I'm really hoping my group holds it's interest in the Age of Worms.
I'm definitely enjoying running it in 4E a LOT more than when I ran it in 3.5. The players are finding it challenging but more fun than in previous editions as well.
Converting adventures should be handled with care though regardless of which AP you are running. Sometimes converting stuff straight across can make the same boring encounters as in 3.5, so don't be afraid to combine encounters and switch out some of the monsters for some with different roles.
I combined the water elemental and 3 ghouls in the submerged showers of the Cairn last night, and the party had a real hard time tackling them as well as holding their breath. Almost had 2 player fatalities, but some quick thinking by the players ended up saving their hides. A lot of what they did would never have been possible in 3.5.
Despite the clearness of the rules about what a PC can or can't do, I don't think it's good to bind yourself to those options. If you want to try to trip someone, I suggest saying that that is what you are attempting to do. A good dm will allow you to try even though it's not clearly laid out in the rules. If one of my players did it, I'd probably have him roll a basic melee attack and against the target's reflex or maybe Fort. If the target was big thing that seemed hard to trip I'd probably give the PC a penalty otherwise I'd just say go for it. The dmg does encourage dms to say yes to players as in "yes you can try it". The problem with 4E is it becomes too easy to become confined by your powers and the rules and not to think outside them. If you can free yourself up from that mind block then the game can open up and be just as free as any other system.
|
Despite the clearness of the rules about what a PC can or can't do, I don't think it's good to bind yourself to those options. If you want to try to trip someone, I suggest saying that that is what you are attempting to do. A good dm will allow you to try even though it's not clearly laid out in the rules.
That is true; I just haven't figured out the best way to stunt it yet.
The problem with 4E is it becomes too easy to become confined by your powers and the rules and not to think outside them. If you can free yourself up from that mind block then the game can open up and be just as free as any other system.
Actually, that's not just Dungeons and Dragons. I've seen the same phenomenon with groups using the older rule-sets and other games like Savage World. Especially with so-called "easy" classes like fighters: move up and hit. And hit again. And again. And.... I give kudos to the designers of DnD realizing this fact and at least trying to making the powers interesting.
On the other hand, players and many DMs/GMs then get comfortable and don't think outside the box (i.e., the ruleset). I'm hoping to shake things up a bit once I start my Pathfinder RPG and have the PCs' foes "think out of the box" and force the players as well.
The problem with 4E is it becomes too easy to become confined by your powers and the rules and not to think outside them. If you can free yourself up from that mind block then the game can open up and be just as free as any other system.
I'm not sure that's a fault of a the system - it could be human nature. In our group I try to encourage others to use those Acrobatic and Athletic skills, to attempt feats that may be challenging and so on. That's were the DM's art comes it, figuring out the best way to let a player try something new. When we aren't feeling in a creative mood, sure it gets bogged down in typical chess-like fashion. But it doesn't have to be that way and I think the rules are easy enough to allow more flexibility.
I agree that it's really more an issue with the dm and players than the system. A good dm will try to think about the encounters and set up some opportunities where the players will want to try things that go beyond just a simple attack (ie. the room with the big hanging chandelier above the group of enemies, or the edge of tower or bridge that you push someone off etc...) If the terrain doesn't offer any advantages to trying to trip or bull rush someone than you probably aren't going to bother.
|
Despite the clearness of the rules about what a PC can or can't do, I don't think it's good to bind yourself to those options. If you want to try to trip someone, I suggest saying that that is what you are attempting to do. A good dm will allow you to try even though it's not clearly laid out in the rules. If one of my players did it, I'd probably have him roll a basic melee attack and against the target's reflex or maybe Fort. If the target was big thing that seemed hard to trip I'd probably give the PC a penalty otherwise I'd just say go for it. The dmg does encourage dms to say yes to players as in "yes you can try it". The problem with 4E is it becomes too easy to become confined by your powers and the rules and not to think outside them. If you can free yourself up from that mind block then the game can open up and be just as free as any other system.
One nice thing about 4E is that matching up an attribute, attack or skill vs a defense it becomes pretty easy to try all sorts of crazy stuff - reminiscent of Tunnels & Trolls saving rolls.
I am a 3.5er but with the 4e books. I didnt really like what I saw but I am keeping an open mind and am glad to read about your experiences with the game to get some idea about how it is playing out after some time has passed.
Thanks
I am a 3.5er but with the 4e books. I didnt really like what I saw but I am keeping an open mind and am glad to read about your experiences with the game to get some idea about how it is playing out after some time has passed.
Thanks
I was exactly the same - the presentation really put me off (and still does, in fact). I went so far as to buy the core books, sell them all, then buy them all again once the other DM in our group began running a 4th edition game.
I find the problems I have with 4th edition are usually also the things I consider to be the system's strengths. Personally, similar to what Stefan Hill said above, I think it's more a completely different flavor of game, rather than a substitute or competitor for 3.5/PF.
|
4E is a well oiled machine, but it is a machine. I play 4E RPGA every week and find it a fun minigame ( much like the fun I had with Final Fantasy 10x2 good mechanics lame plot) thats all the positive I have so I must say so long for now ( not going to rain on other peoples parties) one question though, would it have been so hard to vary up the number of abilities each class got (Wizards could have several daily and one at will while Fighter could have three plus at wills and no starting daily, its just more dynamic that way)
edit: that didnt sound positive at all now that im reading it. I will have to say that playing only RPGA game probably clouds my judgement
4E is a well oiled machine, but it is a machine. I play 4E RPGA every week and find it a fun minigame ( much like the fun I had with Final Fantasy 10x2 good mechanics lame plot) thats all the positive I have so I must say so long for now ( not going to rain on other peoples parties) one question though, would it have been so hard to vary up the number of abilities each class got (Wizards could have several daily and one at will while Fighter could have three plus at wills and no starting daily, its just more dynamic that way)
Giving Wizards a lot of daily powers and a single at-will would only make the Wizard feel boring once his daily powers were expended.
Likewise, a Fighter with 3 at-wills and no daily would have variety, but wouldn't be able to unleash the fury when he needed it. You can totally have 3 level 1 at-will attack powers, though, if you're a human.
The power assortment exists because it cuts a nice balance between variety, longevity and oomph, in my opinion.
|
|
This stuff about how 4e is some sort of mechanical tactics game and doesn't allow roleplaying is untrue (though often repeated). Sneaksy makes the counter-point himself to some extent, but whether you roleplay or not has little to do with the system and a lot to do with the adventure, the DM and the players. Nothing in a system prevents you from roleplaying because most roleplaying has no impact or bearing on mechanics. The 4e DMG has the most advice on roleplaying and how to run a game than any previous version (being mostly a rehash of the 3.5 DMG2). In fact, 4e has fewer rules and mechanics than 3.5, which one might argue pushes you more in the direction of roleplaying to fill the gaps previously occupied by roll-playing mechanics. My personal experience of playing 4e is that the roleplaying element is exactly the same as it was before. But I tend to do homebrew plots in an AP style rather than running individual adventures in an RPGA context, which is probably a different type of experience inherently (I don't know as I haven't played in RPGA).
|
|
edit: that didnt sound positive at all now that im reading it. I will have to say that playing only RPGA game probably clouds my judgement
Gasp ! In defence of 4e (can't believe I am typing this) I am now re-educating my gaming group to normal gaming after years of RPGA, and teaching them to think outside the box again.
It is quite possible your problem has nothing to do with 4e, and everything to do with RPGA.
The 4e DMG has the most advice on roleplaying and how to run a game than any previous version (being mostly a rehash of the 3.5 DMG2). In fact, 4e has fewer rules and mechanics than 3.5, which one might argue pushes you more in the direction of roleplaying to fill the gaps previously occupied by roll-playing mechanics.
This part seemed to be largely unnecessary for the response and more pushing into arguing which system is "better."
|
The 4e DMG has the most advice on roleplaying and how to run a game than any previous version (being mostly a rehash of the 3.5 DMG2). In fact, 4e has fewer rules and mechanics than 3.5, which one might argue pushes you more in the direction of roleplaying to fill the gaps previously occupied by roll-playing mechanics.This part seemed to be largely unnecessary for the response and more pushing into arguing which system is "better."
Isn't that the thread topic?
And the earlier posts about how 4E is a 'machine' barren of roleplaying? :)
You mean the earlier post about how the 4E RPGA games he played in were like a machine? :)
However, I have the same reaction to, if there is a thread titled "PRPG is Awesome," where the initial post is how they like Pathfinder RPG, and a laster poster adds that they are having much more fun than they had with 4e and it's long and boring combats along with the absence of roleplaying. Just because that, more or less, seems much like a invitation for someone with the other viewpoint to argue it.
Previously in the thread, it seemed to be more like, "4e sucks for roleplaying," and this response was more like, "No, it doesn't. It is even better for roleplaying than 3.5!"
Much like the previous example, I see this as an invitation for others to come and argue their preferred edition, making this more a back and forth between the two editions, rather than being about 4th edition. I just prefer the latter because I see less drama going that route. Keeping this about 4th edition, rather than making it about 4th edition standing on 3.5's beaten body.
You mean the earlier post about how the 4E RPGA games he played in were like a machine? :)
However, I have the same reaction to, if there is a thread titled "PRPG is Awesome," where the initial post is how they like Pathfinder RPG, and a laster poster adds that they are having much more fun than they had with 4e and it's long and boring combats along with the absence of roleplaying. Just because that, more or less, seems much like a invitation for someone with the other viewpoint to argue it.
Previously in the thread, it seemed to be more like, "4e sucks for roleplaying," and this response was more like, "No, it doesn't. It is even better for roleplaying than 3.5!"
Much like the previous example, I see this as an invitation for others to come and argue their preferred edition, making this more a back and forth between the two editions, rather than being about 4th edition. I just prefer the latter because I see less drama going that route. Keeping this about 4th edition, rather than making it about 4th edition standing on 3.5's beaten body.
I can see the point you are making, but reading Aubrey's post again it seems to me that he is in fact pointing out that 4E and roleplaying can coexist and isn't taking a swipe at any previous edition. While he did note that "the 4e DMG has the most advice on roleplaying and how to run a game than any previous version", he also indicated that it was largely a rehash of the 3.5 DMG2, so again I don't see this as indicating "4E is better", but YMMV.
As someone who plays and enjoys both editions, I too would like there to be less rhetoric around which edition people prefer, but I also think that there should be some room for people to discuss the strengths AND weaknesses of the different editions without having to worry about igniting another round of the edition wars.
I can see the point you are making, but reading Aubrey's post again it seems to me that he is in fact pointing out that 4E and roleplaying can coexist and isn't taking a swipe at any previous edition. While he did note that "the 4e DMG has the most advice on roleplaying and how to run a game than any previous version", he also indicated that it was largely a rehash of the 3.5 DMG2, so again I don't see this as indicating "4E is better", but YMMV.
As someone who plays and enjoys both editions, I too would like there to be less rhetoric around which edition people prefer, but I also think that there should be some room for people to discuss the strengths AND weaknesses of the different editions without having to worry about igniting another round of the edition wars.
I understand. I wouldn't call it really bad, especially when compared to other things (honestly if I perceived as caustic, I would have probably just left it alone). For myself, the post was just enough to make me uncomfortable, but not enough to have any incredible impact. I also certainly agree that there should be room to discuss the differences between editions, I am hesitant to believe that during every discussion of an edition, at some point, there needs to be a comparison to previous editions. [Edit: I guess I felt it was less innapropriate and more "makes me abnormally uncomfortable."]
I think that it would have been just as good to say that the 4e DMG has a more than significant amount of advice on roleplaying and that the clean and concise mechanics of 4th edition encourage, instead than discourage, roleplaying. That says what was said without adding, what I perceived to be, an unnecessary comparison to 3.5 that could only be directly responded to with an argument why 3.5 is better with roleplaying (Or a string of posts by a somewhat unhinged individual on how he rather not see such comments).
But yeah. 4E is pretty good.
I honestly don't agree with the belief (oft quoted by 4e fans) that roleplaying cannot be encouraged by rules systems.
That's just crazy imo. If you put detailed rules aimed at covering non-combat activities in a game, in my experience in play that reflects with an increase in roleplaying. I also think a very heavy insistence on very regular long mini-tabletop combats per session makes for less roleplaying in real terms.
I found when I played 4e roleplaying during combat was tricky as a lot of combat stuff is all about the game rather than about what a person might be able to do in real life. By this I mean it's about how many and which squares you can move too, which person gets arbitrarily 'marked', which power you chose to use, etc etc. Rather than an immersive roleplayed combat (without minis or board) where you tell the GM what you want to do (and he advises what happens or if you can physically do that thing).
Sure you can roleplay with 4e. Naturally. Sure you can roleplay without having rules aimed at encouraging roleplaying and not just tabletop combats. However, realistically, with so much time per session being combat played out on the tabletop board ... I really do not agree 4e is encouraging roleplaying in real terms. Despite the lip service paragraphs in the DMG.
Just my opinion naturally.
EDIT - And this is not even touching upon the blatantly anti-fluff (if I can coin that term) culture apparent at wotc. The blanding up of detailed settings into more generic points of light feeling backgrounds. Of modules into strings of combat encounters - yes some modules were always thus, but more thoughtful modules seem an improbable if not impossible prospect now. Or there's the stripping of monsters down into solely being combat adverseries. The list goes on and on.
I would add some of this rot started in 3e (notably the regularity of combats and the focus upon that aspect of the game).
I can agree with a lot of that. Though, imo the disadvantages of trying to run combat without minis or counters outweighs the advantages.
One thing I really like about 4E is that moving is not a waste. A martial character can move, attack and still do significant damage. I was looking at the Pathfinder rgp that I just downloaded and I love how they revised the base classes for the most part, but there are still some issues with the entire system that really frustrate me, and one of the big ones is that inherrent rules of the system discourages moving in combat. Take the monk as the prime example. As a monk you've got an amazing move score, but if you want to use your flurry of blows (which imo involves an excessive amount of die rolling) than you have to give up your move. This completely discourages a monk from moving around the battle field. Anyhow, there are a lot of things I still don't like about 4E, but I am glad that the designers had the guts to tear the system apart, look at it closely and actually attempt to fix the things they felt didn't work. Sure not all their choices may have been good ones, and sure the game is quite a bit different now, but it definitely feels like a new edition of the game, and I respect that they weren't afraid to shake things up.
I honestly don't agree with the belief (oft quoted by 4e fans) that roleplaying cannot be encouraged by rules systems.
That's just crazy imo. If you put detailed rules aimed at covering non-combat activities in a game, in my experience in play that reflects with an increase in roleplaying. I also think a very heavy insistence on very regular long mini-tabletop combats per session makes for less roleplaying in real terms.
I found when I played 4e roleplaying during combat was tricky as a lot of combat stuff is all about the game rather than about what a person might be able to do in real life. By this I mean it's about how many and which squares you can move too, which person gets arbitrarily 'marked', which power you chose to use, etc etc. Rather than an immersive roleplayed combat (without minis or board) where you tell the GM what you want to do (and he advises what happens or if you can physically do that thing).
Sure you can roleplay with 4e. Naturally. Sure you can roleplay without having rules aimed at encouraging roleplaying and not just tabletop combats. However, realistically, with so much time per session being combat played out on the tabletop board ... I really do not agree 4e is encouraging roleplaying in real terms. Despite the lip service paragraphs in the DMG.
Just my opinion naturally.
EDIT - And this is not even touching upon the blatantly anti-fluff (if I can coin that term) culture apparent at wotc. The blanding up of detailed settings into more generic points of light feeling backgrounds. Of modules into strings of combat encounters - yes some modules were always thus, but more thoughtful modules seem an improbable if not impossible prospect now. Or there's the stripping of monsters down into solely being combat adverseries. The list goes on and on.
I would add some of this rot started in 3e (notably the regularity of combats and the focus upon that aspect of the game).
2. There are no must-have classes in a party. You want to cover the roles, but there are any number of ways to do that. The best example is that in 3.5, for the most part you need a cleric. Other classes can heal, but none do it as well. In 4e, any leader will do.
I dislike this. I want classes to be distinctive. The fighter used to be fun because his sheer combat prowess was the best. In 4E if I play a fighter the sneak in the group fights just as well as I do. It is possible to balance the classes without making them the same.
I disagree that the classes feel the same. I think they feel very distinctive. I think that a rogue in 4E can't be thought of as a thief. Sure they have access to thief type skills, but a rogue is intended to be a martial character. I see them a bit more like swashbucklers. They are skilled duelists and fighters that fight a little dirty and use great precision in there attacks and wear light armor. I love that they use their dex for damage with their powers. I always thought it was dumb that in 3E you would use your strength bonus to affect damage with a weapon like a rapier that is reliant on precision, skill and dexterity not strength. Rogues do very well one on one against a single enemy (or even better attacking that enemy while it is distracted by someone else). A fighter in 4E is built to take on multiple foes at once and handle a beating, which to me feels a lot different than what the rogue does.
In fact one of the things I like about 4E is that the classes are all fairly balanced in terms of eachother, but still feel different from one another.
2. There are no must-have classes in a party. You want to cover the roles, but there are any number of ways to do that. The best example is that in 3.5, for the most part you need a cleric. Other classes can heal, but none do it as well. In 4e, any leader will do.I dislike this. I want classes to be distinctive. The fighter used to be fun because his sheer combat prowess was the best. In 4E if I play a fighter the sneak in the group fights just as well as I do. It is possible to balance the classes without making them the same.
I'm going to have to disagree with this. Even though each class fits into one of four roles, I believe each class is still distinct. A fighter is much different than a paladin even though both fulfill the same role. Same with avengers and rogues, warlords and clerics, and so on. I believe the roles mechanic allows more freedom of choice, i.e. one does not have to have a cleric or a fighter to have a strong party. However, even within those roles there is a clear distinction. I believe that clerics are still the best healers in a party, as opposed to a warlord who can also heal but focuses more on gaining tactical advantages. How an avenger damages a foe (in some ways being a martyr of sorts) is very different than a rogue (which a more tactical striker).
As for a fighter fighting just as well as the sneak, I'm assuming you are comparing fighters with rogues. It depends on what you mean by "fighting." Fighters engage in combat, making sure that enemies focus on himself and making sure he can take the hits. Rogues are meant to gain tactical advantage so he can find those opening to cause the most damage. They have two distinct fighting styles - one is more upfront and "in your face," the other moves (or sneaks) around for best advantage.
I understand that 4e isn't for everyone, but how can allowing more variety in classes for a given party be a disadvantage?
|
|
I understand that 4e isn't for everyone, but how can allowing more variety in classes for a given party be a disadvantage?
I doubt that this is the case. Not if you're comparing just the core books and especially not if you're comparing all things available for the respective editions. In the latter case I'd even go so far as to claim that 3E has a huge advantage over 4E because of the OGL and all the tons of 3rd-party material created for it. Tis is not meant to say that 4E is generally worse in this regard, I just think that it's not better.
This said I agree that it's no problem to roleplay within the confines of 4E. I've discovered that for me it's easier to with classes I didn't play in 3E (Invoker, Avenger) but that's probably more my problem than the system's problem because with those classes I naturally don't try to do things the 3E way.
I understand that 4e isn't for everyone, but how can allowing more variety in classes for a given party be a disadvantage?I doubt that this is the case. Not if you're comparing just the core books and especially not if you're comparing all things available for the respective editions. In the latter case I'd even go so far as to claim that 3E has a huge advantage over 4E because of the OGL and all the tons of 3rd-party material created for it. Tis is not meant to say that 4E is generally worse in this regard, I just think that it's not better.
My post was not necessarily meant to compare 4e with 3e, but to react to the statement jocundthejolly made that he likes having "must-have" classes in the party. I personally like not being tied down to having a cleric in the party, but could instead choose a warlord, bard, shaman or artificer to fill that healing role.
I agree that there probably is more character class choices in 3e (it's been around longer and had much more 3rd party support). However, sometimes it was challenging to know how those classes outside the four standards (i.e. fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) fit into the party as a whole. For instance, can you replace a fighter with a bard? This is not to say one couldn't intuitively figure this out, but 4e made it very clear and defined.
|
|
For instance, can you replace a fighter with a bard? This is not to say one couldn't intuitively figure this out, but 4e made it very clear and defined.
I generally agree but this clarity brings it's own problems. Can you replace a fighter by a barbarian? In 4E there may be different answers, i.e.:
1. No, because a fighter's a defender and a barbarian is a striker.
2. Yes, if you play a rageblood barbarian ,'cause this build leans toward defender as a secondary role.
3. Sure, you can. Because you don't need a defender in your group, so you can freely chose what to play.
Now, with a bit of rewriting we could easily use this set of answers for 3E as well. But I guess there's a higher probability that you'll hear answer 1 for 4E. Which is obviously the wrong answer for both systems but is somehow supported in 4E by the roles categorization.
Note: I've edited this considerably as after rereading your post I think I understand more what you are saying.
I generally agree but this clarity brings it's own problems. Can you replace a fighter by a barbarian?
I would say no in 4e based on past experiences.
Which is obviously the wrong answer for both systems but is somehow supported in 4E by the roles categorization.
I'm not sure why it's the wrong answer. One can play a Warden if one wants to be a Primal Defender, and as far as flavor is concerned, characters within the fantasy world can still consider the Warden character to be a "barbarian". Barbarian mechanics are basically meant to represent a mad attacker rather than one that helps defend the party. It may seem loopy that a barbarian replaces rogues as far as combat roles, but we aren't talking about flavor similarities.
I get your drift though. In 4e, it's almost essential to have each role covered, which limits somewhat what can make a party. I would say that's one of the sacrifices the system makes to achieve the role clarity.
|
|
but we aren't talking about flavor similarities.
Hehe, actually I was, which may have led to the misunderstanding. But your answer serves somehow as an example for my point.
In 3E/3.5, if you want to play a fighter type, there are several obvious choices. The problem is, that the system isn't really helping you to understand the differences between thoses classes, so you have to find out for youself. And if you're playing a barbarian exactly as you're used to play the fighter, you probably have got a problem.
Generally speaking, you have the same choices in 4E (if you want to play a fighter type, that is. Probably, you've even more choice). Contrary to 3E, the new edition is quite clear about the differences between those fighter types. In fact, it is so clear about those differences that you don't even need to think about what type of character you want to play before you have decided what type of role you want to play.
Now, I'm not so convinced that roles have to be covered in 4E; I'm one of those guys thinking that you also don't need a cleric or a wizard in 3.5 (don't claim that it's easy playing without one) and in my mind, 4E makes it relatively easy in comparison to be successful if any role is not covered. The disadvantage is, that the players get so used to think in roles that they start to limit themselves (not unlike those 3E players claiming that to have a wizard in a group is absolutely essential for success). Which is another kind of limit, but with the same consequences.
I'm not convinced that all roles need to be covered in 4E for a successful party either. Certainly for combat efficiency in the long run a party that covers all the roles will likely have an easier time, but it's not essential. Our party composition had a fighter, a bard, a avenger, and a cleric, which equates to 2 leaders, a striker and a defender. They were doing just fine. We recently had a new player join and he brought in a sorcerer, which is another striker. The party still has no controller, but I don't think it's really been harming them. That being said, I don't think a party without at least one leader would have an easy go of things.
|
|
The party still has no controller,
Again. ^^
Can it be that no one wants to play a controller? I'm someone who is gladly filling the gaps in a party and so far, I haven't had the chance to play anything else. Now I'm no friend of the 4E wizard, but I really like what they did with the invoker and the druid so I'm wondering if this is just my perception of a non-existing problem or if there's something to it.
A lot of what they did would never have been
possible in 3.5.
It works in reverse, too. For myself, I want Trip back ;-)
It's funny that tripping should be the example you use. When we made our own switch over to 4th Edition in Age of Worms, the player who was most wary of the change was playing a spiked-chain wielding Monk with one level each of Fighter and Rogue, built around tripping and disarming. The character, Shiann, was rebuilt as a 4e Rogue using the spiked chain specialist pseudo-multiclass from Dragon. Within a couple of sessions, said player had decided that Shiann felt way more like what he was going for in 4e than she had in 3e, even after abandoning the disarming aspect of the character.
3e required a real commitment to make tripping a viable tactic, and even then, it often felt like fighting against the system. In 4e, she had a reasonable number of trip attacks which were nicely effective and played to what were already her strengths (dex-based attacks). They were expendable encounter powers, true, but two or three good tripping attacks per fight that probably deal damage or perhaps drag the target around at the same time made for a lot more player satisfaction overall in this case.
The game itself is proceeding nicely. Next week, the players cross the obsidian ring to investigate the Spire of Long Shadows. And after that, I'm very much looking forward to Prince of Redhand, which should be fantastic in any edition.
Can it be that no one wants to play a controller? I'm someone who is gladly filling the gaps in a party and so far, I haven't had the chance to play anything else. Now I'm no friend of the 4E wizard, but I really like what they did with the invoker and the druid so I'm wondering if this is just my perception of a non-existing problem or if there's something to it.
Really, I think the controller is still the weakest and therefore most dispensable role. Not weakest as in "Not enough power!", but weakest thematically, even post PHB2. I can tell you pretty clearly what a leader, defender, striker brings to the table, but controllers... not so much. They're fun, but it's hard to say they are clearly necessary, unless you're fighting a gaggle of enemies in each fight.
Honestly, while I do love the 4e wizard, it's more for its non-combat capabilities than it is for what the Wiz brings to a fight.
I'm not sure if he didn't want to play a controller so much as he didn't want to play either a wizard, invoker or druid (I guess those are basically the only three controller classes). In his defense his previous character had been a wizard (which he had been playing until he had to take a leave from our game for a few months), and I think he wanted to try a different arcane type of character. I think he might be liking the sorcerer better, though I still think the wizard has some pretty cool options available that other classes don't have access to. I certainly can see how many people might feel that a high level wizard has taken a cut back in power with 4E, but I think that they still have some pretty interesting options for play that could make them quite viable. However in 3E if given the choice between playing a sorcerer, wizard or warlock I'd take a wizard, in 4E I'd have to think about it, as the other arcane classes also have a lot of interesting options that make them feel quite different from the wizard.
The party still has no controller,Again. ^^
Can it be that no one wants to play a controller? I'm someone who is gladly filling the gaps in a party and so far, I haven't had the chance to play anything else. Now I'm no friend of the 4E wizard, but I really like what they did with the invoker and the druid so I'm wondering if this is just my perception of a non-existing problem or if there's something to it.
Well I don't think they can work with every power source. For instance I doubt you will ever see a martial controller. The fighter and possibly warlord can come close to being a controllers depending on what powers you take for them, but they don't fit the role the way a wizard does.
|
|
I can tell you pretty clearly what a leader, defender, striker brings to the table, but controllers... not so much. They're fun, but it's hard to say they are clearly necessary, unless you're fighting a gaggle of enemies in each fight.
Honestly, while I do love the 4e wizard, it's more for its non-combat capabilities than it is for what the Wiz brings to a fight.
Thanks for the explanation. To be honest I still can't say what a leader, defender (and so on) brings to the table because I don't care. I'm not used thinking in roles and I don't plan to get used to (. Which probably makes me a pretty bad 4E player but luckily my group doesn't seem to mind ^^.
Just know that leaders can heal people and you're all good.
You'd probably want it to have a reach weapon. Some kind of master of the spiked chain for instance...
We have a wizard in our group that I DM. He is getting quite good at targeting his AoE spells to only hit monsters. But he also realized his real power will become more apparent once they get a hold of some rituals.
However, my group has been getting quite clever, and has used attack powers on each other from time to time in desperate situations, just to get a pull, push, or specific effect.
An example was the druid shapechanging into a bear, and using a rend power to hit an immobilized ally who was underwater and about to drown the following round. The power damaged him slightly, but ultimately saved his life as he was able to slide him out of the water before his next turn.
I noticed in 4E there are way more AoE powers that only target enemies.
I don't know if this is a problem with controllers per se, but as far as wizards go, the party I currently play with avoids wizard classes now mostly because their AoE's damage allies as well as enemies while those of the leader/defender classes do not.
|
|
I'm usually a lurker, but I had to poke my head into the thread to comment on this. I find this comment amusing because the exact opposite was said by 2e fans when 3e was released.
"What you can't just role-play that out with the DM you actually have to have the skill and roll for it. 3e takes the role-playing completely out of the game!"
Actually, I'd echo this sentiment.
This is what I felt initially before I converted to 3.0. But the game, and my friends eventually won me out.
I honestly don't agree with the belief (oft quoted by 4e fans) that roleplaying cannot be encouraged by rules systems.
That's just crazy imo. If you put detailed rules aimed at covering non-combat activities in a game, in my experience in play that reflects with an increase in roleplaying. I also think a very heavy insistence on very regular long mini-tabletop combats per session makes for less roleplaying in real terms.
I found when I played 4e roleplaying during combat was tricky as a lot of combat stuff is all about the game rather than about what a person might be able to do in real life. By this I mean it's about how many and which squares you can move too, which person gets arbitrarily 'marked', which power you chose to use, etc etc. Rather than an immersive roleplayed combat (without minis or board) where you tell the GM what you want to do (and he advises what happens or if you can physically do that thing).
Sure you can roleplay with 4e. Naturally. Sure you can roleplay without having rules aimed at encouraging roleplaying and not just tabletop combats. However, realistically, with so much time per session being combat played out on the tabletop board ... I really do not agree 4e is encouraging roleplaying in real terms. Despite the lip service paragraphs in the DMG.
Just my opinion naturally.
EDIT - And this is not even touching upon the blatantly anti-fluff (if I can coin that term) culture apparent at wotc. The blanding up of detailed settings into more generic points of light feeling backgrounds. Of modules into strings of combat encounters - yes some modules were always thus, but more thoughtful modules seem an improbable if not impossible prospect now. Or there's the stripping of monsters down into solely being combat adverseries. The list goes on and on.
I would add some of this rot started in 3e (notably the regularity of combats and the focus upon that aspect of the game).
I will use a simple example to show that the D&D 4E ruleset improves role-playing, compared to 3.5E.
First, it's common sense that RPG groups that had a habit of strong role-playing before 4E will still role-play on 4E, and RPG groups that ignored role-playing before 4E will stil ignore it after 4E. The point is, how 4E or 3.5E fare on inspiring role-playing for a newbie group?
On 3.5E, a social interaction with NPCs is resolved by a single Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate checks. Suppose a 10th-level party has a Fighter with CHA 10 and a Bard with CHA 24 (due to magic items). The Fighter will have a +0 Diplomacy check, while the bard will have a +20 check (the fighter has -100% chance of passing the skill check compared to the bard). So, there is absolutely NO SENSE on letting the fighter have any participation on the social interaction. The players would better ask the Fighter to go buy pizza and Coke and return when the next fight happens. A group experienced with role-playing would probably find a means for everyone to participate on the social interaction, but since we are talking about a newbie group, it's pretty evident that the rules don't provide any encouragement for that.
On 4E, a social interaction with NPCs may be resolved a Skill Challenge, which means, it's resolved by multiple checks and not a single check. A 10th-level CHA 10 fighter with no proficiency on Diplomacy will have a +5 check, while a CHA 20 bard will have +15 (on 4E there are no stat-boosting magic items). Still large difference, but unlike 3.5E, the 4E rules explicitly mention that the player may gain a bonus on the skill checks if he/she presents a particularly good spoken argument. Yeah, this is perhaps implicit on 3.5E, but being explicit makes a large difference for newbies. So the fighter with a reasonably efforted player can easily get an additional +2 bonus, for a total +7. This is still -40% chance compared to the bard, but now comes the fact that Skill Challenges are resolved by multiple checks, and not a single check. So the fighter making the Diplomacy check may contribute to the resolution of te social interaction, even if the bard already did his test. On top of that, there are plenty of abilities that increase chance of passing skill checks, and these abilities are better used on the Fighter, not the Bard, since the bard is probably going to be successful on his test anyway. So, a 4E newbie group is much more likely to ask the Fighter player's mom or wife to go buy pizza and coke, not the Fighter player himself.
Obviously, I've heard arguments like "Yeah, but 3.5E is better exactly because not everyone is good at everything, there should be classes that shine at combat but suck at role-playing, and classes that suck at combat and shine at role-playing". Well, it's perhaps my personal interpretation, but from my experience the campaign is much more involving when everyone contribute on every scene, instead of letting half of the group excited and half of the group at every moment. But again, this is a personal opinion.
That example is pretty faulty in my opinion, starting with the point where it is assumed that all social interaction require Diplomacy checks. It also seems to come into conflict with how I've seen groups react to a skill challenge. I noticed, in that case, they even desire a character be skipped if he doesn't have a good bonus in one of the contributing skills (So he is back out getting the pizza).