The only dislike I have is the almost necessity of battlemats. Yes, I know the game started with miniatures years ago, but I prefer being able to narrate combat w/o having to be so precise on positioning (IMO, 3.x was already going a bit too far down this same road).
|
We don't find it a problem at all with the d20 system, end call is the DM of course in cases of "but I was actually over there" arises. Then again we are all pre-battle map in my group (i.e. 1st/2nd AD&D) so I guess we are all use to this mapless combat style of play. With the shifts/slides (and whatever else) of your character or others can do makes it that much harder in 4E. We got around during our game of 4E by basically ignoring any power or ability that did such things. I guess that may be part of our resistance to 4E, we all think D&D is mainly in the mind and 4E was trying to force us to make combats a fully fledged board-game (hmmm, I think I may be repeating myself now - humor me I'm old)...
S.
|
Doesn't 3.5/Pathfinder require a battle mat? I can't imagine trying to run a combat in either system without them. It would be an enormous headache to accurately adjudicate flanking, opportunity attacks and area effects in either system without the use of a grid keeping track of positions.
I disagree.
I do know DMs playing 3.5 without battlemat. Areas of effects, like fireballs, have been adjudicated without mats for eons (pre-3e). Attacks of opportunity can be adjudicated by simply knowing who's in melee combat with whom. Flanking becomes a verbal tactical option ("I flank this guy with player B"). These things do not define the characters themselves or the very flavor of combat.
Now, a battlemat is what's implied by the 3.5 rules nonetheless, I do agree, but the actual powers of 4e often include tactical, battle mat effects that actually define the powers being used, such as effects of pull/push, side effects on adjacent enemies, burst effects, etc, and through them, the very flavor of characters and combat situations.
In other words, where these things can be verbally adjudicated in 3.5 without much consequences in actual game play, these are actually parameters determining the very flavor of the powers the characters use in 4e more than ever. Add to this that the level of combat abstraction is even greater in 4e than 3.5, and running 4e without a battle mat would be a DM fiat fest. Such instances requiring DM fiat would be constant and much, much more numerous than they would in 3.5.
I appreciate that you like for 4e and I too like some aspects of it (including tactical elements discussed here), but let's be fair: 4e requires the use of a battle mat more than any other edition of the game.
We don't find it a problem at all with the d20 system, end call is the DM of course in cases of "but I was actually over there" arises. Then again we are all pre-battle map in my group (i.e. 1st/2nd AD&D) so I guess we are all use to this mapless combat style of play. With the shifts/slides (and whatever else) of your character or others can do makes it that much harder in 4E. We got around during our game of 4E by basically ignoring any power or ability that did such things. I guess that may be part of our resistance to 4E, we all think D&D is mainly in the mind and 4E was trying to force us to make combats a fully fledged board-game (hmmm, I think I may be repeating myself now - humor me I'm old)...
S.
I'm an old timer myself and I agree with you that 4E requires a battlemap more then 3.5. That said 3.5 did generally presume battle mats, the main reason one could get around them was that once you were 'stuck in' doing full attacks things became much more static.
Even here I have to presume your mainly doing lower level and low magic games because I run 3.5 Castle Maure and players and bad guys blink in and out of existence all over the map every single round, or they fly (and therefore can't easily stop), or your going around or through some kind of a wall spell etc. There will be a cloud kill floating down the passage (meaning there is a zone that moves that everyone has to get out of and then avoid. I really think even in 3.5 its tough to play without a battle map once the levels get up there and the PCs are presumably wandering around with a quarter of a million GP worth of magic. High level combat, especially when both sides consist of 5 or more people and both have access to a couple of spell casters rapidly devolves into utter chaos.
In any case I think the choice comes down to either preserving a more static style of play so that one can game without battle mats or choosing to go with a fluid system that does not. Fundamentally I don't believe one can make the game all that it can be and have it work easily with or without battle mats - one must choose. 4E was going to be a miniatures game, in part because WotC makes miniatures and in part because most of the 3.5 customer base seemed to like the miniatures system. Once that was decided it just makes sense to work at making the battle mat game as fast, fluid, and exciting as possible and that generally means lots of powers that move people around.
I would also say that the concept of powers and power cards tends to meld the FLAVOR of the action into a bland commonality. "I do Twin Stike!" "I do Eldrich Blast!" Which one is a melee attack? Which one is a spell? My hope is to start getting the characters to become more colorful in their descriptions ... "I ready both my weapons and go in for a viscious slash of blows!" or "I summon power from my ties to things infernal, and summon a blast of eldrich might!".
I absolutely recommend something either like this or that otherwise enhances the game. Personally I spend the 3-8 minutes I have before the action comes back around to my character wracking my brain for the coolest/corniest in character melee speak I can come up with...its fun and it really adds to the game.
I dont like that it feels like the players essentially do the same thing every encounter. They use their at wills, use their per encounters and tend to save up their dailys.--end of encounter everyhting is back except a few hp's or healing surges. This means every encounter is essentially the same from how the players react. The monsters have lots of cool things to do that thwart the players which the players have to overcome- but the game should be about the players doing cool things not the monsters.
|
|
Hi Jeremy,
Nope, we are talking characters all the way up to 20th in 3.5E when it comes to "non-mat" combats. As you must remember many years ago as GM's we had basically all the same spells like Cloud Kill, Dimension Door, Teleport, and let's not forget the old Blink (sigh) + the Pyschoportive Psionic Disp/Sci's to boot (thinking 2nd ed. now) and not a battle mat in sight. In fact the only miniatures we ever used were to keep track of matching order when required! Now I'm not saying that there weren't times when there was debate over who was actually where? But most times it didn't really matter that much due to the abstract nature of the game. In a way the introduction of the battle map idea started in 3E, continued and integrated more into the class features in 4E has lead to a need for more precision in combats - sort of cause and effect.
S.
|
|
Fundamentally I don't believe one can make the game all that it can be and have it work easily with or without battle mats - one must choose. 4E was going to be a miniatures game, in part because WotC makes miniatures and in part because most of the 3.5 customer base seemed to like the miniatures system. Once that was decided it just makes sense to work at making the battle mat game as fast, fluid, and exciting as possible and that generally means lots of powers that move people around.
I've actually run WotC RPGA battles that were strictly skill challenges. No battle mats or miniatures. Just the players telling me what their PC was doing as the enemy horde pounced/rained upon them. It was...different, something I've never experienced in any D&D version (though in some indie games).
I disagree.
I do know DMs playing 3.5 without battlemat. Areas of effects, like fireballs, have been adjudicated without mats for eons (pre-3e). Attacks of opportunity can be adjudicated by simply knowing who's in melee combat with whom. Flanking becomes a verbal tactical option ("I flank this guy with player B"). These things do not define the characters themselves or the very flavor of combat.
No, but they do define the mechanics that balance them. What you're talking about is removing the concept of tactical movement almost entirely. For instance, rather than simply being a verbal choice, flanking is supposed to have an opportunity cost - if you want to flank, you need to be able to maneuver around the opponent in some way, with a wide berth if you want to avoid opportunity attacks. Reducing it to a verbal tactical option removes that opportunity cost, making flanking easier to achieve (and thus more powerful) than was intended. Now, if you are keeping track of the opponents you'll need to squeeze by in order to flank the enemy in question, including the amount of room you'll have to maneuver by him, and still remaining accurate based on your character's speed, then you're quite impressive in your ability to keep track of so many tactical details in your head at once.
Now, a battlemat is what's implied by the 3.5 rules nonetheless, I do agree, but the actual powers of 4e often include tactical, battle mat effects that actually define the powers being used, such as effects of pull/push, side effects on adjacent enemies, burst effects, etc, and through them, the very flavor of characters and combat situations.
And feats or class features that allow you to attack opponents when they move through certain areas (whether attacks of opportunity or something else) are not defined by that tactical movement? I strongly disagree. Yes, 4th Edition has more abilities that necessitate the battle mat (or some other form of visual reference), but 3rd Edition certainly isn't free of them, and was intended to be played with a map. Necessity is necessity. I don't think it's possible to claim that you're playing 3rd Edition as the game was designed if you aren't using a battle mat - you're going to make a lot of mistakes or simply gloss over significant aspects of the tactical encounter system.
My point is that it's certainly possible to claim that 4th Edition doesn't support your style of mat-less play, because that's certainly true. But 3rd Edition doesn't support your style either. Whichever way you play, you're altering the game significantly.
In other words, where these things can be verbally adjudicated in 3.5 without much consequences in actual game play,
Now that's tremendously arguable. If I design my character to lock down a large area with Combat Reflexes, an Enlarge Person spell and a reach weapon, you can't tell me that losing the ability to track tactical movement accurately isn't going to have significant consequences for my character.
these are actually parameters determining the very flavor of the powers the characters use in 4e more than ever. Add to this that the level of combat abstraction is even greater in 4e than 3.5, and running 4e without a battle mat would be a DM fiat fest. Such instances requiring DM fiat would be constant and much, much more numerous than they would in 3.5.
Depends who's playing what. It's perfectly possible to have a party of PCs with little to no forced movement abilities in 4th Edition, and as a DM you can certainly pick monsters that avoid such abilities as well. At the same time, it's more than feasible to create a character (or characters) in 3rd Edition that depends very heavily on the ability to track tactical movement, as I highlighted above (and, in fact, is one of the most effective ways of playing a fighter).
I appreciate that you like for 4e and I too like some aspects of it (including tactical elements discussed here), but let's be fair: 4e requires the use of a battle mat more than any other edition of the game.
That's like saying that my desktop requires a power source more than my laptop. While my desktop certainly needs more of what that power source provides, neither of them works if you remove their power supply.
Hi Jeremy,
Nope, we are talking characters all the way up to 20th in 3.5E when it comes to "non-mat" combats. As you must remember many years ago as GM's we had basically all the same spells like Cloud Kill, Dimension Door, Teleport, and let's not forget the old Blink (sigh) + the Pyschoportive Psionic Disp/Sci's to boot (thinking 2nd ed. now) and not a battle mat in sight. In fact the only miniatures we ever used were to keep track of matching order when required! Now I'm not saying that there weren't times when there was debate over who was actually where? But most times it didn't really matter that much due to the abstract nature of the game. In a way the introduction of the battle map idea started in 3E, continued and integrated more into the class features in 4E has lead to a need for more precision in combats - sort of cause and effect.
S.
Certainly 3.5 CAN be played without a battle-mat, as you say, by ignoring all of the rules that require one (including many of the AoO rules involving movement and reach weapons) and being very abstract with movement and positioning, but that's not really playing the game vis-a-vis the whole ruleset and amounts to a sort of movement 'houserule.'
You could, of course, do the same thing with 4E, if you really were opposed to the battle-mat, by ignoring all rules associated with exact movement and positioning and being equally abstract in those areas. One could either disallow any powers that force movement or simply abstract those as well:
Player: "I use the Command power to force the wizard to come stand within reach of my sword."
GM: "Done."
Player: "I use Positioning Strike, slashing at the orc's knees and forcing him to stumble back over the edge of that chasm."
GM: "Done."
Again, it would be a 'houserule,' but not any different than 3.5.
O
To back up Scott's point:
I tried to run my first 3.5 game without a battle-mat. The player who had rolled up the fighter with Spring Attack and a pole-arm (with Reach) pretty much chewed me a new one, and rightly so. By trying to keep all movement abstract and ignoring a significant subset of the 3.5 rules, I had totally neutered his character. The alternative was to simply give his character an AoO every time something tried to attack him, which was, of course, compensating too far the other direction.
At the end of the day, I just went out and got a battle-mat, which made everyone happy and, it turned out, was much simpler and more fun than trying to keep everything in my head and redescribe the situation every round.
As someone who has tried both extensively, I feel there's no real difference between the different editions' dependency on battle-mats.
O
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Re: the skill example with Spot (sorry, the post was too long to have that part quoted)
It's not really so big a deal unless you think all Spot DCs should be the same.
Easy Spot checks - the fighter has a chance, the cleric a good chance, the ranger always makes it
Moderate Spot checks - the fighter has a poor chance, the cleric an OK chance, the ranger almost always makes it
Difficult spot checks - no chance for the fighter, small chance for the cleric, the ranger has a good chance
This works out pretty well in practice in the game. Just throw a mix of DCs at the party and all is good - and honestly, the DCs should be mixed.
Back on the topic of the thread, Stefan, you're the first person I've seen to point to the half-level bonuses as something they dislike about 4th Edition. Could you explain what it is about it that doesn't sit well with you? Is it because it seems like all characters (classes) improve at an equal rate in all things?
I must confess the skill increase using half level I found something to dislike as well I'm afraid and have converted to rank improvements level by level.
Me and my players have found most characters ending up way too similar to use the half level skill system.Attack bonus, AC bonus, Saves etc it's fine and works well, we just found it struggled for skills.
Ya know this is an enjoyable thread. I do wish the 4e crusader would stop tearing apart folks dislike's like like some preacher telling me How I just don't understand gods plan.
They are dislikes , people do not like that part of the game, let it go if you do good for you. This thread is in danger of becoming ugly and really usable
I really do not care for the system, as I don't and never will play 4e. Its not my type of game. But I do like to hear other give there likes and dislikes. It is getting old watching the same people tear apart every ones post like rabid fanatics on a holy crusade however.
Just my thoughts, good gaming to you all.
Scott, keep applying your rigorous analysis to the game, as well as your intelligence - I really enjoy your Rusty Dragon site as an example of conversion. As has already been advised, the more you try to discuss and apply argument to dislikes, the more entrenched people become.
Fundamentally I don't believe one can make the game all that it can be and have it work easily with or without battle mats - one must choose. 4E was going to be a miniatures game, in part because WotC makes miniatures and in part because most of the 3.5 customer base seemed to like the miniatures system. Once that was decided it just makes sense to work at making the battle mat game as fast, fluid, and exciting as possible and that generally means lots of powers that move people around.I've actually run WotC RPGA battles that were strictly skill challenges. No battle mats or miniatures. Just the players telling me what their PC was doing as the enemy horde pounced/rained upon them. It was...different, something I've never experienced in any D&D version (though in some indie games).
Oh I'm not arguing that there is a need for the battle mat all the time. One does not need a battlemat when one of the characters is trying to chat up the bar wench for example. My point is that, if one is going to have a game that utilizes a battle mat, then its best if the game tries to make the experience as dynamic and exciting as possible for that format.
Back on the topic of the thread, Stefan, you're the first person I've seen to point to the half-level bonuses as something they dislike about 4th Edition. Could you explain what it is about it that doesn't sit well with you? Is it because it seems like all characters (classes) improve at an equal rate in all things?I must confess the skill increase using half level I found something to dislike as well I'm afraid and have converted to rank improvements level by level.
Me and my players have found most characters ending up way too similar to use the half level skill system.
Attack bonus, AC bonus, Saves etc it's fine and works well, we just found it struggled for skills.
Now its your game and you guys ought to do what you enjoy, house rules are not bad things, I have used lots myself.
That said...
My gut feeling is you'll be fine for the lower levels but the range of skills will eventually get to diverse among the varous members of the party when you get into higher levels. In fact I think the rules as written have that problem but not as soon and not as dramatically as what your doing. Because skills are essentially just a mechanic that tells us what bonus we get to a d20 roll even something like a +6 difference is actually a pretty big deal. By +10 its huge and once one moves beyond +15 I think the underpinnings of the system itself will begin to become undone.
Hi Jeremy,
Nope, we are talking characters all the way up to 20th in 3.5E when it comes to "non-mat" combats. As you must remember many years ago as GM's we had basically all the same spells like Cloud Kill, Dimension Door, Teleport, and let's not forget the old Blink (sigh) + the Pyschoportive Psionic Disp/Sci's to boot (thinking 2nd ed. now) and not a battle mat in sight. In fact the only miniatures we ever used were to keep track of matching order when required! Now I'm not saying that there weren't times when there was debate over who was actually where? But most times it didn't really matter that much due to the abstract nature of the game. In a way the introduction of the battle map idea started in 3E, continued and integrated more into the class features in 4E has lead to a need for more precision in combats - sort of cause and effect.
S.
I remember, but that said there is just no way the fights I was playing in 1st or 2nd were as dynamic and chaotic as the stuff I regularly see in high level 3.5. Part of that is because high level 3.5 characters are a heck of a lot more powerful then even their 2nd edition counterparts (heck they are a lot more powerful then their 4E counterparts).
That said I suspect its simply a feedback loop issue. If you have very bare bones tactical movement then you avoid powers, magic and feats that give you benefits in those terms. For example the single most popular magic item among my party and even probably among my NPCs is Anklet of Translocation for its price the ability to blink 10' feet twice a day is phenominal (and one of the many sources of the blinking all over the place that takes place every round in my games) but without a grid being able to blink 10' is probably not nearly so exceptional. My players all have one, your players likely put their money somewhere else.
In fact I think we are almost playing a different game. I suspect that if someone watched my group and your group play Castle Maure they'd recognize that the encounter areas were the same for both of us but after that things would diverge so much so that our two games would be hardly recognizable as being from the same source.
Ya know this is an enjoyable thread. I do wish the 4e crusader would stop tearing apart folks dislike's like like some preacher telling me How I just don't understand gods plan.
They are dislikes , people do not like that part of the game, let it go if you do good for you. This thread is in danger of becoming ugly and really usable
I really do not care for the system, as I don't and never will play 4e. Its not my type of game. But I do like to hear other give there likes and dislikes. It is getting old watching the same people tear apart every ones post like rabid fanatics on a holy crusade however.
Just my thoughts, good gaming to you all.
The hyperbole is more than a little insulting.
I never said names, but if your insulted, eh close to home I guess.
I just keep seeing the same people tearing into folks for daring not to like anything about 4e. The point of the thread was to say what you liked and what you did not.
I myself was enjoying reading peoples likes and dislikes, but yeah it does get old to have the same crusaders ripping into folks for not liking everything.
To anyone else sorry if I have caused a disruption in the thread.
I never said names, but if your insulted, eh close to home I guess.
I just keep seeing the same people tearing into folks for daring not to like anything about 4e. The point of the thread was to say what you liked and what you did not.
I myself was enjoying reading peoples likes and dislikes, but yeah it does get old to have the same crusaders ripping into folks for not liking everything.
To anyone else sorry if I have caused a disruption in the thread.
I don't think an apology is in order. I agree with your assessment a 100%. I posted quite a long time ago my impressions of 4E and how it felt to ME and I was slammed by the 4E crusader, you would think he was on the WOTC payroll for every time there is a negative comment about 4E here you know who comes along....I thought long and hard about posting this as it doesn't really provide anything meaningful at all to this post; I just get tired of someone trying to tell people that they are wrong for feeling the way that they do about the game........Ive played 4E and I didn't think it was a bad game at all, I actually wouldn't mind finding a group and playing again. That being said I much prefer 3.5 and more specifically the pathfinder rpg.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I must confess the skill increase using half level I found something to dislike as well I'm afraid and have converted to rank improvements level by level.
Me and my players have found most characters ending up way too similar to use the half level skill system.
Attack bonus, AC bonus, Saves etc it's fine and works well, we just found it struggled for skills.
I don't like it for skills either - I don't see why a 30th level character should be better at every skill than a 1st level, even if they've never cared about said skill.
To back up Scott's point:
I tried to run my first 3.5 game without a battle-mat. The player who had rolled up the fighter with Spring Attack and a pole-arm (with Reach) pretty much chewed me a new one, and rightly so. By trying to keep all movement abstract and ignoring a significant subset of the 3.5 rules, I had totally neutered his character. The alternative was to simply give his character an AoO every time something tried to attack him, which was, of course, compensating too far the other direction.
I disagree with your analysis here. But the main issue with not using a battle map comes with the DM having a very clear picture of the arrangement of characters in his head. With that in mind, it's not that much harder to describe, and have the player describe, how the spring attack and reaching polearm work within the context of the rules and without nerfing the feats. The same holds true for moving around and flanking as a tactical choice.
Part of the way you do things like this is tell the player, clearly, that if they want to engage in certain actions like flanking they will pass within the NPC's attack range and will provoke an AoO. Or that they can move partway to flank without drawing the attack but won't be in flanking position until next round. It's all far more convenient with a battle map, but it's possible just as it was in 1e/2e, both of which also included tactical movement. And, just like in 3e, the battle map made figuring out and visualizing certain things, like who gets the benefit of ignoring the enemy's shield bonus, lots easier.
4e, I believe, does make it more complicated to achieve this than even the 3e games do because there's just so much more of it going on and frequently time. Doable? Probably. But it's certainly not making it any easier.
I don't like it for skills either - I don't see why a 30th level character should be better at every skill than a 1st level, even if they've never cared about said skill.I must confess the skill increase using half level I found something to dislike as well I'm afraid and have converted to rank improvements level by level.
Me and my players have found most characters ending up way too similar to use the half level skill system.
Attack bonus, AC bonus, Saves etc it's fine and works well, we just found it struggled for skills.
Personally I'd only give them some kind of a bonus for doing something that adventures do. So being 30th level does not make you better at doing everything in existence but it does, automatically, make you better at sprinting over a tightrope (a balance check) or noting something thats out of place, in both cases one gets the benefits because these are the things that adventures do, thats my rational behind this.
Hence if the adventure, for some reason, calls for cooking Turkey Dinner, well no bonus for that (I'd work that out using character backgrounds or something) because cooking Turkey Dinner is not what adventurers do and hence being 30th level does not help with this.
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 loathe the magic treasure system the idea of parcelling out treasure makes no sense to me as it removes the one area a dm needs control over, who has what and what should be available and the idea they've removed a ring of protection even a simple +1 so they have to select from whatever weapon/armour/implement +1 or greater makes no sense whatsoever and don't get me started on potions...
I think it has potential its just has areas poorly developed but as with anything its just a matter of time to figure out how to deal with it properly.
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 loathe the magic treasure system the idea of parcelling out treasure makes no sense to me as it removes the one area a dm needs control over, who has what and what should be available and the idea they've removed a ring of protection even a simple +1 so they have to select from whatever weapon/armour/implement +1 or greater makes no sense whatsoever and don't get me started on potions...
I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you perhaps phrase your criticism differently? Given the DMs have complete control over the parcel system I find it hard to see how you can say it removes that same control.
I never said names, but if your insulted, eh close to home I guess.
That's a cop-out. I didn't call you out for criticizing how others acted, I called you out for being insulting. Regardless of what you may or may not think about my opinion and the opinions of those others defending 4th Edition in this thread, I have taken pains to remain civil in this discussion. I don't believe that you have, on the other hand - comparing someone discussing something in a civil manner to a "rabid fanatic on a holy crusade" is not only ridiculous in its hyperbole, but is extremely insulting.
It's funny how it seems that anyone in this thread can say "I disagree - I don't like that about 4th Edition, and here's why:" and expect nothing to come of it (and even receive encouragement), but someone who says "I disagree - I like that about 4th Edition, and here's why:" gets called a holy crusader in a considerably derogatory manner.
|
|
Oh I'm not arguing that there is a need for the battle mat all the time. One does not need a battlemat when one of the characters is trying to chat up the bar wench for example. My point is that, if one is going to have a game that utilizes a battle mat, then its best if the game tries to make the experience as dynamic and exciting as possible for that format.
Noted that. Yeah, definitely a design decision.
Maybe I put it harsher then I should of , but I said no names. And is it does get old.
A few people here just can not accept some one finds anything wrong with 4e and keep pestering them over and over after they have said why.
I do not want to get this closed or derailed so I will stop posting.
|
|
Good god I hate that power for exactly that reason!!! I have been dying for some way to describe how exactly it works. The best I can come up with is that the pain from the blow causes the target to literally see red and become blind. I have a very hard time imagining the rogue aiming for the head and only causing blindness instead of killing.
And imagine the situation in which the rogue hits a group of ghouls or golems...
There's a host of other powers which are also more than a bit weird, and I honestly can't explain how they would happen in the story without falling to "Well, it's some sort of 'Ki'-like effect" (e.g. Hammer Shot, Split the Tree, that Epic warlord power which lets you shift all creatures 3 squares, and so on).
|
|
It's funny how it seems that anyone in this thread can say "I disagree - I don't like that about 4th Edition, and here's why:" and expect nothing to come of it (and even receive encouragement), but someone who says "I disagree - I like that about 4th Edition, and here's why:" gets called a holy crusader in a considerably derogatory manner.
Scott ... may I have you drop me an email at dvancejr at cox dot net please? Thanks.
|
|
To the OP you should have been very specific about what you wanted in this thread. To the point of writing it in big letters and wax crayon because otherwise people will write what they want to write. I rememeber going on another forum and someone asking for a review of 4E without it being being similar to what has happened to your thread. Someone posted a really nasty attack about Wotc. His response was "you said not to talk bad about 4E not Wotc".
|
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.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.
It's not a concept of 4e, they stole it from 7th Sea.
I dislike the system in general, to me it's not D&D
However there i something that has merit.
at will powers, per encounter powers are good. I know they really help they in Pathfinder.
the lack of "real sphere" AoEs is just plain LAZY!!!
I really dislike the miniature reliance, especially since it seems they just want to sell minis now, and at the price of half a book, for a few pieces of plastic, I'm sure that's where the money really is.
I really dislike the miniature reliance, especially since it seems they just want to sell minis now, and at the price of half a book, for a few pieces of plastic, I'm sure that's where the money really is.
Its not where the money is. They are currently re-imagining what their mini line is all about becuase its historical configuration has been so unprofitable that they had to pretty much shut it down.
No huge surprise here considering that Paizo has repeatedly answered calls for a plastic mini line of their own with a statement that they can't go down that route becuase they can't figure out a way to make it profitable. It would seem that WotC is at least having trouble in this department as well.
Likes:
Rituals--a good mechanic. Easily imported into 3.X with no pain. But I'm not going to allow Disenchant Magic Item.
Feywild--have been using the Fey Realm since 1st ed, so it's nice to see it finally supported. Name is a bit pretentious, but is at least descriptive.
Shadowfell--putting the shadow plane and the land of the dead together makes sense, and is also something I was doing before. Name is likewise pretentious if descriptive, but I don't need to use it either.
Skill Mechanics--The skills list is nicely simplified, if somewhat oversimplified in places, but works neatly.
Bussing the Gnomes to Fairyland: Sensible, but not far enough. I sent the Elves, the Dwarves and the Orcs to join them.
Dislikes:
Disenchant Magic Item/Residuum--"I'm sorry, Sir Garamond. The sword of your ancestors was turned into a vial of magecrack which some wizard snorted. You'll never see it again short of a wish." This ritual is a fence's dream. Got a magic item that's too hot to sell? Just smash it for magecrack! But it's a worldbuilder's nightmare. Nothing interesting or magical would survive except by accident.
The Tiefling Makeover--Instead of being distant relatives of the Devil, you're the descendant of prudish Satanists who sold their souls but never thought of doing bad things with the bad things, even when there are bad things like succubi who are built for nothing else. Moreover, everyone believes you when you say you don't have any actual demon or devil blood in you, despite you having red skin, ginormous horns, and a tail that would work on a crocodile. Yeah, right....
Dragonborn--Of all the possible draconic humanoids there could be, the PC race is anthropomorphic hornytoads which may or may not have breast, depending on the artist. They'd be geckofolk except for the lack of tails.
Wizards--the only options in the PHB for your wizard are to play Boom Boom or The Strangler. Ahem, there's more to life than combat, and there's more ways to do do combat than direct damage and battlefield control. And where's my familiar?
The PHB and DMG being incomplete--No druids, no bards, not enough spells, not enough magic items. I realize that this is a way to sell more books, but not all players have unlimited funds, and even those who do don't like having to reach for twenty addendums to play the game.
The Godawful Combat System and Miniatures Emphasis--If I wanted to play Warhammer, I would have bought Warhammer. But I don't so I won't.
The MM makeover--"Eww! A lady who turns into scarabs would be kewl! Let's make her the lamia instead!" Hello? There are some people who like playing with actual mythology and like the half lion or half snake lamias. Annoying.
Overall, 4e is a set of books I'll mine for things I like, but find not a game I'd like to play myself.
LIKES
- BAB has gone away. I feel that 3.x broke after 6th level. An "average" fighter at 6th level could hit the best armored opponent on a 10 or better without magic. I like the 1/2 because everyone is on the same level. Issues that we ran into during the 3.5 years is that you had to find an opponent that can challenge the "big guys" but would likely kill off the rest of the party.
- Rituals. Separating them out makes a lot more sense than previous editions. You never wanted to memorize Comprehend Languages because you always needed a different spell. Yes, you could use scrolls, but that was a GP/XP drain.
DISLIKES
- Everything is canon. Having all the books available to everyone is eventually going to become cumbersome. Too many options, too many books. Eventually people are going to become frustrated, especially if one side of the table has access to a lot of the books.
- The Monster Manual. There are no "base creatures". You have "templated" creatures all over, but never a basic creature that you can build upon. There is also no guide that says what level the powers are. The PH has them all over, but you don't know where a monster's power fits. You're supposed to grab a power that's similar and throw it on a monster. Where does the boundry lie? See below.
- You're basing your challenges on monsters, not powers. I think that WotC could have done things better for challenges. This problem that I have is a holdover from 3.x. Overall, the monster wasn't the issue, but the abilities that he has is what makes him so powerful. What I would suggest is that each power be given an XP value and tacked onto a base monster. So a goblin (50 XP) with an At Will blinding ability (+175) and an Encounter dazing effect (+50), and level 2 (+100) would make him a 325 XP monster. You have your base, add things to him and you have a result.
Overall, I think 4e is a good system. I spent many hours conversing with friends on how to make 3.x work for our group. We finally decided to get rid of BAB but could never figure out what to do with AC. 4e fixed these problems by adding 1/2 level and ditching the BAB. If only I could think of it!
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. : )
It's not a concept of 4e, they stole it from 7th Sea.
Of Feng Shui, or any number of other game systems. But that's how games work, they draw inspiration from other sources and mold it into a mechanic that works well. There's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it would be a bad idea not to make use of solid mechanics from other games.
I really dislike the miniature reliance, especially since it seems they just want to sell minis now, and at the price of half a book, for a few pieces of plastic, I'm sure that's where the money really is.
As Jeremy pointed out, this isn't why they made the game rely on minis. First, 3.5 relied on minis. You can't play either game properly without the ability to visualize combat. The primary reason they continued with this philosophy is that their research showed them that people really like to play D&D with minis.
You're basing your challenges on monsters, not powers. I think that WotC could have done things better for challenges. This problem that I have is a holdover from 3.x. Overall, the monster wasn't the issue, but the abilities that he has is what makes him so powerful. What I would suggest is that each power be given an XP value and tacked onto a base monster. So a goblin (50 XP) with an At Will blinding ability (+175) and an Encounter dazing effect (+50), and level 2 (+100) would make him a 325 XP monster. You have your base, add things to him and you have a result.
As long as you a) don't deviate far from other monsters of the same level and same role, or b) use the guide at the back of the DMG to create your monsters, you won't have any problems with them being especially over- or under-powered. It isn't the number of abilities a monster has that makes it powerful, it's the strength of the abilities that a monster can use in one turn - a monster with ten different abilities is only as strong as the ones he can make use of in the space of his turn. This is one of the reasons monsters have been reined in from 3.5. They had a nasty habit of being populated with dozens of spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities when 90% of them never saw use - they just gave the DM a headache bothering to flesh out the creature.
|
|
In reponse to the "Battle Mat" question I was beaten by Bill Dunn's post above - he said it very well. But in brief, we used ALL the rules in v3.5 with no house rules (in fact I am anti-house rule). There is the odd occasion where clarification needs to be made during a combat but not enough to force the use of battle-mats. It seems to me and my players that 3E can accommodate both styles of play. In 4E it more difficult than any edition before for non-mat play. I'm buggered if I know how I'd DM even a single 4E goblin without some little squares. So I fully understand why those using 4E use and love a battle-map.
TSR's old byline was "products of the imagination" - I still play that way. If I want to move plastic/metal figures around on some squares I'll break out my chess set.
S.
As long as you a) don't deviate far from other monsters of the same level and same role, or b) use the guide at the back of the DMG to create your monsters, you won't have any problems with them being especially over- or under-powered. It isn't the number of abilities a monster has that makes it powerful, it's the strength of the abilities that a monster can use in one turn - a monster with ten different abilities is only as strong as the ones he can make use of in the space of his turn. This is one of the reasons monsters have been reined in from 3.5. They had a nasty habit of being populated with dozens of spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities when 90% of them never saw use - they just gave the DM a headache bothering to flesh out the creature.
Good point. However, I still think a "Power Based XP" system would give a DM more flexibility in creating new monsters. Separating these powers into, oh say a book or generator, would also be a novel idea. : )
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Its not where the money is. They are currently re-imagining what their mini line is all about becuase its historical configuration has been so unprofitable that they had to pretty much shut it down.No huge surprise here considering that Paizo has repeatedly answered calls for a plastic mini line of their own with a statement that they can't go down that route becuase they can't figure out a way to make it profitable. It would seem that WotC is at least having trouble in this department as well.
The minis line was actually hugely profitable during its first several years, allegedly much more so than D&D itself. Indications are that sales really didn't start to flag until DDM 2.0 came out, but I haven't heard they were UNprofitable - just trending that way, so they revamped the line before exhausting it. I've commented elsewhere on not thinking the revamp will save it, though. I think they just burned through all the accumulated demand for pre-painted minis, and will need to settle for their lower sell rates.
|
|
With the design/release of 4E I would expect miniature sales to increase again or at least stop declining as new players (and some old) to D&D would also be likely to look at purchasing miniatures also. I honestly don't think that Pathfinder will have an effect on WothC sales as the D&D brand is much stronger (so more books sold, Pathfinder hmmm, what's that) and that the miniatures can be used with Pathfinder also - so players of 4E and Pathfinder will have an interest. If WotC were to consider "monster packs" - more like the GW/Warmachine way of selling figures I think they would also improve sales. The days of "random packs" is a dying marketing concept (card games not included in this).
S.
As long as you a) don't deviate far from other monsters of the same level and same role, or b) use the guide at the back of the DMG to create your monsters, you won't have any problems with them being especially over- or under-powered. It isn't the number of abilities a monster has that makes it powerful, it's the strength of the abilities that a monster can use in one turn - a monster with ten different abilities is only as strong as the ones he can make use of in the space of his turn. This is one of the reasons monsters have been reined in from 3.5. They had a nasty habit of being populated with dozens of spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities when 90% of them never saw use - they just gave the DM a headache bothering to flesh out the creature.Good point. However, I still think a "Power Based XP" system would give a DM more flexibility in creating new monsters. Separating these powers into, oh say a book or generator, would also be a novel idea. : )
For house-created monsters this might be something worthwhile. I think WotC wanted to move away from monsters generated like clockwork and towards monsters that could be created around a theme, where all elements of the monster fit thematically. It looks like they built powers to fit the monsters, rather than coming up with a list of powers and then assigning them to monsters as they went. I like the approach they used. Every monster feels unique.
With the design/release of 4E I would expect miniature sales to increase again or at least stop declining as new players (and some old) to D&D would also be likely to look at purchasing miniatures also. I honestly don't think that Pathfinder will have an effect on WothC sales as the D&D brand is much stronger (so more books sold, Pathfinder hmmm, what's that) and that the miniatures can be used with Pathfinder also - so players of 4E and Pathfinder will have an interest. If WotC were to consider "monster packs" - more like the GW/Warmachine way of selling figures I think they would also improve sales. The days of "random packs" is a dying marketing concept (card games not included in this).
S.
They seem to be moving towards exactly that. Starting next month, the D&D minis line will release two different "types" of packs - monster packs, which contain one visible and four random monster minis, and player packs, which contain three non-random, visible player character miniatures.
|
|
Ok, anyone see this as silly...
"Frenzied Berserker" Attack 20 power
Effect: After the attack, you can allow the
target to make a melee basic attack against
you as a free action. If the target makes that
attack, you can make a melee basic attack
against it as a free action. You can repeat
this effect until the target chooses not to
make the attack.
Given this occurs on the players initiative can the other members of the group assist/interfere in anyway?
Mind you great time for the rest of the group to go grab lunch. So add to my dislike about 4E the above power please.
S.
|
|
Ok, anyone see this as silly...
"Frenzied Berserker" Attack 20 power
Effect: After the attack, you can allow the
target to make a melee basic attack against
you as a free action. If the target makes that
attack, you can make a melee basic attack
against it as a free action. You can repeat
this effect until the target chooses not to
make the attack.Given this occurs on the players initiative can the other members of the group assist/interfere in anyway?
Mind you great time for the rest of the group to go grab lunch. So add to my dislike about 4E the above power please.
S.
I saw this power in a demo. Useless when the target doesn't take the bait.
|
|
Ok, anyone see this as silly...
"Frenzied Berserker" Attack 20 power
Effect: After the attack, you can allow the
target to make a melee basic attack against
you as a free action. If the target makes that
attack, you can make a melee basic attack
against it as a free action. You can repeat
this effect until the target chooses not to
make the attack.Given this occurs on the players initiative can the other members of the group assist/interfere in anyway?
Mind you great time for the rest of the group to go grab lunch. So add to my dislike about 4E the above power please.
S.
I saw this power in a demo. Absolutely useless if the target declines the free action to attack.
Ok, anyone see this as silly...
"Frenzied Berserker" Attack 20 power
Effect: After the attack, you can allow the
target to make a melee basic attack against
you as a free action. If the target makes that
attack, you can make a melee basic attack
against it as a free action. You can repeat
this effect until the target chooses not to
make the attack.Given this occurs on the players initiative can the other members of the group assist/interfere in anyway?
Mind you great time for the rest of the group to go grab lunch. So add to my dislike about 4E the above power please.
S.
You're talking about "Final Confrontation", and trust me, it doesn't take that long. I'm playing a gnoll barbarian right now, and most of the time the other monster isn't stupid enough to continue the cycle by choosing to attack me. If they are that stupid, it's just a couple attack rolls before they're dead. It shouldn't ever take more than one minute, total, to resolve.
That said, it's an AWESOME attack. I couldn't be happier with my barbarian (except when my party makes a concerted effort to deny me kills, the jerks).
|
|
So let me get this right Scott. Your Barbarian can take down a creature meant for your level quickly using only Basic attack vs Basic attack. Why then do you need "powers" at all? Shouldn't a creature vs a player of equal "level" using no powers be almost a 50:50 battle (ok slight favour to the player as they are the heroes)?
Only played 4E for a total of around 20-30 hours so trying to get a better understanding.
Thanks,
S.
|
|
So let me get this right Scott. Your Barbarian can take down a creature meant for your level quickly using only Basic attack vs Basic attack. Why then do you need "powers" at all? Shouldn't a creature vs a player of equal "level" using no powers be almost a 50:50 battle (ok slight favour to the player as they are the heroes)?
Because a lot of the time you're not trying to just focus on taking down that one creature but help your party at the same time. The cleric's healing while striking power powers are the best examples. Yeah, maybe Scott's barbarian gnoll can go toe-to-toe with the opponent using just basic attacks in two rounds, but wouldn't it be better to use a power that, let's say, gives combat advantage to the approaching rogue who can finish off the opponent in that same round?