these "undeads" hunkering towards you. What will you do?
Answer: Use any of the 4th ed rule system to rp this.
Note to WoTC: Put back more meat into non-combat orientation and combine the best of 3.5 with 4th.
I would hope in the above case, that the DM had a) created this particular effect with the skills of the characters in mind, perused the skills chapter and thought of results for use of Insight, Perception, Arcana etc etc
A Skill Challenge would fit the bill nicely. Dis-spelling or dis-believing the illusion - that's less roleplaying and more mechanics. Again, I would hope that DM in this case had devised a concrete way for the SKill Challenge to do this.
|
|
I would hope in the above case, that the DM had a) created this particular effect with the skills of the characters in mind, perused the skills chapter and thought of results for use of Insight, Perception, Arcana etc etc
A Skill Challenge would fit the bill nicely. Dis-spelling the illusion - that's less roleplaying and more mechanics.
Remember we're on the topic of spell usage otherwise there's many other ways of tackling this.
How about protection from evil? Detect undead? Speak with undead? (the living will not be able to answer) stinking cloud?
How many abilities or powers in 4th ed allows such option?
Dispelling isn't any less rp too if its done with the story in mind (Raistlin used featherfall to float down the inn's back...the whole encounter was rp-ed)
|
|
I don't see how using a power is any different than colorful descriptions in combat.
then your not looking hard enough, colourful description = only fluff power = fluff and crunch. Would a colourful description ever allow you to do something extra unless the dm house rules/fiats it No. Do you powers allow you to do something extra, yes.
I wasn't very clear. Of course there are mechanical results. I don't think the repeated use of twin strike is any more exciting than "I swing my sword and warhammer". Both can be dressed up. Only now the action is restricted to a certain number of powers.
But I think you hit upon what is my problem here. The powers feel much more static to me. They were advertised as a way for all players to do something "cool" in combat. Instead they just feel repetitive to me.
And I am one of those DMs that add extra effects for the sake of flair. I like combat to be dynamic and dramatic. The formula doesn't work for me. I find it more stifling than exciting.
But I recognize this is a "me" thing. I am having trouble getting past the powers in that regard.
But I think you hit upon what is my problem here. The powers feel much more static to me. They were advertised as a way for all players to do something "cool" in combat. Instead they just feel repetitive to me.
And I am one of those DMs that add extra effects for the sake of flair. I like combat to be dynamic and dramatic. The formula doesn't work for me. I find it more stifling than exciting.
This really sounds like two different issues in tandem. On the one hand, it seems like the PHB focused on the particularly combat-oriented classes (4 explicitly Martial classes & the more combat-y Arcane & Divine classes). Plus there's only a smattering of powers offered for each class at each level/type and a paltry two suggested character builds per class. So if judged by that measure, the system as-written seems very combat-flavored.
But the DMG clearly emphasizes a balance across the game of martial- and social-encounters. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that more flavorful options wrt. powers/abilities, character build-style, and social-oriented classes are simply not available yet. That would seem to be supported by the inclusion of traditionally social-oriented classes (bard, druid, sorcerer, etc.) in the PHB2, and by the thumbnail descriptions for the upcoming "Complete [Power Source]" books. So for now, PC's are somewhat restricted in their available build options, which probably leads to some of the finiteness that you're expressing.
On the other hand, if the players are constantly using the same tactics over and over again, across multiple encounters and in different games/campaigns, then that's not the system's fault, it's a people-problem. Maybe the players don't feel comfortable trying out stuff that's not as obvious or well-understood, or maybe there's not enough variety in the game/encounter design itself. Or they're just caught up in the moment and don't care to think out interesting new approaches to every situation. Either way, it doesn't mean the opportunity to try new things isn't there.
|
|
But I think you hit upon what is my problem here. The powers feel much more static to me. They were advertised as a way for all players to do something "cool" in combat. Instead they just feel repetitive to me.
And I am one of those DMs that add extra effects for the sake of flair. I like combat to be dynamic and dramatic. The formula doesn't work for me. I find it more stifling than exciting.
This really sounds like two different issues in tandem. On the one hand, it seems like the PHB focused on the particularly combat-oriented classes (4 explicitly Martial classes & the more combat-y Arcane & Divine classes). Plus there's only a smattering of powers offered for each class at each level/type and a paltry two suggested character builds per class. So if judged by that measure, the system as-written seems very combat-flavored.
But the DMG clearly emphasizes a balance across the game of martial- and social-encounters. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that more flavorful options wrt. powers/abilities, character build-style, and social-oriented classes are simply not available yet. That would seem to be supported by the inclusion of traditionally social-oriented classes (bard, druid, sorcerer, etc.) in the PHB2, and by the thumbnail descriptions for the upcoming "Complete [Power Source]" books. So for now, PC's are somewhat restricted in their available build options, which probably leads to some of the finiteness that you're expressing.
On the other hand, if the players are constantly using the same tactics over and over again, across multiple encounters and in different games/campaigns, then that's not the system's fault, it's a people-problem. Maybe the players don't feel comfortable trying out stuff that's not as obvious or well-understood, or maybe there's not enough variety in the game/encounter design itself. Or they're just caught up in the moment and don't care to think out interesting new approaches to every situation. Either way, it doesn't mean the...
I don't disagree with you. The part of my quote that got cut off did say this is probably very much a "me" thing. I may have edited that in after you starting to write this response but I do think you have a point.
Which might mean 4e isn't for me. I'm not saying the game is bad. I am saying the game might not be good for me. Not in the way I had orignally thought.
Just as a note, my players are creative thinkers and brilliant roleplayers. Some of this might stem from system familiarity. As for encounter variety, let me just say I don't think that is an issue. I have taken the encounter design to heart and have tried a variety of situations to engage players. If anything, I think Wizards has some problems with their encounter designs.
Errata): There is an ungodly amount of it.
Oh I wasnt aware of this. I dont own 4th edition but now if I were to ever cave and get the core books I dont think I would now. Any word on an updated 2nd printing coming?
|
|
Errata): There is an ungodly amount of it.Oh I wasnt aware of this. I dont own 4th edition but now if I were to ever cave and get the core books I dont think I would now. Any word on an updated 2nd printing coming?
None that I have seen. As far as I know the 2nd and 3rd printings are the same as the first. Which is too bad. There really is a ton of errata so far.
I'm still enjoying the game - and since I'm playing in both a 3.5 and a 4E game, I'm reminded on a regular basis of the improvements the game has made.
I am a bit worried that, after 7 or so sessions of 4E, combats still haven't sped up as much as I was expecting them to... though I'm attributing that to having that has constantly changing players, with players regularly changing to new characters, and even the GM rotating on a regular basis. So hopefully that learning curve will eventually settle in.
Even then, combat itself will probably only take a little less time than it did in D&D 3.5. What will speed up is the round-to-round action of combat. Each player ends up having more chances to act, and more interesting ways to use those actions, and the game doesn't get bogged down.
I havent played 4th edition at all yet unless you count Game Day at my LGS.
From what I hear it sounds alot like an fast-paced action board game.
Aint nuthin wrong wit dat!!!
Ever play Hero Quest? I love Hero Quest. Its really fun. So 4th edition I would have no probelm playing and having a good time doing it. Id never turn up my nose at a chance to play it if I was invited. Id get the PHB and show up for 1st game. But for me its no substitute for 3rd edition or Pathfinder RPG.
I could play 4th edition if I still had a 3rd edition game on the side. Playign 4th only I would feel like Im missing a certain something I love in my RPG sessions.
I havent played 4th edition at all yet unless you count Game Day at my LGS.
From what I hear it sounds alot like an fast-paced action board game.
It can be if that's all you want it to be. The rules support far more than that, though. A lot of people ignore this, for whatever reason. I think you may be falling victim to hearing them say it so many times that it starts to become true.
|
Ever play Hero Quest? I love Hero Quest. Its really fun. So 4th edition I would have no probelm playing and having a good time doing it. Id never turn up my nose at a chance to play it if I was invited.
Well that sums it up for me too! I'm sure I'd enjoy to play from time to time, just like I'd play Hero Quest and have a great time. But this ain't the "D&D" I have in mind.
But this ain't the "D&D" I have in mind.
Yeah, that sums up why I am playing 3.5E in addition. 4E is fun, but it's quite different from previous editions. The rules themselves establish more of a tactical minis type of game, which is cool, but doesn't always jive with the world my games are in. Sometimes you just have to wave your hand at something and say "well, that's just how it works," even if it can make little sense in the game world. The tactical minis aspect of 4E is fun, but it doesn't always fit so smoothly into a game world where you want some semblance of verisimilitude.
Its been long enough for me that it has "lost its luster", but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying it. I'm still having fun with it, and when I ask myself "which system do I want to run?" the answer is still 4e. No, for me, the game's shiny newness has worn off and that allows me to see where it needs improvement. Sometimes a houserule is a quick fix, other times I have to work around the problem, but ultimately the game is still a lot of fun for me.
On the other hand, with the newness factor gone, I am left with a familiarity that allows me to try new and exciting things with the system. So its a trade-off. I now know the system is not perfect, but that knowledge serves me to make my games even better.
None that I have seen. As far as I know the 2nd and 3rd printings are the same as the first. Which is too bad. There really is a ton of errata so far.Errata): There is an ungodly amount of it.Oh I wasnt aware of this. I dont own 4th edition but now if I were to ever cave and get the core books I dont think I would now. Any word on an updated 2nd printing coming?
I have not seen updates in print. They have been doing an excellent job of keeping the Compendium online and up to date. It is so up to date that they update it before the errata pages.
|
|
It can be if that's all you want it to be. The rules support far more than that, though. A lot of people ignore this, for whatever reason. I think you may be falling victim to hearing them say it so many times that it starts to become true.I havent played 4th edition at all yet unless you count Game Day at my LGS.
From what I hear it sounds alot like an fast-paced action board game.
With all due respect, perhaps they just disagree with you? What you see as enough variety, someone else may see as stifling. Saying that people may be 'falling victim' with all that implies about intention and honesty of other posters, is over the top. People's opinions on 4ed are purely subjective. You actually CAN'T prove them wrong. Try not to take it as a personal insult that all people don't agree with you.
I'm the opposite, I keep finding little nooks and crannies that just keep my interest bubbling over, so hasn't lost its interest yet!
I am still preparing to run a 4th edition game but whilst for the Cleric and Mage the Powers are pretty much magic missile,magic missile or Bless, Bless for the other class's it's a whole lot more from what I can see.
The fighter especially gets a nice set of choices instead of the 3rd edition 'shall I power attack..yeah lets go for broke'. The only other options were Expertise, Dodge or changing weapons.Don't misunderstand I enjoyed describing my attacks 'I duck low then sweep a wide cut at the guards chest(Power Attack 2)' but it looks a lot more interesting. I am tempted to let the mage build up his powers in his spell book and memorise each day but not sure yet. At least the mage can adventure all day now intead of going 'well I've cast my magic missiles, my Fireball, my shields been dispelled and I've only got cantrips left...basically I can't do anything else so can we stop now?' and the fighters amd rogues complaining that its only been an hour of the campaign day.
The area's that me and my group would struggle with are the Skills and the missing Professions and Crafts. Both of which I'm putting back in. I'm also instead of the PC's getting half the level in skill progression going to give out skill points (6+int per level) with a Max rank of level+2 and change the bonus for Trained Feats to +2. The starting skills I've worked out to be roughly 15. fighters normally get 3 trained skills so they'll need 3x3=9 plus 3 (to put into Background skills like Profession or Crafts) for a total of 12, the Priest will need 15( 3x4+3=12) to give him the three trained skills, 3 for Religion and 3 for background skills.
Can't wait to try it out but I'll let you know how it goes.
1) While powers provide something cool for everyone to do, I don't see how using a power is any different than colorful descriptions in combat. In fact, due to their rarity they get kind of repetitive. When you hear "magic missle, magic missle, magic missle" or "twin strike, twin strike, twin strike" over and over again you get kind of tired of it. It would be nice if powers were a bit more dynamic and less like pushing the button to execute a move in a video game. In fact, one of my main complaints about World of Warcraft (despite how much I like the game) is this idea. My gnome warlock does nothing but cast "shadow bolt, shadow bolt, shadow bolt" in combat.
My suggestion for part of this problem is to cut down the number of hit points the monsters have. It might help alleviate the button-mashiness because each successful hit will do relatively more damage and shorten encounters.
I'm not a big 4e supporter nor do I play WoW. But I have watched someone play WoW and I am familiar with similar games. Something that works OK on a computer game, the ol' button mash, works there mainly because the game has at least one foot in the arcade-game camp. Mashing buttons to fire off your weapons "feels" OK to a graphic computer RPG. But it doesn't around a tabletop. Despite a couple of articles from designers saying that they didn't like button-mashiness of WoW, by having solos and elites with a lot of hit points, devising the numbers so that a substantial proportion of all attacks miss, and keeping power damage down to 1-3 dice for low level characters they got exactly what they didn't want... low to mid level characters running out of encounters and dailies and relying on button mashing their at-wills.
I don't see minions as a sufficient or appropriate answer to this problem. Too many one-hit kills isn't very satisfying either.
I'm still thinking of re-gearing 4th Edition to use as a superhero RP system, but only if I get bored with FASERIP. I admit, it was fun to play, but it felt like I was playing a game, I wasn't immersed in it.
I think the powers structure would work reasonably well for a D&D-based kung fu game. That popped into my head while watching Kung Fu Panda.
I am still having fun, but I am not sure it is the game I want to run in the long term. Which is disappointing because I was having a hell of a time with it until I hit these roadblocks. One is quite major (powers) and sort of determines the future of the game with my group.
I don't understand. I haven't even seen a 4e product yet, but I'm confused on why you can't add spells or anything else you want to the 4e system? Is it so rigidly defined that deciding to add in a homebrew spell throws the whole system out of whack? That's one of the core, defining (and great) things about past editions of the game. You want to include a Ray of Unyielding Damnation spell to your DM arsenal, you can! You make it sound like if something like that is done in 4e, you have to give up something else in order to gain access to that new spell. If that's the case, I can certainly appreciate your disappointment. I'd hate that myself. Creating or discovering new spells, without having to sacrifice a thing, is paramount to the fun of playing a mage imo.
I hate to say it, but this game is sounding more shoot em up, "pew, pew, pew!" to me as time goes on. LOL.
|
|
You make it sound like if something like that is done in 4e, you have to give up something else in order to gain access to that new spell. If that's the case, I can certainly appreciate your disappointment. I'd hate that myself. Creating or discovering new spells, without having to sacrifice a thing, is paramount to the fun of playing a mage imo.
That's exactly it. If I introduce a new arcane power of the same or lower level than the PC then the character can re-train into the power if they want. That means dumping another power. If the power is of higher level then the character may take as they increase in power but that means that is the only power they get at that level.
If the power is an daily power that means the wizard's spellbook is edited and the old power is lost. If the power is an at-will or encounter power then the old power is simply forgotten.
Enemy spellbooks are gone. Enemy ritual books can take their place. Of course, anyone who can cast rituals can pick up a ritual book and use it without any kind of penalty. With the ability to re-train at every level the idea of a wizard with a spellbook full of spells is gone. This is, and this is purely my opinion, poorly replaced with rituals.
|
|
My suggestion for part of this problem is to cut down the number of hit points the monsters have. It might help alleviate the button-mashiness because each successful hit will do relatively more damage and shorten encounters.
Interesting idea. You know, for some reason that idea never occured to me.
Of course, without mondo hit points that means creatures are less of a threat to PCs. They need staying power to even present a reasonable challenge to the party.
But there might be a way to strike a balance between the two.
Thanks for the thought, I really appreciate it.
I ran a test game with five 15th level characters and I put them up against a 17th level Solo monster. 860 hit points takes a long time to hack through even with out having to contend with it's high defenses.
I was thinkng about a across the board reduction of monster hit points by 20%.
My suggestion for part of this problem is to cut down the number of hit points the monsters have. It might help alleviate the button-mashiness because each successful hit will do relatively more damage and shorten encounters.
I've noticed this problem when I run 4th Edition encounters as well. The high hit point totals seems to make encounters last longer than they should.
The only time this doesn't seem to be the case is if the player's have their daily powers available. A critical on a 2nd level character's daily power seems to do A LOT of damage.
|
Contributor
|
At least the mage can adventure all day now intead of going 'well I've cast my magic missiles, my Fireball, my shields been dispelled and I've only got cantrips left...basically I can't do anything else so can we stop now?' and the fighters amd rogues complaining that its only been an hour of the campaign day.
Nothing personal, but I am so tired of that strawman. I rarely heard anyone complaining about their wizards running out of spells and that stopped the game, especially beyond 2nd level. It became a talking point last year when WOTC announced 4E and how it would fix all these "problems" that no one had until they started repeating them ad naseum.
3E made some great strides forward for Wizards. The class was originally a resource-management role, carefully doling out magic as the situation calls for it, and some players (myself included) really get a kick out of resource management. In 3E, they realized that 1)Resource management is hard, and 2) not everyone likes it. So they introduced the sorceror, who gets more spells per day and doesn't have to pre-prepare, and they give wizards access to better weapons (like the crossbow) and equipment (lovely, lovely alchemists fire) to supplement their spells. They even packed in more extra-spell magic items to address the problem, like wands and more scrolls in almost every treasure horde. In nearly a decade of running 3.X games, I almost never had a wizard complain about running through all their spells after 2nd or 3rd level, and even when they did, it didn't stop the entire game because he was always packing backup instead of demanding the whole party carter to his whims.
That being said, I can see how some people would enjoy the new powers system. I'm just tired of the overused lines about the 20-minute adventuring day; It's a poor argument to hide behind.
In nearly a decade of running 3.X games, I almost never had a wizard complain about running through all their spells after 2nd or 3rd level, and even when they did, it didn't stop the entire game because he was always packing backup instead of demanding the whole party carter to his whims.
In my time with the system, I've found the opposite true. As soon as that Wizard and even Sorcerer ran out of spells the game became "let's find a spot to rest so we can get our spells back for our caster..."
To each his own I guess.
Nothing personal, but I am so tired of that strawman. I rarely heard anyone complaining about their wizards running out of spells and that stopped the game, especially beyond 2nd level. It became a talking point last year when WOTC announced 4E and how it would fix all these "problems" that no one had until they started repeating them ad naseum.
....
I'm just tired of the overused lines about the 20-minute adventuring day; It's a poor argument to hide behind.
I never had that trouble either. Guess it depends on the group you're playing with.