The ramblings of a Boston area gamer
Thinking out Loud - 4E after 13 sessions
Posted 1st December 2008 at 07:55 PM by Elodan
This is me sort of "thinking out loud."
I think if the class/power thing was done differently I would really like 4E. I would have preferred talent trees or gain use(s) of abilities at certain levels. It really annoys me that I can only use an encounter power like Hammer and Anvil (my favorite warlord power) once an encounter (hence it being an encounter power). I know it's supposed to represent finding that opening once an encounter but why can't it be more than that. Another example of the top of my head is why can the ranger only do double shot once a day. The powers system feels arbitrary. I still feel Marking is lame.
Not a fan of what I consider to be the arbitrary limitation on magic item powers. If I have 2 items with daily powers why can I only use one of them a day if I'm under 10th level. I know you can get around this via milestones, but what really determines those. Plus, it's something else to track.
The sales model is another turnoff. Before the announcement of 4E, I was planning on taking my campaign back to core (core being the PHB, DMG, MM and Player's Guide to the Realms). Tired of carrying all the books around; checking so I wouldn't introduce 'broken' aspects into the game. Now, core is multiple books. Things are purposely being left out so I have to buy another book if I want druids and barbarians. I may have to pay X dollars a month to get those Faerunian epic destinies I wanted. I know I don't have to buy the books, but it's a lot easier than trying to design druids and barbarians myself.
It seems like it's all about the math instead of making things fun and interesting.
There's a lot of good in 4E. I love the monster/encounter design of 4E. I'd want some minor tweaks (such as casting time) to the ritual system (plus add a whole lot more). I wouldn't mind seeing some spells that are lines or cones. I expect to steal the action type breakdown, critical hits and death and dying rules for which ever system I use.
This is why I think I'm leaning toward Pathfinder. They seem to be making tweaks that move 3.5 more toward some of the better 4E ideas while keeping the classes/powers (abilities) in a system I prefer.
I think if the class/power thing was done differently I would really like 4E. I would have preferred talent trees or gain use(s) of abilities at certain levels. It really annoys me that I can only use an encounter power like Hammer and Anvil (my favorite warlord power) once an encounter (hence it being an encounter power). I know it's supposed to represent finding that opening once an encounter but why can't it be more than that. Another example of the top of my head is why can the ranger only do double shot once a day. The powers system feels arbitrary. I still feel Marking is lame.
Not a fan of what I consider to be the arbitrary limitation on magic item powers. If I have 2 items with daily powers why can I only use one of them a day if I'm under 10th level. I know you can get around this via milestones, but what really determines those. Plus, it's something else to track.
The sales model is another turnoff. Before the announcement of 4E, I was planning on taking my campaign back to core (core being the PHB, DMG, MM and Player's Guide to the Realms). Tired of carrying all the books around; checking so I wouldn't introduce 'broken' aspects into the game. Now, core is multiple books. Things are purposely being left out so I have to buy another book if I want druids and barbarians. I may have to pay X dollars a month to get those Faerunian epic destinies I wanted. I know I don't have to buy the books, but it's a lot easier than trying to design druids and barbarians myself.
It seems like it's all about the math instead of making things fun and interesting.
There's a lot of good in 4E. I love the monster/encounter design of 4E. I'd want some minor tweaks (such as casting time) to the ritual system (plus add a whole lot more). I wouldn't mind seeing some spells that are lines or cones. I expect to steal the action type breakdown, critical hits and death and dying rules for which ever system I use.
This is why I think I'm leaning toward Pathfinder. They seem to be making tweaks that move 3.5 more toward some of the better 4E ideas while keeping the classes/powers (abilities) in a system I prefer.
Total Comments 11
Comments
-
It's like you've read my mind about a lot of things I've thought wrong about 4E.
I have been participating in a game of 4E for about 2 months now (meeting every Thursday night) and every session I get more and more frustrated because I want to do this or that but I can't because I've already done it that encounter or that day.
I'm with you. I'm leaning to taking the aspects of 4E I like (which aren't many) and porting them over to either 3E or Pathfinder.Posted 3rd December 2008 at 03:52 PM by raineym
- We made the decision after our last 4E session to look elsewhere for alot of the same reasons you have. There are alot of things we do like but the things we don't are pretty much deal breakers.Posted 3rd December 2008 at 05:28 PM by Lord Vangarel
-
You could just houserule that you'd be able to use certain powers more often an encounter than learning a new one. That's what you do with the Force Powers in Star Wars, and I don't think it would break game balance THAT much....
Just a thought.Posted 3rd December 2008 at 09:50 PM by SpydersWebbing -
Right now I'm running a 4e game and my players really like it so far. They enjoy having options (various powers) durring combat, and tend to enjoy more combat oriented play in general.
If they didn't care which version, I'd probably stick with 3.x until Pathfinder comes out. IMO, WotC tried all this wizbang stuff with 4e that strayed too far from the core ideas of D&D. In tangable ways with omitting classes and adding others, and in things some people don't understand: A class isn't presented as the concept of one's position in a fantasy world, it's their role in combat. I'm not talking about rules, but approach to despription and if you don't understand what I'm getting at, ignore this point.
Adding in races (TO CORE!!!) that have never been in the system or any of the countless books written in that universe is pretty disgusting. Save that for other campaign worlds (that I won't play). To me 4e is an RPG of sorts, but not D&D. I might buy one more book to get actual classes/races that belong, but if they try to spread them out over multiple books I'm done with WotC. Chances are they will and I am. There is plenty of vintage stuff to work with.
Phwoo... I get all worked up talking about 4e even though I don't mind it. I guess it's the fact they made a completely different game "core D&D" that irks me. This ends my *opinion* piece.Posted 3rd December 2008 at 10:58 PM by SuperGnome -
IMO, 4e is much simpler to prepare for and GM in general. But the cost for this is much less flexibility and more cookie cutter characters. I'm sure given enough time and splatbooks, we'll see the classes/powers/feats that'll put more meat back on the system. I agree that all the non at-will powers are rather inflexible, and magic items were unreasonably nerfed in the name of balance.
The system feels like it was specifically designed for newbie roleplayers who are migrating from WOW or Descent/Talisman. It also feels like WOTC intended to shift efforts away from putting lots of content in their books and more into their digital online initiatives. Just look at differences between 3E and 4E FR campaign guides.
Despite the criticisms, I'm enjoying 4E more than I did the previous version. There's a very playable, tweakable, and streamlined system somewhere amidst all those arbitrary powers and bits. I'm hoping a 3rd party company will come up with a more flexible way of using powers and abilities. There's a balanced mechanic somewhere, maybe in using character currencies like action points and healing surges to power those "powers". I'm toying with the idea of making all powers at will, and using a more generous action point system to activate them, perhaps along with healing surges or the idea of "power slots" ala arcana evolved.Posted 4th December 2008 at 01:52 AM by Garet Jax -
4e isms
I was very much resistant to 4e as it was coming out and even after I purchased the 3 core books I was resistant. First I had read so much negative word about 4e. However I was a loyal D&D player from my first basic edition fighter on thru each new edition that I had to try.
I crossed the bridge after my 2nd session as a player. In previous editions I was very unhappy playing fighters as they did not "feel" like they has a lot of options. Most attack are a swing & a miss or a swing and a hit. 3e added feats which made it cooler but I would still not play a fighter.
I figured the true test would be to make a 4e fighter, a dwarven fighter no less. I found that character creation took 15 minutes ish. Wow I thought this would be very easy on the DM to generate key npcs or run npcs for the group (file this for later). I also came to the conclussion that this would be easy for new players. the 3rd session i helped a new player make a character and it took 20 minutes instead of 15 and I think this is great. Next I found that I liked the actions (standard, move, minor) this was very easy to explain to new players. The best thing is now a boring fighter I could do stuff. I had at wills that do not go away (cool). I had encounters, dailys, utilities and I could do more stuff. No more swing and miss, no more swing and hit.
I also find that the structure of 4e is stronger than 3e + 3.5. What I mean is in 3 and 3.5 each new supplement and 3rd party products broke the rules and offered combinations that altered the rules that should not work together. I find that each player is on a better footing of fairness, envolvement and abilities. Rangers maybe a little too powerful, but we will see.
Things I did not like, variable action points by encounter, milestone as a rule, limited use of daily magic items, lack of what I call basic ideas or concepts in the core rules (whips, weapon varieties, boring magic items, etc.). One I started running I removed or modified these rules.
In my opinion the good far out shines the bad. I have switched and running my 12th session this Tuesday. After my 2nd session i was inspired to start running a game again. I was able to use Mystara which fit really well with 4e. I always push the envelop of 4e and what is covered by the rules. I tell the group you can attempt anything and we will figure it out.
I have turned my back on 3.5 and all the pun pun players out there. My 2nd choice would be Pathfinder 3.5 as they have really done a great job tweaking 3.5.
RegardsPosted 4th December 2008 at 02:17 AM by graylion -
I have added a fairly simple recharge system to my 4e game and also use action points as a reward for cool/heroic roleplaying by the players. It may make the encounters a little easier, so I throw in maybe an extra monster to some encounters to push the limits... which makes advancement a little faster... but as my group only meets 1 a month thats fine... all in the name of making my players have a good time...
I think the best new concept in 4e is have fun and say yes.Posted 4th December 2008 at 01:14 PM by jbear - "To me 4e is an RPG of sorts, but not D&D."
I don't know what game you're playing, but in my games I've been enjoying a very D&D like experience. In fact, not much feels all that different other than everything being so much simpler on my end, the DM side.
The only thing I don't enjoy is some of the spells outside combat and to change this around I gave my Wizard player a copy of the Spell Compendium and told him to use it when looking for new rituals.Posted 5th December 2008 at 07:44 AM by HeirToPendragon -
I'm actively playing both 3.5ed and 4e and like both - they are different enough that they are distinct games.
I think you're spot on. If I could rip out the classes chapter, (and evolve skill challenges a generation or two)*, I'd be very happy. Much about 4e I think is really good, but the powers bother me greatly.
Cheers,
=Blue(23)
*(Okay, I'd also want to have more flexibility in getting the feel for "my" campaign, such as yanking out all the short range teleports. But that's not a rules flaw.)Posted 6th December 2008 at 11:00 PM by Blue -
Good luck moving back to 3rd edition/Pathfinder.
By that I mean that I haven't played much more than a dozen 4E sessions myself, but regardless of its annoyances, I will never ever go back myself.
3E simply is far far too complex.
What would be truly interesting would be a d20 system that is "core D&D" but is no more complex than 4E (especially regarding DM prep time).
But of course I've wanted this for years. Sigh.
Pathfinder is a failure already from the beginning. It shuffles around the 3E details, but it does not and will not fix the real problems: the high-level NPC complexity, and the high-level spellcaster overpoweredness.Posted 16th December 2008 at 06:00 PM by CapnZapp - I just completed a 10 session campaign and I'll say that I love 4e. We've had no problems with it. I think there are two main types of people that dislike 4e, and maybe a few subdivisions. The first type is the old, stuck in 3e gamer who simply doesn't want to like a new game. And as controversial as this post will end up being, that's the way it is. People have been playing 3e for years and now that there's a change, they will fight tooth and nail to stop it. Although this gamer is a small percentage.
The second type is someone who favors realism over balance, and is unwilling or unable to houserule things. In other words they cling to the RAW. I house rule things all the time, and I've had no problems. My player's dragonborn wants to breathe again on the minion mob, but he's already used it? Action point and spend a healing surge, but breathe away! House rule in the name of fun. Let your players do what they want, but use the existing rules to your advantage.
That being said, I love 4e. I love powers and rituals. To all the complainers about powers, see my example above. And would you really rather just make a basic attack or 4 rather than making an attack, knocking the guy down, and then shifting 4 squares? Really? As for out of battle spells, I will agree that rituals are limited at present, but as I said, where's the problem with houseruling and creating your own rituals?
I'm sorry, but I really don't see the logic behind any of the gripes about 4e, except perhaps the one about classes and WotC separating them into numerous books. All told, 4e seems a much simpler, faster, more exciting, and better edition. Have at me!Posted 24th December 2008 at 12:11 AM by demonelf3
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
