4E, as an anti-4E guy ...

[Primitive Screwhead]

This is one of the really big thing that keeps me from 4e: if so many powers and items and monsters have similar effects I don't need each individual one to be built, just a system for doing it myself. The only other thing would be how tied into the grid everything is, but at least if the books contained fewer boring things to read I might have at least picked up the core books.

I really like the build-a-power systems and the flexibity they engender in theory. In play, however, you generally have players who build the most effective combinations...

I was concerned about this aspect of 4e and have since learned that WoTC is doing a pretty decent job of tilting the powers towards what the character class is supposed to do and still provide flexibilitiy within each class to be distinctly different than another character of the same class. Have two Druid characters and two Fighter characters.. same class, same point buy, a couple of the same feats... but each plays very differently at the table. My 'Furious Ball of Fur' druid acts has powers and abilities that make the aggresive, charge in first and take a bit out of it approach effective and fun. Meanwhile, by more civilized druid stands out of harms way and makes it easier for everyone else.... except the bad guys. The mechanics support the character concept fully and entertaingly.

Jeff.. glad you are giving it a try and I hope to hear more of your thoughts on the game. I am always looking for a different perpsective that might help me improve the game I run.

 

[Mallus]

I wonder if my opinion of 4e would be less positive if my initial experience of it came from the published modules?

Our group uses a homebrew setting/adventures exclusively. And I use the term 'adventure' loosely, since it's really more the DM creating situations in response to the nutty things the PC's try to do (with the occasional, requisite "NPC's kicking in our doors").

I mean, I like the system (although I was initially surprised as how much it diverged from even late 3e). But I like what my friends and I have done with (to?) it even more.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I really like the build-a-power systems and the flexibity they engender in theory. In play, however, you generally have players who build the most effective combinations...

It's not about how flexible it is or not, nor whether it can be abused. It's just too much to see pages upon pages of powers with similar effects.

The mechanics support the character concept fully and entertaingly.

When you play. When you just look at it you don't necessarily see what it's going to become. I don't think one should have to understand the mechanics of something to line their concept up with how it's actually going to work.

 

[Mallus]

It's just too much to see pages upon pages of powers with similar effects.

Before my group started playing 4e, my eyes would glaze over every time I tried to read a classes power list. Then again, these are game rules. They're supposed to play well --and I think 4e does.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Before my group started playing 4e, my eyes would glaze over every time I tried to read a classes power list. Then again, these are game rules. They're supposed to play well --and I think 4e does.

And you don't get tired with the similarity of the way moves work? "Push this, slide that, do this much damage of that type, you get to add a bonus from this item". If there were more flavor in the workings themselves I wouldn't think the moves so useless, but as they stand it seems like a lot of work for all the same nothing.

 

[Mallus]

And you don't get tired with the similarity of the way moves work?

Not while playing the game, no.

 

[Harlekin]

And you don't get tired with the similarity of the way moves work? "Push this, slide that, do this much damage of that type, you get to add a bonus from this item". If there were more flavor in the workings themselves I wouldn't think the moves so useless, but as they stand it seems like a lot of work for all the same nothing.

This similarity seems strong when reading them, because all the rules effect are condensed in one region. In play, they actually are quite different, especially the encounter and daily powers. Between the core 5 players in my group, 3 have a daily power that I would call a clear signature move for the character. Moreover, the encounter powers give most PCs quite a distinct feel. (The Warlord, curiously, seems to be most defined by his at wills).

Particularly the fighter and the paladin appear much more distinct in play than they would if both were characters in earlier editions.

 

[Halivar]

Not while playing the game, no.

Same here. On paper, you would think every class is the same. But when you put each seemingly cookie cutter power in the context of the greater class power list, you begin to see the differences. My paladin and my friend's cleric both have powers that heal nearby allies on a melee hit. But our respective power lists are tailored in such a way that our use of what is essentially the same power is vastly different, because we are otherwise tactically unique.

I look at it like this. There are not many kinds of lego's. Each lego brick is just like many other lego bricks (unless you have "special pieces"). In fact, most lego bricks appear in every set. And yet the arrangement and number of each lego brick type in a pack drastically changes what you can build with those lego's.

 

[Montague68]

And you don't get tired with the similarity of the way moves work? "Push this, slide that, do this much damage of that type, you get to add a bonus from this item". If there were more flavor in the workings themselves I wouldn't think the moves so useless, but as they stand it seems like a lot of work for all the same nothing.

I know this has been said numerous times, but you have to play it in order to see it work. Before 4E came out I was virulently against it - vowed I was never going to play it, etc etc. The PA podcasts made me curious, bought the books, ran a session, and we haven't looked back.

The best way I can explain it is that all the pushing, pulling, sliding effects and the other power effects allow for a lot more tactical variance into the game itself. My party was grateful for all those forced moves when they ran into an undead beholder with a free attack aura (can't remember the precise name at the moment), and they've learned some very effective combinations like Come & Get It + Consecrated Ground.

The game has it's flaws here and there but nothing that can't be houseruled away, as we've all done for the last 30 some odd years.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Same here. On paper, you would think every class is the same. But when you put each seemingly cookie cutter power in the context of the greater class power list, you begin to see the differences. My paladin and my friend's cleric both have powers that heal nearby allies on a melee hit. But our respective power lists are tailored in such a way that our use of what is essentially the same power is vastly different, because we are otherwise tactically unique.

The best way I can explain it is that all the pushing, pulling, sliding effects and the other power effects allow for a lot more tactical variance into the game itself. My party was grateful for all those forced moves when they ran into an undead beholder with a free attack aura (can't remember the precise name at the moment), and they've learned some very effective combinations like Come & Get It + Consecrated Ground.

And what about if you're not tactically-inclined?

On a related note, for anyone who can answer:
Approximately how many powers have non-battle uses? (Just to clarify: I'm not talking about skill challenge mechanics. I'm asking how many powers (roughly) have mechanics that could be used to do something in a non-battle situation in a useful way.)