4e just wasn't for me, and once D&D Next was announced, 4e disappeared off my radar.
I do know several players who loved 4e, for things mentioned above(easy DM'ing, XP budget for encoutners, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4e was a good game... It would have done better I think if it hadn't been called D&D. Because, lets face it, it really wasn't D&D in any sense of what had come before.
Things 4e did right?
- Healing Surges: I love this mechanic. They pulled healing out of the small niche of classes it had always been tied to and spread it to the whole team. It is one of the best ways I have seen to preventing the 15minute work day (along with a COMPLETE restructuring of magic itself- although I feel part of the branding trouble with 4e WAS the restructuring of magic.).
- Balanced classes: This is a mixed bag. I love the balance paid to each class... but fear they went too far and homogenized class mechanics till they were flavorless. One of the charms of 3e and earlier was the completely different play each class gave you. However you have to give them credit for trying... even if they missed the mark.
- Built in power scale changes: By breaking the game up into 3 sections (heroic/paragon/epic) they were able to feature the type of game play expected in each power level and make the game easier to run at high levels.
it's better that some people are playing 4e rather than not playing roleplaying games at all
this...
The healing surge thing just really broke the idea of an RPG for me. Even as silly and fantastical as games get, there is still some logic to the things done.
Instead we should make people wait in an infirmary for 4-5 weeks after every fight if they don't have a healer?
Anyways, I like that there are good things to say and take from 4E.
4e was a good game... It would have done better I think if it hadn't been called D&D. Because, lets face it, it really wasn't D&D in any sense of what had come before.
Things 4e did right?
- Healing Surges:
- Balanced classes: -.
Right to all three. I mean, having a Leader with some healing powers is VERY handy in 4th ed. Still, you can get around without one, if you’re careful.
Balance is good, homogeneity is bad.
Power scale was good.
Another thing they did was get online and fix most stupid broken powers and combos.
|
IMHO, they simply went too far with the balance, practically having all classes use almost the same powers with different names. That and those several games i had with friends killed it for me. And man oh man was i stoked for 4th ed. Incredibly stoked. I couldn't wait to get my grubby hands on the core book. Fortunately, i got my hands on a print ready-pdf first and, well, I'm playing Pathfinder now.
WotC biggest mistake? Was when hyping their new product, they knocked their old product so much.
Now, they are putting out new(ish) 3.5 stuff, and I bet regretting saying how cruddy 3.5 was.
I have no problem with hype but watch when you burn your bridges!
I have a great 4th ED DM. The game is fun. But you know, the players and the DM are what make the game fun, not the system.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The healing surge thing just really broke the idea of an RPG for me. Even as silly and fantastical as games get, there is still some logic to the things done.
Healing in a game could be their superpower or a divine ability etc. There is really no explanation through the game of healing surges like "a wizard's arcane energy can be subverted to divine energy to transform the body to health" or SOMETHING. You just get health back. RPGs still hold some semblance to real life where people live, grow old, heal injuries, die, and move in a three dimensional universe. Healing surges just felt to break the 4th wall too much and felt like a video game thing. Like they had included 1-ups or green mushrooms in the game or something.
For me it felt like 4e was lacking the normal fluff of an RPG to explain the crunch.
HP are abstract. Just because I leveled I can suddenly take X more stabbings before I die?
Loosing HP is like taking scratches and bruses and being pushed past your normal limits. Somethings don't always fit so unless you want to play 2e then you just go with it.
A healing surge can be magic, alchemy, first-aid, taking a breather or anything else you can come up with to explain it. 4e leaves that up to the PC to figure out. The book covers the combat the rest is up to the table.
|
Now, they are putting out new(ish) 3.5 stuff, and I bet regretting saying how cruddy 3.5 was.
Are they putting out new stuff? All I have heard about is reprints. The only new stuff from an older edition I've seen any mention of is the new A0 module in the Against the Giants reprint, and that's 1E, not 3.5.
The in game explanation is that losing hit points doesn't just represent suffering wounds. Using your second wind isn't indicative if "getting better" - its steeling yourself, drawing on inner reserves, etcetera.
Many people describe being hit for even one hit point as suffering a (minor) physical wound and I can see how rapid, nonmagic healing would jar for them. That's not what it means in 4E though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I really like about 4E:
* The clean-up/consistently of the rules (action types, conditions, attack types, etc.).
* The move to fixed hit point progression.
* Self-contained stat-blocks.
* That it dropped the pretense of being "simulationist."
* The symmetry of weapons and implements.
* The death of the full attack.
* Healing surges (very "narrativist" for D&D).
* Action points (again, very "narrativist" for D&D).
* The art and graphic design (for the most part).
Fun fact, the Avenger class in 4e is basically the Inquisitor class in Pathfinder.
Fun fact, the Avenger class in 4e is basically the Inquisitor class in Pathfinder.
If you say so, though I don't see any relevance to the topic of this thread...
Fun fact, the Avenger class in 4e is basically the Inquisitor class in Pathfinder.If you say so, though I don't see any relevance to the topic of this thread...
That's ok.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4E allows far better roleplay opportunity for the DM.
My reasoning - It's far easier to prep for and run the game, so as a DM, I have tons more time available to craft out intricate storylines, design cool adventure locales, and develop cool recurring NPCs. I can also create more of the story as I go instead of having to plan every encounter in advance - it takes me literally seconds to select the critters needed for almost any given encounter, so I'm ready for whatever curveball the players throw at me. And plotwise, I'm far more likely to be the one throwing the curveballs at them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The in game explanation is that losing hit points doesn't just represent suffering wounds. Using your second wind isn't indicative if "getting better" - its steeling yourself, drawing on inner reserves, etcetera.
Many people describe being hit for even one hit point as suffering a (minor) physical wound and I can see how rapid, nonmagic healing would jar for them. That's not what it means in 4E though.
It might make sense if you were just getting your bearing and taking a rest after some minor wounds...but you could be at 1 hit point...next to death and then use surges to be up to full health and good as new with no explanation other than it being a game mechanic. Its giving mortals supernatural recovery abilities.
Its kind of like saying "Every player can at some point in the game roll 3d6 and an enemy takes that much damage" "How come? Is it a strike? Is it a class power? Is it divine intervention?" "No, just cuz. Its just a game mechanic"
Yeah, it's your job to fluff it.
That's why people didn't like 4e, it made them all fluffers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's why I make the big bucks, TOZ.
(Not because of my fluffing. Not that I fluff. Hey, this is about 4e, quit looking at me.)
|
4e is very easy to re-skin classes/monsters in. I think there is a lot more opportunity to cleverly make the game what you want.
N yeah, having played for years my DMs said that the rules and online tools were a blessing to prep with. Allows more time to focus on story or other non-gaming activities.
One drawback is the art--it took a vastly different approach I feel. I still think it's pretty good mind you, but I do prefer Pathfinder artwork.
I also loved how they showed some love to Dark Sun, that was quality right there. I was never a big fan of it personally but I know other players who had missed having it around.
It might make sense if you were just getting your bearing and taking a rest after some minor wounds...but you could be at 1 hit point...next to death and then use surges to be up to full health and good as new with no explanation other than it being a game mechanic. Its giving mortals supernatural recovery abilities.The in game explanation is that losing hit points doesn't just represent suffering wounds. Using your second wind isn't indicative if "getting better" - its steeling yourself, drawing on inner reserves, etcetera.
Many people describe being hit for even one hit point as suffering a (minor) physical wound and I can see how rapid, nonmagic healing would jar for them. That's not what it means in 4E though.
If you're at 1 hit point with lots of healing surges, you're not next to death in 4E.
I'm not trying to persuade you it's good (since its clearly not engaging for many people), but it does make sense - you just have to analyse it from its own assumptions, rather than from the point of view of earlier editions.
Health is not a one dimensional "how many hit points do you have" statistic in 4E. It's far more abstract (hence a town guard you meet at 1st level having 50 hit points and only having 1 hit point when you meet them again at tenth). "A hit point" is not intended to represent any physical, actual thing or quantity - it's an abstraction with the narrative details in the purview of the players and DM.
I also loved how they showed some love to Dark Sun, that was quality right there. I was never a big fan of it personally but I know other players who had missed having it around.
They definitely learnt from the Forgotten Realms debacle. Eberron and Dark Sun were far more successful adaptations than the realms "reboot".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider 4e more "RP restrictive" (or I guess RP discouraging) in that I have yet to see any 4e adventure I've played (or looked at in a store) not revolve around the typical dungeon crawl or monster slash fest.
Yeah, 4e's adventure support is a shortcoming that 4e fans agree on pretty much unanimously. I tried to run the first one, Keep on the Shadowfell, but I dropped the effort after one session. Apparently the adventures got better toward the end, but I haven't really seen or played any of them.
Further, most 4e fans seem to agree that a fundamental problem with 4e adventures is that they aren't written to 4e's strengths. 4e thrives on a few big set-piece battles rather than lots of minor 'trash' fights. Basically, early 4e adventures were written using the assumptions of earlier editions -- i.e., "The PCs have to be slowly whittled away by small mook encounters before they get a shot at the big bads." Neither style is better than the other when paired with the right ruleset, but 4e adventures definitely seem to have suffered from inappropriate adventure style.
I haven't done the math..but honestly..How many dice would you be throwing for damage at say 15 to 18th level?
I don't know if this question was directed at me, but here goes: Damage dice scale differently, depending on whether an attack is A/E/D. Assuming an attack doesn't impose significant conditions on the target or have any other big rider -- which would naturally reduce the number of damage dice -- an at-will deals 1 die until 21st level. A paragon (11 - 20) encounter attack deals 3 dice, and a paragon daily attack deals 5-6 dice.
If the character is a striker, he's probably tossing an additional 2 dice at that level, and if he uses a magical item's power he might throw down 2 more.
One thing that adds time to creation now is battlemats. Its required for 4e and its pretty much needed for PF as well because of AoOs and the like.
I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not for RPGing.
I think it's a taste thing. Apparently some gamers hate battle maps because seeing a grid turns off the action movie imagery in their heads, but me? I'm lost without a battle map! Or at least a pencil and a piece of graph paper.
For me it felt like 4e was lacking the normal fluff of an RPG to explain the crunch.
Yeah, the 4e team made a definite effort to refrain from explaining new game conceits. Personally I appreciate not having specific fluff imposed by the devs, but it does seem that many gamers like you were baffled by their whole "Here are some rules we made, explain them how you like!" attitude.
Myself, I've had problems with hit points as-presented since I started role playing. Supposedly they're an abstraction -- a combination of luck, dodges, stamina, divine favor, and whatnot. But there are too many cases that create a very definite and physical precedent for hit points. And besides, coming up with all sorts of explanations for all those cases can get exhausting, and strains credulity to say the least.
So I prefer to say that damage really is damage, and biology simply doesn't work the same way it works in the real world. It is a fantasy world, after all! Hit points represent a character's bodily ability to prevent and absorb what would be lethal trauma in the real world. And from here, explaining healing surges is a minor matter. :)
It's such a good presentation that even the self-admitted anti-4E grognards I know admit it's the best Monster Manual they have ever seen.
If I could combine the rules-presentation of 4e and the fluff text and artwork of 2e into one MM, I'd be able to die happy. :)
* That it dropped the pretense of being "simulationist."
Yeah, this one is huge for me.
I can buy into ridiculous games like D&D, because I can make the fantasy real within its own context, but a game pretending to be some sort of accurate reality simulator doesn't score any points with me. Quite the opposite, in fact.
|
I don't really care if the laws of physics apply to a game (so long as I know which ones are changed ahead of time) but I do prefer to use real logic when makeing the alternate laws of physics for a game. I don't like having a game say what can and can't happen with "because" as the reasoning, it's gotta follow logic and be plausable.
Also I like the simulationist just a bit for certain things because then I can use real life experience to know what to expect, I.E. how far can a human jump? Better when I can compare olympic athletes as my yardstick otherwise that human character who is bad at jumping then jumps 100'chasm is just immersion breaking because I know that humans can't jump that far without some outside help.
Now, they are putting out new(ish) 3.5 stuff, and I bet regretting saying how cruddy 3.5 was.Are they putting out new stuff? All I have heard about is reprints. The only new stuff from an older edition I've seen any mention of is the new A0 module in the Against the Giants reprint, and that's 1E, not 3.5.
There's a new reprint of the PH with all the errata, etc.
4e is more of a tactical system
each of the first 4 early power sources had it's own perk
Divine Characters had better armor proficiencies
Martial Characters dealt more weapon damage
Primal Characters had more base health
Arcane Characters had better AoE
some early classes (like the ranger) were broken due to how static damage interacted with the rare ability to make multiple attacks. in fact, 4th edition classes rarely had the ability to multi attack at will. fighter and ranger, could do this with the right builds.
but even then, archery rangers, to a lesser extent were just as overpowered for the same reasons.
in fact, the first viable non-ranger non-fighter striker, was the sorcerer, whom unlike most strikers, were an implement class that got the best implements in the game (one of the only 2 types that could get weapon powers), synergized with the best rogue paragon path for the best crit range in the game, and AoE effects with one of the first at will spammable striker damage boost mechanics.
i liked the tactical aspect and finding creative ways to cheat alchemical item costs.
|
|
There's a new reprint of the PH with all the errata, etc.Now, they are putting out new(ish) 3.5 stuff, and I bet regretting saying how cruddy 3.5 was.Are they putting out new stuff? All I have heard about is reprints. The only new stuff from an older edition I've seen any mention of is the new A0 module in the Against the Giants reprint, and that's 1E, not 3.5.
I don't really consider a reprint to be "new stuff".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back when I played Lotro, they called it morale. health is measured in a lot of ways. 4E looked like it had a second wind thing going on where it was also exhaustion and other factors. YMMV.
A ten foot fall can kill a completely healthy person, if they're unlucky. Maybe that's one thing hp represents in 4e and other games.
I don't get how everything else is measurable like your ability to hit increases as your skill increases and skill mods increase as you increase in skill and powers increase as you increase power etc. etc.
Yet when we as a community talk about one aspect, hitpoints, this suddenly turns into some abstract, postmodern discussion like "is a chair really a chair!?" Its a game mechanic so it should have more logic and measurability to it than explaining the meaning of love.
Being at 1 hit point does mean heavy injury because just falling 10(?) feet could K.O you or send you toward death. A wimpy punch could take you out. Not to mention when you get to half hit points you are "bloodied", am I correct? This entails penalties because of the damage you've taken.
It made sense to me that the number of hitpoints represents a percentage of your health status like if you have 50 hitpoints you're at 100% and if you have 30 you are at 60% ...whereas if you have 25 hp total you're at 100% and if at 15 you are at 60% etc. The increase of HP, as has been discussed many times, represents your ability to avoid serious blows, your divine luck etc. BUT the damage taken, relative to your HP, does represent serious injuries.
Thus, your HP is "abstract" in a sense, but the damage is not...so where does this sudden increase of hp (and thus healing of injuries) come from? I guess that's up to the DM to explain if a player asks, as people alluded to.
It HAS to be abstract. The only other alternative is to play using a detailed wound system... like tablemaster...er... I mean rolemaster. ALL d20 games use abstract HP because it speeds play.
I looked at Healing Surges like what you get in action movies or anime where you can be beaten almost completely down then suddenly get that "eye of the tiger" and suddenly fight at full strength again.
While I have heard that the gaming framework is great the reason why I transitioned from 3.5 -> Pathfinder is because of the background and informational details. 4.0 has a strong gameplay system with a minimal background info support as to allow flexibility in how the DM sets up the campaign setting.
the thing for me though is that i like a system to have flexibility but also to have a detailed and supported campaign setting to work with as in my opinion the setting and background of the RPG is just as important as the game system and also displays the creative abilities of the creators and writers in ways that 4.0 somewhat lacks.
the final thing was being able to navigate the books, i feel with 4.0 I need a computer program just to create the character and that most of the time it's done in a randomized fashion of character creation. what I enjoyed about pathfinder is that you can create a character more fitting to yourself, both personality wise and the players gameplay style. and while I know 4.0 does the same, the difference is that the abilities of the class are with the class in pathfinder while 4.0 has all the class abilities mixed together making it more confusing then I would like.
In anime all you need is bandages. In DnD if you fight without resting or healing, even in 4th, you eventually become fatigued or fall from wounds. Healing surges are limited, and I actually prefer them to spamming infernal healing or CLW. Don't make it overcomplicated, this isn't infinite healing fight forever without magic, this is a smallish heal that comes from a limited reserve that actually helps remove the need for constant magical healing in a game, which is a good thing. Your extended rest is what gets you your healing surges back.
|
|
In combat you only get 1 healing surge your second wind the others come from powers , or potions. Out of combat you can use as many as you want. Bandage, stitch, alchemical solutuin, however you wish to explain it is up to you.
Writing in the book you heal this way or that only provides restrictions and limits free thinking and creativity. (or Role Playing).
... Megaman E-ups...
Reporting as ordered!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It made a good effort at giving non-casters meaningful options (even if people don't like the flavor).
It did have a larger sweet-spot and as someone who likes the occasional epic game, it handled that rather well. In fact, I rather liked the whole "tier" system (it was even a sort-of-callback to the old basic/expert/companion/master tier system).
I don't like the consolidation of monsters to a few key abilities, but that's been going on since 3.5E (it was one of the changes from 3.0 and before), but 4E did it rather well with very clear stat blocks containing all a DM needed to know to run them.
It's not old-school D&D (but 3E wasn't, at first, until it was, and now everyone and their uncle claims it's the One True Heir. Which is fine - I love the PF engine), but 4E was not as bad a system as people make it out to be. It just tried to innovate *too* much.
Everyone says they love change (and hope) until it actually happens. Then when it happens, people notice it's different, and people don't like things that are different.
But broken base is broken and I don't expect 4E to get much love here, especially since mismanagement wrecked the Wizards-TSR-RPG line, again. (I still think Hasbro should spin it off - all they care about is the CCG line - and Paizio should pick up the legacy-rights).