D&D 4E Some Thoughts on 4e

[KarinsDad]

Really I guess I can just encourage you, KarinsDad, to play 4e more creatively. You're obviously a creative, intelligent player, which is why all the negativity seems somehow inconsistent. I can say that for me 4e took about two months to get used to all the new rules, and the new paradigms in play. Past that, it's been amazing smooth, fun, and creative. It's to the point where the one time I've gone back and played 3.5, the system I used to really love, I spent a lot of time wishing it was more like 4e.

I do not disagree in part. 4E is smooth. 4E can be fun (for a while). 4E is more balanced.

4E is just not creative fodder. Some people see creativity in pushing a foe into a flank or pushing a foe off a ledge (both of which have happened multiple times in our games). To me, these are just additional minor options. It's not that the spell cannot do more than damage, it's that meh.

I really did enjoy the "newness" and "shininess" of 4E when it first came out. It just got repetitive for me. The Ranger often uses Twin Strike. The Wizard often uses Cloud of Daggers or Scorching Burst. The Cleric often uses Lance of Faith. Sure, Encounter and Daily powers get used, but half of a battle for most PCs is the bread and butter At Will power. The other half is the same ol few Encounter powers with an occassional Daily thrown in.

At least for the spell casters in 3E (except Sorcerers and Psions), most rounds was a different spell. Creativity was the name of the game for spell casters. It was encouraged by the game mechanics.

And maybe it's our DM. He is running the H series. That series has a certain mundane WotC flavor to it. One week, he added a gem sudoku puzzle to the game (which I assume was not in the module). That week was a blast because it was not just repetitive combat or repetitive skill challenge. But, for the most part, more than half the group is thinking that 4E is getting a lot less shiny.

To each their own I guess.

 

[Kishin]

And, versatility does not equate to lack of balance. Many weaker powers can be balanced with fewer stronger powers.

It does when the Wizard/Cleric can do everything the other classes can do better than they do it with a few simple spells.

Unfortunately, every class is now balanced with fewer strong powers.

That option is gone in 4E as well. Hit with the nerf bat.

Blessedly so. I played a 14th level Transmuter in the last days prior to 4E. I was stupefied by my own capacity in relation to the other PCs. Sure, the warforged fighter could power attack for massive amounts of damage. I could rearrange the entire battlefield and undo several enemies turns with one spell. I could also one shot anything without Fort as its good save, and even the things with a good Fort save weren't that safe.

But, back on topic. The reason why people are reluctant to cast Rituals because of their gp cost is built into the gamer mentality, explained within the first 30 seconds of Yahtzee's Mercenaries 2 review: The Escapist : Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : Mercenaries 2

But summarized here: Gamers are all about 'But I might need it later' and therefore will sit upon a nuclear arsenal to shame North Korea while throwing peas at a giant robot crab on the off chance that right around the corner is another, bigger giant robot crab.

 

[Wish]

The trade-off is that more than two classes can be deep and involved, and that is a good thing.

Wow, I don't even know where to start.

I guess first off, if that's how you were playing 3.X, you were doing it wrong. Fighter was about the only class that didn't have anything interesting to contribute out of combat. That lack of utility for fighters was a flaw, but monks, druids, rogues, rangers, barbarians, paladins, etc all could play out of combat just fine.

Second, the real problem isn't that more than two classes can be 'deep and involved' it's that in 4th edition none of the classes are deep and involved. None of them have any depth out of combat, at all. The authors of the system clearly recognized this, however, and so they came up with a mechanic to let these flat, featureless characters cut to the chase and dice their way through all the investigative and role-playing sections of adventures and get to more combats. Thus was born the skill challenge - a necessary contrivance in a world where nobody really has any skill not directly related to combat or bargaining for a better pay rate prior to combat.

 

[Kishin]

The authors of the system clearly recognized this, however, and so they came up with a mechanic to let these flat, featureless characters cut to the chase and dice their way through all the investigative and role-playing sections of adventures and get to more combats. Thus was born the skill challenge - a necessary contrivance in a world where nobody really has any skill not directly related to combat or bargaining for a better pay rate prior to combat.

You mean they designed a task-based resolution system that accomodates instances where the player playing the character may not have the investigative/social acumen to accurately portray those of the character? Perish the thought! Who let the quiet kid play the Bard?

Roleplaying is system independent. Flavor skills are for flavor.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

The game has been dummied down to the least common denominator.

Oh give me a flying break. Is this ever going to stop?

Many weaker powers can be balanced with fewer stronger powers.

Actually, uh, 3e sort of irrevocably demonstrated that this is absolutely 100% not the case. Hence the need for band-aids like the feat that gave you +4 caster level; because having lots of weak powers is absolutely, positively weaker than having fewer stronger ones.

 

[ppaladin123]

Originally Posted by KarinsDad
The game has been dummied down to the least common denominator.

Could you use more neutral terms like "simplified," or even "over-simplified?" I am getting tired of hearing that a game I like is less sophisticated, designed for "the masses" (I have seen that expression used several times by other posters), dummied down, etc.

Regardless of how you intend it, it comes off as elitist. The game we like is less sophisticated, dumb, designed for the unwashed masses. The potential implication is that people who like 4e are therefore less sophisticated, dumb and members of "the masses," as opposed to the elite (those who prefer 3e or another system).

I like 3e. I like 4e a bit more despite some issues I have with it. I don't think this makes me any less of a role player, gamer, intellect, etc.

Again, I am not suggesting that you personally meant to insult anyone. I am just noting that certain word choices can lead to others taking offense.

 

[James McMurray]

Such as? Your few spells that can typically be cast once per day each? You call that significant options?

Miscellaneous Spells in Combat:

• Ghost Sound: make them think enemies are coming
• Light: As above
• Light: cast it on something they're carrying to negate their ability to hide
• Mage Hand: it doesn't matter who is carrying what gear, because the party wizard can move potions and similar small objects around the battlefield at will
• Mage Hand: great for when the combat includes a trap and you can't get to the deactivator switch
• Presitidigation: Put out the light sources. Best at higher levels when everyone has Goggles of Night or something else to help with the darkness.
• Prestidigiatation: make the rogue's blade invisible. That should be worth a bonus to his bluff check
• Feather Fall: your warrior mage can grab someone and carry them both off a cliff, using FF to survive. Not spectacularly powerful, but could be fun.
• Disguise Self: Whose orders will they follow when you and their Leader look and sound the same (sound requires Bluff for disguise).
• Levitate: not being in melee range of your enemies is some good.
• Arcane Gate: who needs your enemies near a hazard to push them onto it? This plus an action point thunderwave can drive all sorts of people off cliffs, into fires, etc.
• (Mass) Fly: see Levitate, but better
• Mordenkainen's Mansion: Fight going badly? Jump in and then Planar Portal home.
  
  I didn't include anything that was obviously combat oriented but didn't deal damage, but those all break your "spells = powers = damage" paradigm as well.

Out of Combat spells with no cost:

• All of the cantrips
• Many damaging spells can affect the envronment in interesting ways
• Jump: very love level pseduo-flight. Great for some kinds of skill challenges
• Dimension Door: nuff said
• Disguise Self: You'll probably want a feat to train in Bluff, but looking like someone else can have amazing benefits with planning
• Invisibility: sustains as a standard, but I doubt anyone will argue that being unseen isn't worthwhile.
• Levitate: not quite flight, but can help a lot in skill challenges or with obstacles
• Wall of Fog: with the proper environmental conditions this might not even be seen as magic, and can cover an attack or retreat pretty well.
• Blur: you have to stay 5 squares away, but this invisibility spell doesn't need to be sustained
• Arcane Gate: like dim. door, but for as many people as can run through it in five minutes
• Resistance: there are many times you might take damage that don't involve combat
• (Mass) Fly: yep, it's good
• Greater Invisibility: less restrictive than blur, and easier to sustain than the lower level version
• Mordenkainen's Mansion: Long rest anywhere? Yes, please.

Spell with negligible cost:
Any rituals several levels lower than you has a cost that is as close to 0gp as you can get when compared to what you find at that level.

I didn't look beyond the PHB, and didn't call out each ritual and what level their price becomes near-meaningless. It's definitely nowhere near the swiss army knife that past edition's mages have been, but a dislike of that is easily remedied by playing those editions. "One man does all if he survives a few levels" is the opposite of the 4e design goal, which is more akin to "let's let everyone have fun all the time."

 

[Nail]

[*]Light: cast it on something they're carrying to negate their ability to hide.

Does this worK?

That is: Can you target an opponent's equipment as the "one object" the cantrip mentions?

 

[James McMurray]

It says nothing about who is or isn't holding the object. Per the RAW it works.

 

[KarinsDad]

"One man does all if he survives a few levels" is the opposite of the 4e design goal, which is more akin to "let's let everyone have fun all the time."

Interesting list. Course, it's really a very tiny subset of 3E's core options both in and out of combat. A lot of people say "Well, they haven't yet put out all of the 4E splat books yet". In 3E, they didn't have to. Players could do summons and illusions and create undead and all kinds of options without waiting for splat books.

As for the design goal you mention, it's really "let's create one type of combat fun for everyone": damage, heal, and a few conditions thrown in.

Note: And it wasn't a few levels of survival in 3E, it was 10+. Nor did any one PC class do it all.