General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
There are a few things that still bug me. Several of them have to do with not getting rid of certain sacred cows when there is no reason to keep them other than easing initial fan reaction to the game.
First, the parts where I feel 4e did not go far enough, such as keeping alignment while rendering it completely meaningless in terms of rules (might as well get rid of it.)
Second, too much overcompensating for some relatively minor benefits, such as making it necessary for a Star Warlock to split their focus on two primary stats whereas a Hellfire or Fey Warlock can only concentrate on one, for no other reason than that the Star Warlock's pact gives them a small conditional bonus to die rolls. Or the severe limiting of Rogue weapon choices in exchange for sneak attack (leaving me to make Rangers that serve the out-of-combat role of Rogues (just as well as Rogues) by taking Thievery through a feat.)
Third, the cosmology of 4th edition seems to be more hard-wired into the rules than in previous editions.
Fourth, hard-wiring the square grid into the rules, even though a hex grid makes more intuitive blast and burst shapes.
Fifth, wizards (and from what I've seen spellswords) seem very elementalist in their powers, leaving me to wonder why there would be a distinct elemental power source. I would have liked to have seen all those non-elemental spells wizards have had in the past have a little more prominence, or perhaps if they had made a little more space for an extra line of spells in the PHB (like the illusions in Dragon.) Again, Fireball is a sacred cow for Wizards, yes. But if wizards are tossing around the elements with power and finesse, what do the elemental classes do?
Edit: Another one, and this is a big one so I'm surprised I forgot it. They created skill use railroading with skill challenges. "You can use one of these four skills to win this challenge, and when you succeed I'll tell you how you used that skill." "I have diplomacy, I'll use that." "You convince the duke that the borderlands aren't safe."
Well, what if I decided it would be more advantageous to convince the duke that the gnolls are a greater force than he had estimated originally, that his prejudice was blinding him? What if I wanted to convince the duke that while he may be right that the gnolls aren't much of a threat to his forces, his peasants are vulnerable?
I'd rather see a situation where you have the success / failure threshold, but the DM simply announce the nature of the challenge ("Skill challenge: escape the city!" or "Skill challenge: survive in the desert!") and let the PCs explain what skills they're going to use in that challenge, and why they think those skills should work. This is the one area where I feel 4e absolutely, positively screwed up.
Formulaic skill challenges are the one thing I absolutely do not like.
Last edited by Cryptos; 28th September 2008 at 04:13 AM..
Yeah, that would have helped. Then again, with the way rolls were going, the Rogue would never have hit.
Granted, my players are a level higher, but when flanking, the rogue has +14 tohit and does 1d4+5+2d8+3 damage. So almost
Seriously, I think it is important to understand that strikers in 4e are truely that. Strikers. They do a significant amount of damage compared to the other classes, and if you do not have them, combats will take more rounds.
"Bring enough DPS, and you won't need any healing" It worked in EQ, it worked in WoW, and it certainly works in DND
__________________
360 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 22nd level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Edit: Another one, and this is a big one so I'm surprised I forgot it. They created skill use railroading with skill challenges. "You can use one of these four skills to win this challenge, and when you succeed I'll tell you how you used that skill." "I have diplomacy, I'll use that." "You convince the duke that the borderlands aren't safe."
But that's not the case at all. The rules explicitly state that you should allow players to use any skill they want to in a challenge, so long as they can justify its use. The "primary" skills represent the ones that the DM expects to be used, and the ones that may have the easiest DCs, but not even remotely the only ones that can be used.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
Either way, in the end, it doesn't really matter if you're facing orcs, skeletons, ogres or devils or whatever, the only thing that changes is their damage values and their defenses. Once you realize a good way to take them down, it'll serve from lvl 1 to lvl 30, except players will get better and better at killing them, and minions won't get any better.
Uhm. Isn't this kinda sorta one of the points of minions? They're not really *meant* to be challenges on the same level as non-minions. They're *supposed* to go down easy and in huge quantities...
Feature, not a bug.
__________________ ______________
Prince Nightchilde
I'm always looking for new Friends on Xbox Live & the Playstation Network. My username is Nightchilde. Add me!
Another one, and this is a big one so I'm surprised I forgot it. They created skill use railroading with skill challenges. "You can use one of these four skills to win this challenge, and when you succeed I'll tell you how you used that skill." "I have diplomacy, I'll use that." "You convince the duke that the borderlands aren't safe."
Well, what if I decided it would be more advantageous to convince the duke that the gnolls are a greater force than he had estimated originally, that his prejudice was blinding him? What if I wanted to convince the duke that while he may be right that the gnolls aren't much of a threat to his forces, his peasants are vulnerable?
I'd rather see a situation where you have the success / failure threshold, but the DM simply announce the nature of the challenge ("Skill challenge: escape the city!" or "Skill challenge: survive in the desert!") and let the PCs explain what skills they're going to use in that challenge, and why they think those skills should work. This is the one area where I feel 4e absolutely, positively screwed up.
Formulaic skill challenges are the one thing I absolutely do not like.
I suggest that you read the Skill Challenges section once more.
As Mouseferatu has pointed out, you are welcome to try any skill in a skill challenge, provided that you can justify its use. Besides, it helps a lot if the players become used to combining roleplaying with skill rolls
For example:
Player (in character) "But, my lord duke! You must understand that Khan Yehogeh has united the Gnoll tribes into a greater force than we had estimated originally! If we strike at them now, we will disrupt their entire invasion plan!" Player (to the DM) "OK, I'm using diplomacy to try to bang some sense into the blockheaded duke" [rolls] "Ok, its a 14, plus 11, its a 25."
DM (to the Player) "OK, that is success number 2 out of 4 needed... The duke pauses for a moment, doubt shadowing his face" DM (in character) "But, even in that case, I see little reason to invest more forces in a preemptive strike. If what you are saying is true, we should instead focus on defending the town!"
And so on...
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Now back into topic, what still bugs me about 4th edition is:
1- The designers tried to get rid of alignment, were blocked by someone higher up, and we ended up with a weird pastiche of previous alignments.
2- Homebrewing races is simple enough, but homebrewing classes (or even alternative builds to existing classes) involves creating (or heavily refluffing) at least 40 powers, which must be balanced against the existing ones... Not for amateurs!
3- The GSL... Someone needs to give the Rouse a Cluebat to bang some sense into WotC's management.
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
Uhm. Isn't this kinda sorta one of the points of minions? They're not really *meant* to be challenges on the same level as non-minions. They're *supposed* to go down easy and in huge quantities...
Feature, not a bug.
If you really understood my post, and are saying that minions should really be meant to be sort of a threat at low levels and completely irrelevant at higher levels, and think that that's actually a feature.... well, that's just stupid, otherwise they could just rule that minions level tops at 5.
The game feels rushed to me. Seriously, there's a lot of good ideas in 4e, but I feel a lot of it hasn't been tested enough. Some tangible effects that irk me in that department:
-Hitpoints seem to high. This has been a very minor issue to us so far, but i is noticeable ever so slightly and we are only level 3, and it's an issue that grows with the levels.
-Skill DCs and Skill challenges are a mess. As written Skill Challenges, even with the errata, don't improve a game they are used in.
There are many smaller such issues that don't come to mind right now, but that I feel all the time playing it. These are the only issues that really irritate me. Game fundamentals will be screwy for the lifetime of the edition.
At this time it's mostly a feeling, granted, but I don't expect it to be proven wrong.
Also bugging:
-Treasure/items are still very ingrained. It was said all that has to be adjusted to be able to ignore magic items are the boni from the +X items. However there's also masterwork armor that's assumed to be on the PC's and many minor things (critical hit dmg) that really add up on PC power.
-Designers already break the rules. Flat boni from items other than neck/armor/weapon where supposed to be a no go, yet, in the Adventurers Vault there are such items. I wasn't naive enough to believe this wouldn't happen, but that it would be in the first setting neutral supplement was a negative suprise.
Yes. Which is hardly a 4E issue, given that it applies to every edition of the game.
Yep, I not only meant that in a D&D edition neutral way, but an RPG neutral way. I fail to think of an RPG where that statement doesn't hold true, except something like Amber diceless. IE RPG's that don't use "luck" to determine outcomes.
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
