This is not meant to be a place to go off on an edition war. I just want to get an idea of what the DM's are thinking about certain aspects of the new system (From a DM's perspective).
Dislikes:
1. Fighters Mark: This really messes with any tactical plans I may have made up before hand :)
2. Allowing Multiple Opportunity Attacks: One of my favourite tactics was to have either a hard to hit or tough monster run through the battle, taking the AoO, thereby allowing weaker monsters to position themselves freely. The party used to use this against me too, which is why I always tried to have a bad guy with combat reflexes just to mess with them. Now everyone gets the attacks!
3. Doing Sneak attack damage only once per round.
Likes:
1. Grappling: No longer can a single grapple attack take out the a Big Bad Caster.
2. Minions: Love them. It's a toss up to which is better: The look on the players faces when I throw a whole gang of bad guys at them and they don't realize they are minions, or the look when I thow a whole gang of bad guys against them that they think are minions and the first hit doesn't drop one. :)
3. Non-stacking Temp Hit Points.
There are more for both, but these are the ones I could remember off the top of my head.
This is not meant to be a place to go off on an edition war. I just want to get an idea of what the DM's are thinking about certain aspects of the new system (From a DM's perspective).
Dislikes:
1. Fighters Mark: This really messes with any tactical plans I may have made up before hand :)
2. Allowing Multiple Opportunity Attacks: One of my favourite tactics was to have either a hard to hit or tough monster run through the battle, taking the AoO, thereby allowing weaker monsters to position themselves freely. The party used to use this against me too, which is why I always tried to have a bad guy with combat reflexes just to mess with them. Now everyone gets the attacks!
3. Doing Sneak attack damage only once per round.
My likes:-
1) No Attack of Opportunity on downed character standing up- this was heavily abused and very annoying as a DM and player. As a DM watching a player Trip the Big Bad end guy then stop him from standing up due to AoO that would follow is just annoying and deflating as a finish to a game.
2)Multiple AoO -love this, stops metagaming as one player with a ridiculously high AC sucks all the AoO allowing the rest of the party to skip by the critters\NPCs etc.
3)Powers - Sooooo versatile, I can custom any power I want from merely the description I deliver.
4) Fighters Mark- Fighters Mark doesn't effect my game negatively as I've House Ruled it. Instead the Player Uses an Free Intimidate Check(roleplay) against the opponents Will to force an action(i.e Fighter tells the guy he's going to regret going past a point on the battlefield-thus stopping him attacking the Mage in the party in melee,or making the opponent run away from him-only lasts a round and doesn't stop the enemy using a missile weapon). It allows the character to effect the combat but cannot completely control the result,generally more entertaining.
Dislikes:-
1)Clerics - Not the whole thing just the limited individuality of the clerics depending on the god. Bahamut should be able to be effective from an honour, justice, nobility. Corellon should be more Magical in his skills(casting cantrips AT-Will) as well as Beauty( I think Beguiling skills would be effective). Needs more thought.
2)Multiclassing- this is ok but it should have granted the option to swap out one AT-WILL from the class your Multiclassing to for more flavour.
3)Limited non-combat class options-players I have are very inclined to non-combat powers.
Likes:
1. Decreased Prep Time: Went from several hours to a couple of hours per session or adventure.
2. CRs Simplified: No more crazy math to figure out a CR. Two CR 1s make a 3? Four CR 1s make a 5? Forget that mess.
3. Streamlined Rules: Very nice.
4. Streamlined Monsters: Powers don't take up a full page of print, especially with outsiders.
Dislikes:
1. Magic Items: Trying to remember what everything does can be a pain. Everything is a +1 "special" item. In previous editions, having weapons or armor that had special qualities were less common (with 3.x E starting to buck the trend).
2. Damage Resistance: Tough to run an undead campaign when a dark pact warlock is involved, or a fire element themed adventure when tons of arcane powers deal fire damage. Everything is immune to poison and resistant to necrotic. Maybe resistance should be a percentage chance for immunity, but I could see how this would bog down the game.
Overall I love the new rules more than 3.xE. I have nothing against 3.xE, but I will not be running it any time soon (and if I did I would convert everything to True20).
2)Multiclassing- this is ok but it should have granted the option to swap out one AT-WILL from the class your Multiclassing to for more flavour.
Er...are you familiar with paragon multiclassing? "At 11th level, you can choose to replace one of your at-will powers with an at-will power from your second class."
As an example of each category:
LIKE: Simplified AoOs. Like a previous poster said, one of my biggest likes is that you can stand up from prone withough provoking an opportunity attack.
DISLIKE: Solo monsters. These combats tend to get incredibly tedious, with the monsters and the characters just beating on each other until they go down. Solo monsters seem to have a lot of options, until you've spent 15 rounds going through them all over and over.
Likes – At Will/Per Encounter/Per Day abilities
Dislikes - Classes
Hmm...this is an interesting exercise.
Likes
1) Return to the idea that the DM is playing by different rules then the PCs: I liked that 3rd made the rules the same for both because I thought that was the ideal but having experienced in actual practice...not so happy with how that turned out. To much extra work for the DM that exists essentially just to insure that the DM is playing by the same rules as the player.
2) Much faster combat rounds: While combats seem to take rughly the same amount of time in total, on average, each persons individual turn moves much, much, quicker. I'm doing 3.5 Maure Castle right now and its a long time between when a player acts adn the next time a player acts. This results in players wandering away from the table or getting into all kinds of other distractions - which leads to further delays when their turn does finally come up because you've got to round them up or get them refocused. Its a real momentum killer even in exciting fights. Not a problem at our 4E table where its your turn again in 5-8 minutes.
3) Emphasis on play balance: I love the fact that characters are generally good both in and out of combat in roughly equal degrees and that characters are easy to design that are very comparable in combat effectiveness.
Dislikes
1) Lack of fluff with the monsters: This is an area I think they should have gone beyond what was done with 3.5 instead they seemed to have actually scaled it back a little even more.
2) Culling the c[b]onditions:The fact that they have skeletons that are effected by sleep drives me nuts. Thats just the tip of the iceberg really. The goal of not having many conditions so that everything could be stated in a monster stat block was a nice idea. However the result has been that the fundamental differences between an elemental, an undead, and a lower planar creature are are simply not clear enough as types of creatures that have things in common among themselves but are distinctive when compared to other groups of creatures.
3) The Monster Grind: Does not always come up but when it does its brutal. It should not be as common as it is in the game, it should have been nipped in the butt in playtesting. While I think a skilled DM can get around it 80% of the time tghis does not address whats going to happen in published adventures, to few of them go through actual playtesting. Hence either there are going to be far to many 'not fun' combats or one has to use clunky 'finish fight now' rules.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Likes
Prep tools. I love how easy it is to design encounters. It is a thing of beauty and makes DMing so much easier, I could cry with joy.
Dislikes
Flavor. The PC abilities in particular are...well, corny and not particularly grokable. I can't keep them straight, there are just too many of them that do similar things it's hard to keep straight.
2)Multiclassing- this is ok but it should have granted the option to swap out one AT-WILL from the class your Multiclassing to for more flavour.Er...are you familiar with paragon multiclassing? "At 11th level, you can choose to replace one of your at-will powers with an at-will power from your second class."
UUUuuuhhh...yyyeeaahhh!!!!! I do know about multiclassing but waiting till 11'th level seems a real drag to get a BASIC class option like AT-WILLs plus you have to have commited 4 feats out of your 6 (at 10th level) to Multiclassing.
Flavor. The PC abilities in particular are...well, corny and not particularly grokable. I can't keep them straight, there are just too many of them that do similar things it's hard to keep straight.
Funny enough I find the opposite, whilst a certain amount of the mechanics for the different class's is the same the method of describing how you did that effect is different for each class. I find the flavour of each class much more distinct than previous editions. Fighters can really fight and specialize with weapons, mages can deal damage to large amounts of enemy and leave them stunned or throw them around the area, clerics can heal\fight and through prayer enhance their allies.
Warlocks I find a bit tricky to define, they are sort of dodgy-sacrificing people\critters to a dark power but acceptable as a sorcerer type character(ish).
I think the multiclass rules are great and way better then the open multiclass of 3e.
Likes
So far, everything.
Dislikes
So far, nothing
I think the multiclass rules are great and way better then the open multiclass of 3e.
In all the multiclass rules are much better from my perspective as well. You don't get discrepencies like previous editions may which lead to the character combining the right(as in the overpowered) aspects of one class with another class abilities(spells, backstab etc) which turned the character into a monster which was almost impossible to challenge in an encounter. This monster character often made the game very dull for other party members leaving them deflated, bored and like bad film flunkies to the one character.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Funny enough I find the opposite, whilst a certain amount of the mechanics for the different class's is the same the method of describing how you did that effect is different for each class. I find the flavour of each class much more distinct than previous editions. Fighters can really fight and specialize with weapons, mages can deal damage to large amounts of enemy and leave them stunned or throw them around the area, clerics can heal\fight and through prayer enhance their allies.
Warlocks I find a bit tricky to define, they are sort of dodgy-sacrificing people\critters to a dark power but acceptable as a sorcerer type character(ish).
That is funny. The one that always sticks out in my mind as having flavor issues is the rogue ability that does a lot of damage and blinds the opponent (and can be used at range). I can't recall what the flavor text is off the top of my head, but it seems like it's supposed to cut the person, causing blood/ichor to flow into their eyes and blind them. It seems a bit wonky to me.
I can't keep them straight, there are just too many of them that do similar things it's hard to keep straight.
Would it be better if each class had fewer, more powerful and distinct abilities?
I don't know if I agree about multiclassing. I've tried it and it feels unbalanced the other way - i.e. much too weak. One has to give up a feat to exchange a power that isn't likely to serve you as well as your regular powers since it's going to depend on a secondary ability score.
Multiclassing in 3e allowed one to really create a unique character. I agree that this often times allowed for creative combinations of powers that sometimes made a for ridiculously powerful PCs. It definitely needed fixing.
But I'm not sure 4e has created the right solution - it's so limiting I find I don't even want to multiclass. It almost doesn't feel like multiclassing to me.
Anyway, in regards to the thread:
Likes
Enjoyable to play and exciting.
More balanced - everyone plays an important role.
Rarely need to slow down battles or other parts of the game to look up rules.
I actually enjoy reading monster stats now to see what they can do.
Dislikes
A little more wargame-y and less roleplay-ey than I'd like. I'm not always a fan of battlemats.
I used to enjoy some of the more complex flavor in previous editions.
Doesn't feel as flexible a system, at least for PC creation.
Overall the likes outweigh the dislikes (I don't think I'd want to return to a previous edition), but 4e is hardly perfect in my eyes.
That is funny. The one that always sticks out in my mind as having flavor issues is the rogue ability that does a lot of damage and blinds the opponent (and can be used at range). I can't recall what the flavor text is off the top of my head, but it seems like it's supposed to cut the person, causing blood/ichor to flow into their eyes and blind them. It seems a bit wonky to me.
There are several powers that often feel that way and I have difficulty visualizing. Even in cases where I can visualize, it feels odd that a certain character can repeat such powers once per encounter. I.e. Rouf the Rogue just seems to be able to blind his opponent with blood streaming down his face once an encounter.
HPs are another one. I've heard the arguments that hp isn't about wounds, therefore a non-magic wielding warlord is able to inspire his allies in ways they can't inspire themselves, i.e with extra actions and healing. I don't know - it may make sense on a tactical gameboard, but flavorfully it feels a bit odd.
Overall I enjoy 4e, but sometimes I miss 3e realism.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't keep them straight, there are just too many of them that do similar things it's hard to keep straight.Would it be better if each class had fewer, more powerful and distinct abilities?
Generally, yes, but I would phrase it as "I would like it if each class had more iconic abilities that are inherently part of the class" (and every member of the class has them). They don't necessarily have to be more powerful, but they should be generally useful and flavorful. I feel like reading the books does not give a good sense of what each class can do/is good at. It may well be that this is a skill deficiency on my part (e.g., once I am more familiar with the mechanics, it will be very obvious what each class is supposed to do), but I'd still like it if each class had a few more iconic abilities that all members of that class could do.*
*Such iconic abilities would be fair game to be traded out in expansion books, but I'd like 2-3 builds that use the iconic abilities.
I can't keep them straight, there are just too many of them that do similar things it's hard to keep straight.Would it be better if each class had fewer, more powerful and distinct abilities?
I'd say generally no. One of the problems with the system is that you can get in a situation where one power is clearly the optimum one to use for the situation and yet, by the time you've used the same power for the 4th time in a row, your getting bored.
While powers for different classes should follow a different theme in line with their class I think that most of the classes really need more powers, especially ones that can be used as a minor action, maybe a limited number of times per day or something. Really anything that makes each round feel different and distinct is something to strive for in the system.
That is funny. The one that always sticks out in my mind as having flavor issues is the rogue ability that does a lot of damage and blinds the opponent (and can be used at range). I can't recall what the flavor text is off the top of my head, but it seems like it's supposed to cut the person, causing blood/ichor to flow into their eyes and blind them. It seems a bit wonky to me.
The only thing on that I would say was that some of the powers have odd names for what they are and some of the descriptions of the ability doesn't make sense but after all it's your character, you make up the final description.
The ranged rogue one(although I don't know which one that is) I would give it a write-up like:-'with a flick of the wrist you throw a dagger, catching your enemy above the eye that causes incredible pain and blood flows into its face'. I'd also make my character lose a dagger(well its in the bad guy'.
I think that's the main thing with 4E, imagining the exploits and describing the result.
HPs are another one. I've heard the arguments that hp isn't about wounds, therefore a non-magic wielding warlord is able to inspire his allies in ways they can't inspire themselves, i.e with extra actions and healing. I don't know - it may make sense on a tactical gameboard, but flavorfully it feels a bit odd.
Overall I enjoy 4e, but sometimes I miss 3e realism.
Overall HP's have always been a rather wooly concept at best but with recovery in 4th edition I see the characters a bit like John McLain in DIE HARD, they seem to get hurt(some small injuries other seem quite nasty) but hearing a cry from a hostage he somehow pulls himself together and beats the hell out of another 4 Terrorists.
If you change John McLain into an armoured warrior(rogue,ranger etc) and replace the hostage call into a Warlord word of inspiration eg 'We're not finished yet fella, there are four orcs down there who wonder if your a weakling, NOW GET UP!'
Yes just like the film it lack realism but them in the older editions how realistic was it when 20 1st level guards attack plate armoured high level fighter and have to hit him 20 times or more to drop him? Or the fact that a 1st level cleric casting cure light wounds would almost resurrect an almost dead fighter but at high levels the same spell would hardly be noticed? It's still just an odd visualisation but we enjoy it anyhow.
It sounds like there needs to be a sweet spot for the number of class abilities. Too few and the class feels stale. Too many and play is bogged down with indecision. I am sure this number is different for each person too.
About a year ago, I made several pregen characters for my Pirate Hero campaign. I found it very challenging yet rewarding to give each character two abilities that defined them. There was a lot of difference in Ability Scores and Skill selection, but there was also a lot of overlap as well. These two special abilities were things only one particular character had. This really helped each character feel different despite the fact they would all most likely fit into either Fighter or Rogue classes if converted.
Overall HP's have always been a rather wooly concept at best but with recovery in 4th edition I see the characters a bit like John McLain in DIE HARD, they seem to get hurt(some small injuries other seem quite nasty) but hearing a cry from a hostage he somehow pulls himself together and beats the hell out of another 4 Terrorists.If you change John McLain into an armoured warrior(rogue,ranger etc) and replace the hostage call into a Warlord word of inspiration eg 'We're not finished yet fella, there are four orcs down there who wonder if your a weakling, NOW GET UP!'
Yes just like the film it lack realism but them in the older editions how realistic was it when 20 1st level guards attack plate armoured high level fighter and have to hit him 20 times or more to drop him? Or the fact that a 1st level cleric casting cure light wounds would almost resurrect an almost dead fighter but at high levels the same spell would hardly be noticed? It's still just an odd visualisation but we enjoy it anyhow.
I don't disagree. There is plenty in 3e and hp in general that remains unrealistic. Overall though, I feel that 4e wasn't worried as much about realism or the "flavor" of any given power, but focused more on it's tactical abilities on a battlemat. For example, there are some monster powers that have a game effect but have no flavor to back up what is happening. Sometimes I rack my brain for some kind of flavor text behind the power. Another example, why can a warlord only inspire so many times per encounter? "I was only able to inspire Roger and Smith this encounter, then I ran out of inspirational steam." Overall, it feels more game-y than story oriented.
Perhaps that's the sacrifice that needs to be made for what I find to be a more playable system. Too much "realism" can make for an overly complicated and less enjoyable system. Still, sometimes it feels like a chess game where certain pieces can move in certain ways.
Do what I did. Run very few combats and the ones you do run make them quick and dirty. Then there isn't to much wargame-y because there is almost all role-playing.
"Most" of the monster powers are self-explanatory, but I must admit that I haven't read everyone and therefore could be a few like you describe. On the same note if Wizards was really more worried about the "tactical" aspects of the power then it would have been pointless and just more work to add the flavor-text.
Since everyone likes to talk about a WoW-4e comparison... how much flavor-text does the WoW Powers have? Less then the "so-called" tactical focused powers of the Fourth Edition. Most of the powers make perfect sense if you were seeing them written out in a book or watching them happen in a movie so why don't they make sense in your imagination?
HP has already been unrealistic but atleast 4e has finally made it less about "body wounds" and more about "stamina/staying power". And there is only so many times that someone can inspire you before weariness sets in and their words don't have the same effect in the middle of the same fight.
That is funny. The one that always sticks out in my mind as having flavor issues is the rogue ability that does a lot of damage and blinds the opponent (and can be used at range). I can't recall what the flavor text is off the top of my head, but it seems like it's supposed to cut the person, causing blood/ichor to flow into their eyes and blind them. It seems a bit wonky to me.The only thing on that I would say was that some of the powers have odd names for what they are and some of the descriptions of the ability doesn't make sense but after all it's your character, you make up the final description.
The ranged rogue one(although I don't know which one that is) I would give it a write-up like:-
'with a flick of the wrist you throw a dagger, catching your enemy above the eye that causes incredible pain and blood flows into its face'. I'd also make my character lose a dagger(well its in the bad guy'.
I think that's the main thing with 4E, imagining the exploits and describing the result.
The weak point of powers like this is that its just not always applicable. Can you do this with the Cuthuloid monster? What if it does not have eyes or its nothing but eyes?
Do what I did. Run very few combats and the ones you do run make them quick and dirty. Then there isn't to much wargame-y because there is almost all role-playing.
Perhaps I've overstated my displeasure with certain aspects of 4e. I find it a lot more manageable overall and the battles more exciting than ever before. However, I'm not sold on the idea that 4e is the best expression of the game they could have developed. They often sacrifice flavor for tactical gaming. I feel as such because of the Delve Format, the emphasis on combat in their adventures (which admittedly is getting better), and the fact that most character abilities are focused on combat and positioning on a battlemat. Flavor isn't absent - it just isn't given the same place as previous editions.
However, one can do as you suggest - inject your own roleplaying into the stories. I like 4e because I find I don't have to spend as much time figuring out the stats for a 20th level drow wizard and can spend more time putting together a story.
As far as monster powers without explanation, I usually come upon them in a written adventures.
For example:
Steel Keepers Level 6 Controller
Large natural animate (construct) XP 250 each
Initiative +4 Senses Perception +7; darkvision
HP 72; Bloodied 36
AC 20; Fortitude 19, Reflex 18, Will 16
Immune disease, poison
Speed 6, burrow 4
m Halberd (standard; at-will) ✦ Weapon
Reach 4; +10 vs. AC; 1d6 + 4 damage, and the target is slowed (save ends); see also door guard.
A Iron Defense (standard; at-will)
Area burst 1 within 5; affects only creatures in contact with the ground; +9 vs. Reflex; the target is immobilized (save ends).
Door Guard
The steel keeper deals an extra 1d6 damage against targets adjacent to the secret door.
My questions are - Why is the target slowed from the Halberd attack? What exactly is Iron Defense? What is the Steel Keeper actually doing when using this power? And why does it have a burrow speed? A little more flavor explanation would be nice.
I'm using this as a more extreme example. But this kind of inattention to flavor isn't necessarily isolated.
The lack of flavor is intentional on the part of the designers, as they've explained many times. Their goal in creating 4th Edition was to provide a set of tools for you to build your own world with, without trying to pigeonhole you into adhering to a way of imagining things that they came up with. The correct answer is that Iron Defense is whatever you as the DM want it to be. Their burrow speed can be described however you want it. The whole point is to make monsters and other mechanics that can be "plugged in" to your own campaign world and flavored in whatever way you want.
I don't entirely disagree with you. I find 4e easier than most editions to just make the world and story I want, without worrying if such and such an aspect of my story is going to work within the framework of the game rules. At the same time, I think it is necessary for the designers to describe what a power like Iron Defense basically looks like. I, as a DM, can change the flavor if desired. I understand how reducing flavor opens up the game to a player's imagination, but I think it is sometimes taken too far. Lack of flavor doesn't do me any good if I don't have something to relate a game mechanic to.
As a bit of fun, I'd like to challenge people to come up with a worthy explanation how a large plate of armor is able to make a group 25 feet away unable to move around. Keep in mind it only affects people who have contact with the ground. The person with the best explanation gets the grand prize of:
I don't entirely disagree with you. I find 4e easier than most editions to just make the world and story I want, without worrying if such and such an aspect of my story is going to work within the framework of the game rules. At the same time, I think it is necessary for the designers to describe what a power like Iron Defense basically looks like. I, as a DM, can change the flavor if desired. I understand how reducing flavor opens up the game to a player's imagination, but I think it is sometimes taken too far. Lack of flavor doesn't do me any good if I don't have something to relate a game mechanic to.
As a bit of fun, I'd like to challenge people to come up with a worthy explanation how a large plate of armor is able to make a group 25 feet away unable to move around. Keep in mind it only affects people who have contact with the ground. The person with the best explanation gets the grand prize of:
** spoiler omitted **
If I remember correctly (and I might not, even though I ran this adventure) the room is littered with the remains of several of these suits of armor, but only a few of them maintain their animating enchantment. Thus, I think I described the various pieces of armor scattered about the room, gauntlets and helms and such, twitching to life just enough to grab the feet and ankles of the PCs, preventing them from moving about.
O
|
So far I like most of 4e, a little more fluff wouldn't hurt but not necessary. The main things I don't like about 4e are the minions and the cubed area effects.
Minions are almost completely useless except for the ones with ranged attacks. They don't really slow down players or wear away at the players powers, IMO minions are just there to make the players feel like bad asses when they can kill a dozen or more a round. Minions are useful in reducing the players healing surges though.
Is it really too complicated to use the staggered area effects from 3.5. It is much more realistic in describing a sphere or cone. In 4e mages cast fire cubes not fire balls even breath weapons are cube effects not cones.
So far I like most of 4e, a little more fluff wouldn't hurt but not necessary. The main things I don't like about 4e are the minions and the cubed area effects.
Minions are almost completely useless except for the ones with ranged attacks. They don't really slow down players or wear away at the players powers, IMO minions are just there to make the players feel like bad asses when they can kill a dozen or more a round. Minions are useful in reducing the players healing surges though.
Is it really too complicated to use the staggered area effects from 3.5. It is much more realistic in describing a sphere or cone. In 4e mages cast fire cubes not fire balls even breath weapons are cube effects not cones.
I think minions are one of the best concepts of 4e. Individually and in small groups they are little more than a speed bump(and making them feel like a badass, but that a good thing isnt it?) but try chucking 40 zombies at a party, then they will learn to fear the minion! It comes in as a hard encounter for a lvl1 party.
The weak point of powers like this is that its just not always applicable. Can you do this with the Cuthuloid monster? What if it does not have eyes or its nothing but eyes?
The point I was trying to make with this was the player doesn't read the Power Description like a Script, he needs to use common sense and roleplay his powers. The example used could be changed to
"I spot a small hole above the creatures mouth and hoping for a better effect dive a dagger into it" , same power, different creature, different descriptions. Each encounter can be completely different if the players roleplay their powers more.IMO minions are just there to make the players feel like bad asses when they can kill a dozen or more a round. Minions are useful in reducing the players healing surges though.
I definitely feel different on this one, I've been using minions for a few years in a form. Basically NPC's of the PC's levels but they have 10hp where they would normally have 40 or even more. They have the potential to still injure the PC's, grant flanks unleash specific techniques on the PC's etc but are the poor dregs that James Bond punches, kicks, shoots his way through in the films, or the orc hordes of Moria, or Haradrim that are quickly cut down in Lord Of The Rings.
Is it really too complicated to use the staggered area effects from 3.5. It is much more realistic in describing a sphere or cone. In 4e mages cast fire cubes not fire balls even breath weapons are cube effects not cones.
Not decided on this one personally but why not a circle, or cone. The circle is easy enough to put back in.
The lack of flavor is intentional on the part of the designers, as they've explained many times. Their goal in creating 4th Edition was to provide a set of tools for you to build your own world with, without trying to pigeonhole you into adhering to a way of imagining things that they came up with.
Which is fine for fluff, but sometimes it's just hard to understand the intent behind the power descriptions. I'd like to know why a kruthik has its aura attack. Is it covered in spikes? Does it spin around in a frenzy? Is it because it has so many legs it can attack all directions at once?
And while I'm at it, here's my like/dislike:
Like:
DMing's never been easier. The "exception based rules" allow you to play it right out of the box and everything you need to know that's unique to a particular monster is right there in its stat block.
Dislike:
The "after-the-fact" aspect of the game. Instead of choosing an action and seeing the outcome, you choose an outcome and then decide how it happened. It's not even just the attack powers but stuff like being able to use a defense bonus after the DM rolls damage or accepting that the fighter can only his super attack once per day.
|
We have only had a small bash at 4th edition but the bottom line is as a "story telling" (i.e. not combat after combat after combat) roleplaying game I think that 4th falls shorter than any previous edition. Once the mechanics of each class "power" are boiled down you end up with very little difference between classes. I agree that this makes for balance, but also makes things slightly boring. We seem to have lots of "I do power X for 3d6 + str + cha", and another person does "3d6 + dex + wis" etc. Once out of combat there seems little in the way of skills/powers that seems to scream "role play" - one 'spell list' for all? The above shouldn't be taken in a negative way, I have one player who likes board/war games and he thinks its great - squares rather than feet for movement. But I guess that I what makes 4th edition not my game of choice is that combat even more now removes the players from the game (their characters) and adds in talk of game mechanics. Except for the aforementioned player the rest of the my group dislikes the way things have gone for D&D. Again not to say that 4th edition is wrong or bad, just that for my group (who lived through the first D&D then 1st ed. then 2nd, then 3rd ed.) this is quite an alien game that focuses far too much on combat related mechanics. Battles are an exciting part of roleplaying but they aren't the only aspect of roleplaying. Then again pen&paper RPG's are now competing with computer based online games and 4th edition seems to reflect this.
Comments welcome,
Stefan.
We have only had a small bash at 4th edition but the bottom line is as a "story telling" (i.e. not combat after combat after combat) roleplaying game I think that 4th falls shorter than any previous edition. Once the mechanics of each class "power" are boiled down you end up with very little difference between classes. I agree that this makes for balance, but also makes things slightly boring. We seem to have lots of "I do power X for 3d6 + str + cha", and another person does "3d6 + dex + wis" etc. Once out of combat there seems little in the way of skills/powers that seems to scream "role play" - one 'spell list' for all? The above shouldn't be taken in a negative way, I have one player who likes board/war games and he thinks its great - squares rather than feet for movement. But I guess that I what makes 4th edition not my game of choice is that combat even more now removes the players from the game (their characters) and adds in talk of game mechanics. Except for the aforementioned player the rest of the my group dislikes the way things have gone for D&D. Again not to say that 4th edition is wrong or bad, just that for my group (who lived through the first D&D then 1st ed. then 2nd, then 3rd ed.) this is quite an alien game that focuses far too much on combat related mechanics. Battles are an exciting part of roleplaying but they aren't the only aspect of roleplaying. Then again pen&paper RPG's are now competing with computer based online games and 4th edition seems to reflect this.
Comments welcome,
Stefan.
In what way is this different from any previous version of D&D?
|
|
Sorry perhaps my meaning didn't come across. Of course there must be dice rolling for damage etc, but it becomes very clear quickly in 4th ed. that they have concentrated almost solely on balancing characters based on combat only and in doing so have lost the original D&D flavour in my opinion. Just seems 4th edition is D&D stripped down to a bare bones fantasy combat simulator. Perhaps this was the idea and forthcoming rulebooks will address this or perhaps its just because out group feels we are playing a different RPG? Again not saying 4th edition is bad, just very different from what went before.
S.
Sorry perhaps my meaning didn't come across. Of course there must be dice rolling for damage etc, but it becomes very clear quickly in 4th ed. that they have concentrated almost solely on balancing characters based on combat only and in doing so have lost the original D&D flavour in my opinion. Just seems 4th edition is D&D stripped down to a bare bones fantasy combat simulator. Perhaps this was the idea and forthcoming rulebooks will address this or perhaps its just because out group feels we are playing a different RPG? Again not saying 4th edition is bad, just very different from what went before.
S.
How were characters balanced for things other than combat in previous editions of D&D?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How were characters balanced for things other than combat in previous editions of D&D?
Do we really need to beat this horse again? He gave his reasons, explained them, and was polite and kind in the process. I don't see how dragging each little line of the conversation through the coals yet again does anyone any good.
Characters in prior editions did have more abilities that were specifically non-combat. The wizard's familiar, the bard's ability to legend lore, the dwarf's ability to detect odd stonework and determine depth/direction. There were more spells and abilities designed to be used out of combat (floating disk, jump, change self, etc.). These are currently concentrated in utility powers in 4e.
Arguably, in 3e, rogues sacrificed some combat ability for their wide range of skills. That's an example of a trade-off.
It's not hard to see the point of view being expressed unless you're looking to pick a fight yet again over the same tired old 4e-isms. And it'd be a shame to see it happen, particularly when the poster in question spent a lot of words showing that he isn't a partisan hater.
Do we really need to beat this horse again? He gave his reasons, explained them, and was polite and kind in the process. I don't see how dragging each little line of the conversation through the coals yet again does anyone any good.
How were characters balanced for things other than combat in previous editions of D&D?
I don't think I was being unkind or impolite, and the poster in question specifically invited comment. I just wanted to hear his explanation.
Characters in prior editions did have more abilities that were specifically non-combat.
This is tremendously arguable.
The wizard's familiar,
Is not specifically non-combat by any means whatsoever (in fact, I've designed 3.5 wizards which specifically rely on their familiars during combat), nor will it be absent from 4th Edition once Arcane Power is released.
the bard's ability to legend lore,
Is irrelevant, since the official 4th Edition incarnation of the Bard won't even exist until next month.
the dwarf's ability to detect odd stonework and determine depth/direction.
Has been replaced by a straight +2 racial bonus to Dungeoneering checks. Dwarves were not able to intuit direction as a racial ability in 3rd Edition - only approximate depth.
There were more spells and abilities designed to be used out of combat (floating disk, jump, change self, etc.). These are currently concentrated in utility powers in 4e.
No, they're concentrated in utility powers and rituals which a lot of people seem to want to forget about or pretend don't exist (including you, since you specifically cited floating disk, which is a ritual in 4th Edition).
Arguably, in 3e, rogues sacrificed some combat ability for their wide range of skills. That's an example of a trade-off.
No, it's more accurately an example of poor design in a team-based game. Concentrating skill proficiency in a small subset of characters meant that challenges the party faced involving primarily (or exclusively) skill checks were only open to participation from a couple party members at best.
It's not hard to see the point of view being expressed unless you're looking to pick a fight yet again over the same tired old 4e-isms.
I'm not looking to pick a fight. I'm looking to get some clarification, because I really want to know where 4th Edition has fallen short. Is that so difficult for you to believe?
And it'd be a shame to see it happen, particularly when the poster in question spent a lot of words showing that he isn't a partisan hater.
Neither am I, if you know anything about my participation here. I want both systems to be successful. But as I've just explained, it's difficult for me to even begin to see the ways in which 4th Edition has "stripped flavor" from the game, save perhaps setting-specific fluff (like monster ecology, geography, etc.) that is by design left ambiguous to make homebrew settings easier to create.
|
We have only had a small bash at 4th edition but the bottom line is as a "story telling" (i.e. not combat after combat after combat) roleplaying game I think that 4th falls shorter than any previous edition. Once the mechanics of each class "power" are boiled down you end up with very little difference between classes. I agree that this makes for balance, but also makes things slightly boring. We seem to have lots of "I do power X for 3d6 + str + cha", and another person does "3d6 + dex + wis" etc. Once out of combat there seems little in the way of skills/powers that seems to scream "role play" - one 'spell list' for all? The above shouldn't be taken in a negative way, I have one player who likes board/war games and he thinks its great - squares rather than feet for movement. But I guess that I what makes 4th edition not my game of choice is that combat even more now removes the players from the game (their characters) and adds in talk of game mechanics. Except for the aforementioned player the rest of the my group dislikes the way things have gone for D&D. Again not to say that 4th edition is wrong or bad, just that for my group (who lived through the first D&D then 1st ed. then 2nd, then 3rd ed.) this is quite an alien game that focuses far too much on combat related mechanics. Battles are an exciting part of roleplaying but they aren't the only aspect of roleplaying. Then again pen&paper RPG's are now competing with computer based online games and 4th edition seems to reflect this.
I agree with you. My group tried it, hated it, and abandoned it. It's far too much of minis game/MMORPG and far too little of an RPG. I have no desire to play a game where a paladin shoots lasers at creatures to punish them for not attacking him, or where my 1st level ranger does the exact same attack routine (hunter's quarry + twin strike) as my 29th level ranger 90% of the time. I also have little desire to play in a game where PC's have to beat on a group of kobolds for 5-10 rounds before dropping them (They are kobolds for crying out loud!) Seriously, how many people would recognize this completely new game as Dungeons and Dragons if the D&D logo wasn't all over the books?
I agree with you. My group tried it, hated it, and abandoned it. It's far too much of minis game/MMORPG and far too little of an RPG.
It's an RPG. I'm not sure how something can be "more" or "less" of an RPG as long as it fits the criteria. It is a game, where you play a role.
I have no desire to play a game where a paladin shoots lasers at creatures to punish them for not attacking him,
What game is that?
or where my 1st level ranger does the exact same attack routine (hunter's quarry + twin strike) as my 29th level ranger 90% of the time.
And what game is this?
Neither of these take place in 4th Edition. A paladin's divine challenge does not represent the paladin shooting lasers. A ranger does not spend 90% of the fight using Twin Strike at level 29 (and if you are, you're doing it so wrong).
Both of these examples you've given are utter hyperbole, and serve no purpose in this or any discussion on the difference between two editions of a game. If you want to discuss this like a civil person, represent both versions of the game honestly. If that's not something you can do, please take your comments somewhere else. The amount of willful negative misrepresentation of 4th Edition on the Paizo boards is bad enough as it is.
I also have little desire to play in a game where PC's have to beat on a group of kobolds for 5-10 rounds before dropping them (They are kobolds for crying out loud!)
Kobolds are designed to be a real threat to 1st-level adventurers. If you don't like the idea of combat at 1st-level being exciting and dynamic, 4th Edition clearly is not the game for you. But don't act like it doesn't make any sense because of some universal truth about kobolds.
Seriously, how many people would recognize this completely new game as Dungeons and Dragons if the D&D logo wasn't all over the books?
A lot. Gosh, fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, mind flayers, dragons, beholders, zombies, traps, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, charisma, hit points, leveling up, gold pieces, magic swords, dungeons, adventures, dungeon masters, dice? Combined, these unmistakably scream Dungeons & Dragons. Pretending otherwise is pretty pointless.
Sebastian: If you want to take someone to task for bashing on a system and fanning the flames of edition wars, the above poster is a good place to start. Doing so to people actually interested in fostering dialogue in order to improve the tabletop gaming community is not the way to go about it.
|
|
The wizard's familiar,
Is not specifically non-combat by any means whatsoever (in fact, I've designed 3.5 wizards which specifically rely on their familiars during combat)
Its not specifically combat either, in fact other than +3 hp and +2 to Fort or Ref and the touch spell thing I don't see any "direct" combat skills imparted by a familiar. - Please note that we ONLY use Core Books (i.e. PHB, DMG, and MM) so if you are referring to 'uber-familiars' from other accessories I can't comment.
*Has been replaced by a straight +2 racial bonus to Dungeoneering checks.
*No, they're concentrated in utility powers and rituals which a lot of people seem to want to forget about or pretend don't exist.
This is a large part of what my group and I dislike about 4th edition, everyone can do everything. What was wrong with having spell lists for each class? In my mind the only obstacle for players "without" the right skill/power/spell for a given situation is the DM. You fit a story/encounter to your players that's why we play D&D rather than a computer game.
No, it's more accurately an example of poor design in a team-based game. Concentrating skill proficiency in a small subset of characters meant that challenges the party faced involving primarily (or exclusively) skill checks were only open to participation from a couple party members at best.
Again if this occurs during a game constantly (odd times this must happen else why have different classes at all) then the DM needs to look at themselves. Why would I as DM have a dungeon full of traps if I knew no one could spot/disarm them, where would the fun for the players be in that? You may say "but the adventure says" - I say DM's have the power of FUDGE IT in the name of fun.
End analysis - personal opinions and fun is all that counts. People will choose that ruleset that works for their players - the one you and your players have the most fun with IS the best ruleset, period. We tried 4th and found as I stated in my first post, we found it not as fun as 3rd edition. So we are now looking at using the Pathfinder rules, which so far looks (to us) exactly like what v3.5 D&D needed - a tidy up.
2 cents no change,
S
A ranger does not spend 90% of the fight using Twin Strike at level 29 (and if you are, you're doing it so wrong).
Well, I don't know about level 29, but the level 16 ranger in our weekly 4e game seems to be about 20% daily/encounter powers, 80% twin strike (and envious glances at everyone else's "cool" encounter/daily powers - his words, not mine).
:)
A ranger does not spend 90% of the fight using Twin Strike at level 29 (and if you are, you're doing it so wrong).Well, I don't know about level 29, but the level 16 ranger in our weekly 4e game seems to be about 20% daily/encounter powers, 80% twin strike (and envious glances at everyone else's "cool" encounter/daily powers - his words, not mine).
:)
A level 16 ranger should have at least 9 encounter or utility powers (some of which are daily, some of which are encounter), not to mention 3 daily attack powers (and a 4th at level 20). Assuming a combat that lasts 10 rounds (which is on the lengthy side), that ranger should be using encounter or utility powers during roughly half his turns, even if he spends an action point during that combat (something that happens during roughly 40-50% of fights). He should also spend a daily power once per two fights or so. Given that, using Twin Strike even 80% of the time is really out of whack for what should be happening (especially since it deals less damage than encounter attack powers since you haven't reached level 21 yet). Using Twin Strike five or six rounds out of ten is much more reasonable. The proportion should decrease with less lengthy fights (dropping to near 0% in fights lasting only 4-6 rounds).
That said, rangers do seem to get the short end of the stick with many of their attacks - they are damage fiends, but are often stuck with attacks that target AC and little else. The price you pay for being a ranged murder machine.
|
|
Seriously, how many people would recognize this completely new game as Dungeons and Dragons if the D&D logo wasn't all over the books?
Gosh, fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, mind flayers, dragons, beholders, zombies, traps, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, charisma, hit points, leveling up, gold pieces, magic swords, dungeons, adventures, dungeon masters, dice?
May be WotC's Nightmare may be a little blunt put his point is very relevant. All the names above can describe most fantasy RPG's (change a name here and there slightly due to copyright of course). The point I believe being made is for better or for worse that 4th edition has little in common with the previous editions of D&D other than the names of things - the classes have changed significantly.
Had this game been not published by the current holders of the D&D license would we have all rushed out to buy it as a v3.5 replacement RPG? I will be honest here, I would not have seen it as D&D if it didn't have the logos, a very interesting fantasy ruleset with some great ideas yes (I collect RPG rulesets btw), but not D&D.
S.
Oh, for the love of Jeebus ...
Scott: I agree with your points about 4E 100%. I agree that it's ridiculous for folks to post on a thread that is ostensibly about discussion of elements of 4E that might be improved and/or are well-designed just to state that they hate the whole system and won't ever play it. I agree that it's impossible to remove role-playing from an RPG with a set of rules, no matter how much those rules focus on combat mechanics, since the role-playing is largely independent of written rules. However, I disagree that there is anything to be gained by arguing these points with the folks mentioned above. There isn't anything to be gained (I don't think WotC's going to give you a commission for converting anyone); the argument isn't likely to be reasonable (one of the folks you're arguing with is calling himself "WotC's Nightmare," for God's sake); and it's really painful to read ... again. I suggest that you let these kind of comments go ... your blood pressure and my computer will thank you.
O
Oh, for the love of Jeebus ...
Scott: I agree with your points about 4E 100%. I agree that it's ridiculous for folks to post on a thread that is ostensibly about discussion of elements of 4E that might be improved and/or are well-designed just to state that they hate the whole system and won't ever play it. I agree that it's impossible to remove role-playing from an RPG with a set of rules, no matter how much those rules focus on combat mechanics, since the role-playing is largely independent of written rules. However, I disagree that there is anything to be gained by arguing these points with the folks mentioned above. There isn't anything to be gained (I don't think WotC's going to give you a commission for converting anyone); the argument isn't likely to be reasonable (one of the folks you're arguing with is calling himself "WotC's Nightmare," for God's sake); and it's really painful to read ... again. I suggest that you let these kind of comments go ... your blood pressure and my computer will thank you.
O
You're probably right. It's just a damn shame.
This is not meant to be a place to go off on an edition war. I just want to get an idea of what the DM's are thinking about certain aspects of the new system (From a DM's perspective).
I am sorry your Thread has become a bit of an edition wars battle ground but I personally would like to say that I'm keen on knowing what people liked and disliked in 4E.
I also hope the thread can continue on track at this point. For people who distinctly have an axe to grind about 4E I hope they can grind it somewhere else.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Characters in prior editions did have more abilities that were specifically non-combat.This is tremendously arguable.
No doubt. And it's been argued a million times. Why do you want to go around that bush again?
Is not specifically non-combat by any means whatsoever (in fact, I've designed 3.5 wizards which specifically rely on their familiars during combat), nor will it be absent from 4th Edition once Arcane Power is released.
The wizard's familiar,
The familiar is basically worthless in combat. It's a cute holdover from earlier editions of the game and designed to fulfill the fantasy trope of the wizard with his furry little friend. It's primary purpose has always been to allow a way to build a wizard in that trope, and only in 3e was any (relevant) mechanical ability added on.
So while it is not entirely non-combat, is is mostly non-combat, and serves as an obvious example of the original poster's comment regarding the lack of non-combat abilities.
Is irrelevant, since the official 4th Edition incarnation of the Bard won't even exist until next month.
the bard's ability to legend lore,
Whatever.
Has been replaced by a straight +2 racial bonus to Dungeoneering checks. Dwarves were not able to intuit direction as a racial ability in 3rd Edition - only approximate depth.
the dwarf's ability to detect odd stonework and determine depth/direction.
Yes, a fuzzy non-combat ability that was largely flavorfull was replaced with a much more static mechanical ability. That's exactly the type of change which I take to be included in the comment that the non-combat abilities have been converted into combat abilities (albeit, I probably would not describe it as a combat ability, but I also don't feel the need to so narrowly define what other people are saying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist - something flavorful and generally non-mechanical was transmuted into something mechanical, that's the crux of the comments made).
No, they're concentrated in utility powers and rituals which a lot of people seem to want to forget about or pretend don't exist (including you, since you specifically cited floating disk, which is a ritual in 4th Edition).
There were more spells and abilities designed to be used out of combat (floating disk, jump, change self, etc.). These are currently concentrated in utility powers in 4e.
They're probably forgotten because they're crap. The rituals are a half-assed, poorly designed element that was slopped onto the game at the last minute. The content in the core rules is a first or second draft of the concept, not ready for prime time and with far too few pages spent on such an integral part of the game.
No, it's more accurately an example of poor design in a team-based game. Concentrating skill proficiency in a small subset of characters meant that challenges the party faced involving primarily (or exclusively) skill checks were only open to participation from a couple party members at best.
Arguably, in 3e, rogues sacrificed some combat ability for their wide range of skills. That's an example of a trade-off.
Which is fine, but not relevant to the comment that started this entire line of conversation, which was about the trade off of non-mechanical abilities for mechanical abilities. The rogue is an example of such a trade-off in prior games. Whether you think it was a good idea or a good way of doing that is irrelevant to that point.
I'm not looking to pick a fight. I'm looking to get some clarification, because I really want to know where 4th Edition has fallen short. Is that so difficult for you to believe?
It's not hard to see the point of view being expressed unless you're looking to pick a fight yet again over the same tired old 4e-isms.
Yup. Given that each time you post, you manage to fan the dying embers of edition wars back into full blown flames, and we get irrational haters like WotC's Nightmare back in the mix. I'd prefer that the few remaining 4e players on these boards were not driven off by angry mobs and more threadcrapping because you want to have pissing contests with anyone who says something vaguely negative about 4e.
Neither am I, if you know anything about my participation here. I want both systems to be successful. But as I've just explained, it's difficult for me to even begin to see the ways in which 4th Edition has "stripped flavor" from the game, save perhaps setting-specific fluff (like monster ecology, geography, etc.) that is by design left ambiguous to make homebrew settings easier to create.
And it'd be a shame to see it happen, particularly when the poster in question spent a lot of words showing that he isn't a partisan hater.
See above. You do damage to your cause with your posts, particularly by trying to tear apart someone's drive by post commenting about 4e in a polite and non-abrasive way and by even bothering to respond to the anti-4e trolls (WotC's Nightmare) that aren't interested in a debate.
Anyway, good luck restarting the edition wars. I hope you don't manage to drive off yet another member of the rapidly dwindling 4e Pathfinder community in the process of stirring up the bees nest just to prove you're right.