Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[cangrejoide]

So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch? I understand that there may be a different power curve when characters are expected to get at as high as 30th level. However even a 6th-level fighter in AD&D can put down about three kobolds per round. It's a bit unsettling that a 9th-level DAILY in 4E might average less than it takes to fell even a Kobold Slinger.

The 9th level daily you mentioned can technically kill 8 kobold minions.

At level 30 that same 9th level daily could kill 8 Balor minions.

Meanwhile the badass clearly defined villain could take many more rounds to kill.

 

[Imaro]

... snip...

Good post with some very good points.

It's a good question, but you need to be asking the DM as well as the ruleset.

I'm just curious, when discussing the actual merits of a game, and it's rules how does this factor in to it? Not trying to be snarky just trying to clarify what you mean.

In AD&D, hit points were treated as a biological fact of species. Kobolds were defined by their 1/2 HD as much as anything else, gnolls were significant because they sat between the 1+1 HD of hobgoblins and the 3+1 HD of bugbears, and so on. That started to change with level advancement being an option for humanoids, and then eventually that just raised the question of "So why can't they, like humans, fill pretty much any narrative role you need them to at any level?"

I disagree with you here to a point. I agree that in previous editions hp's were a function of fantasy biology... but I don't see 4e as making hp's a function of narrative role. Instead they've become a function of balancing out in-game challenge to PC's according to role and level. This is mechanics not narrative based design.

I think the basic point of preference is whether you go inside-out or outside-in for antagonist design. One approach basically starts with a fixed stat block for monsters, and then builds their narrative use from there. The other approach starts with the narrative use for a monster, and then builds its stat block from there. In a way, it's kind of like the choices between top-down or ground-up world design.

Yes, but didn't 3e/3.5 porovide you with the tools for both. You could have a world populated by rank and file kobolds, kobolds modified to fit the narrative and/or a mixture of both. The problem, IMO, is that 4e only provides one aspect as opposed to giving you both and letting one decide the type of game he wants.

4e's really not very good for the "the mechanics will be the foundation for the situation" approach, but it's freakin' dynamite for the "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics" approach. Yeah, there are other sleeker systems out there — but there's a definite market for people who want a strong narrative-first approach to a game and a rather robust core game experience married to that.

I'm curious, why do you feel 4e is great for.. "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics"... I guess what I'm wondering is what does it do specifically that makes it great for this type of game. I think it's a great "challenge based on interaction of mechanics in play game", but I fail to see how it in any way promotes or encourages "narrative" first. If anything I feel it promotes mechanics first and applied narrative to fit the mechanics. Now granted the mechanics can often be interpreted in many ways but that still isn't "narrative" first... it's mechanics first.

I'm glad to see it myself. Like you say, there's an embarrassment of riches out there for gamers, and 4e is another neat option to choose. It does what it does very well.

I agree and while I have issues with 4e I still play it, though I honestly can't say I prefer it over 3.5 with E6 (well E8 for my group), C&C or even Exalted 2e for my fantasy fix.

 

[AllisterH]

This may sound like a silly question but presumably people didn't have a problem that an opponent's attack would increase in previous editions so why the problem with defense increasing as well?

I mean, not picking on you personally Korgoth, but when you were playing and wondered why "This guy in the shirt has an AC better than mine in chainmail", why in previous editions didnt you say "This guy wielding a knife has a better attack than me and I'm wielding a battleaxe"

The "half-level" increase to me seems to me anyway as an intrisinic part of D&D just that it is formalized. In pre 3e for example, characters actually got better at resisting effects than at 1st level (Korgoth, give your love of pre 3e D&D, surely you remember when a high level fighter pretty much could laugh in the face of non-damage magical effects like Mass Charm)

 

[Imaro]

Seem to me a lot of the major claims against 4E are people asking it to play like 3E. Can't you realize this is a new edition that plays differently?

If you want a game that plays like 3E, stay playing 3E. If you want a different take on D&D then play 4E or anyother fantasy game that is not 3E.

OK, I said I was through commenting on the kobold/goblin thing, but I really want to make a point about this type of post... What are you trying to accomplish here? I mean honestly, who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't play. This is a forum for discussion, and I am choosing to discuss a particular problem one of my players had with 4e. Please don't tell me that because I don't love every aspect of a game I shouldn't be playing it, because honestly it doesn't add much to the discussion and is liable to get under peoples skin since it's patronizing. I've discussed the problem civily with other posters and have seen other viewpoints, but this type of post is pretty much pointless.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Level nines don't fight level two creatures, and if they do they're minions. The combat system works within five levels of the characters, it does not extend forever in all directions.

This is a problem. A given thing in the game world should be able to interact with any other creature or thing without the fabric of the universe coming apart. Having to turn scrub level things into spontaneous minions just so a high level party won't look ridiculous spending a lot of time fighting them is a rather lazy and patchy solution IMHO.

 

[cangrejoide]

OK, I said I was through commenting on the kobold/goblin thing, but I really want to make a point about this type of post... What are you trying to accomplish here? I mean honestly, who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't play. This is a forum for discussion, and I am choosing to discuss a particular problem one of my players had with 4e. Please don't tell me that because I don't love every aspect of a game I shouldn't be playing it, because honestly it doesn't add much to the discussion and is liable to get under peoples skin since it's patronizing. I've discussed the problem civily with other posters and have seen other viewpoints, but this type of post is pretty much pointless.

I keep hearing comments like "I could do this in 3E why cant I do this under 4E" or "3E did this much better, why doesnt 4E does it like 3E".

Time after time same comments, if thats the case why change to play 4E if 3E did all of that and more? You should play whatever you want to play just dont start blaming a game because its not what you want to play.

its like the Pennyarcade strip of questioning why the cat isnt a dog.

I just dont get it.

/shrug

 

[AllisterH]

This is a problem. A given thing in the game world should be able to interact with any other creature or thing without the fabric of the universe coming apart. Having to turn scrub level things into spontaneous minions just so a high level party won't look ridiculous spending a lot of time fighting them is a rather lazy and patchy solution IMHO.

You know I'm kind of curious about something....

How long should a fight last? In my experience, a level X party that faces a level X encounter, I expect between 5-7 rounds of combat.

A level X party dealing with a level X-5 encounter? In my experience that tends to take no more than 2-3 rounds.

I'm not sure where this idea that 4e combat in general is long comes from (higher level than party SOLO SOLDIERS from the 1st MM can be a true pain in the butt - but a high level normal monster against an equal level normal character and anything over 6-8 rounds and you're doing it wrong...)

With respect to the scenario posted above, there's nothing actually preventing a DM from using the "standard" monster but in fact you're going to be well wasting two rounds of combat for no real gain IMO.

 

[cangrejoide]

This is a problem. A given thing in the game world should be able to interact with any other creature or thing without the fabric of the universe coming apart. Having to turn scrub level things into spontaneous minions just so a high level party won't look ridiculous spending a lot of time fighting them is a rather lazy and patchy solution IMHO.

Isnt it the same thing?

Earlier editions: 9th level party meets a group of 1st level kobolds. Wizard uses fireball and inflcts 20 points of damage each. They are all dead since they had only 4 hit points.


4E: 9th level party meeds a group of 1st level kobolds. Wizard uses fireball and hits all of them. They are all dead since they where minions and die on a hit.

 

[Psion]

I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame

Again, this would be reasons I don't like 4e. 4e seems to me to be the most minis centric edition since OD&D (if that), and has taken pains to shift the balance question entirely to combat. That's more like a wargame to me.

Most folk I have ever played with, want fun. Now, to some, fun is of course, uber detailed simulationism, as said if that's what ye like then fair dinkum, but it is not the reason most folk play D&D.

I think you are bashing strawmen here. Most people don't like "uber detailed simulationism". But that just happens to include, well, most people who like simulationism.

To my perception, people like simulationism at the game table like it because it helps remove obstacles to roleplaying and immersion. When things happen that don't make sense, for some (many? most?) people, that reminds them that it's just a game and breaks suspension of disbelief.

I personally don't care for (for example) the likes of itemized encumbrance. But you don't have to simulate everything to be practicing simulationism. It's a cost/benefit sort of thing. Enforce logic in places that are the most visible and require the least additional effort.

They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders,

Sure. Uh huh. Okay. Nothing here that doesn't happen every session for my 3e games here.

and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.

And once you mention the word "immersed", you've hit on something that my 3e games have done better for me than less simulationist games out there.

(And I do some as part of my regular gaming line up, mind you. But I recognize games for their strengths and weaknesses.)

Your vision of gaming reality is less than universal.

We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.

That wasn't clever over 10 years ago when it was first uttered by someone as a way to declare their "one true way" better than someone else's "badwrongfun". Repition, overuse, and lack of originality in the last 10 years have made it less so.

You also couldn't put in loads of critters in 3rd ed, due to complexity and the very tricky balancing issues, which ruined a whole facet of combat.
Please do not say that is wrong, because it's patently obvious fact (or there wouldn't have had to be so much house ruling etc)

Funny, despite this supposed "fact", I haven't had particular problems. Indeed, if you wanted to pick an end of the spectrum that 3e isn't particular good at (and that 4e had some good answers for), it would be the singular enemy boss fight that, due to economy of actions, 3e parties tended to dominate unless you really loaded down said boss with some unfair abilities.

The Transformers refference was a bit of a cheap shot and shows a disconnect

And what disconnect would that be? I was just responding to how cool you think all the bloodthirstiness and action is.

 

[BryonD]

I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame where there's rules for everything including chaffing from carrying "x" amount of gear giving "y" penalty to hit!

LOL So your argument is to misrepresent the opposing view and then establish a false dichotomy between your misrepresentation and playing with friends.

We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.

Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.
If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*

Are you a 3E fan just pretending to like 4E so you can make 4E fans look dumb?

Do you even know the difference between "fact" and "opinion"?

Why was 3E the "golden age" as Clark Peterson recently put it? Why was it the "high point in a generation" as Joesph Goodman put it? Perhaps they should consult with you before they continue their businesses, as clearly they are unaware of your insights.

I dare anyone to take a new player to D&D, give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed, with E-Tools and the Character Builder, and see which is the most confusing and unpleasant for them to make a character.
it will nearly always be 3.5 ed.

You lose.
If the kind of people one games with finds the very idea of 3E being confusing to be shocking then the freedom to build the character how you want it is much more pleasant.