D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[LostSoul]

Trip and disarm come to mind.

(Found here)

There's no reason you can't trip or disarm someone - unless your DM disagrees. See page 42. It lists the DCs that you need to knock someone prone or strip their weapon away from them.

You can't disarm someone and do 2[W] + Str mod damage unless you have Exorcism of Steel, or Trip someone and do damage without the appropriate power.

 

[phloog]

I will concede that calling upon Rule Zero is a sign of a problem, which could be either with the rules or with how you want to run your campaign. I think that everyone should also just generally agree that using Rule Zero does not make a problematic rule okay....REGARDLESS of revision of the game. It's amazing how often I see someone saying 'well we could just Rule Zero that' for THEIR favorite version, but they're unwilling to allow the same out for a version they dislike.

 

[Fenes]

All that might possibly remain in question is whether or not they are mundane. If they are not, then this is a valid justification without hand waving of why they are daily, but then D&D becomes a game where ALL characters have magical powers, regardless of role and regardless of your type of campaign or the type of character the player wants to run.

I think the fluff of 4E is bad. Not just the background, or the campaign setting, but also the power descriptions.

 

[phloog]

There's no reason you can't trip or disarm someone - unless your DM disagrees. See page 42. It lists the DCs that you need to knock someone prone or strip their weapon away from them.

You can't disarm someone and do 2[W] + Str mod damage unless you have Exorcism of Steel, or Trip someone and do damage without the appropriate power.

So what about the dailies I mentioned?

And also I guess, WHY can't you disarm someone AND do damage. I think your example does absolutely nothing in terms of this disagreement, because you brought up Exorcism of Steel.

Is it not 'reasonable and appropriate' to want to disarm AND damage someone if you know how to do that?

So you have listed as an example a reasonable and appropriate thing to want to do in combat (disarm AND damage simultaneously)...if it is not a magical attack or does not have some other non-mundane limits, why would you not use it twice in the same encounter, if it's something you know how to do?

EDIT: The only mundane explanation I can come up with is 'you're too tired out afterwards to do it again immediately' - - but this falls apart because I would imagine that you could absolutely do a DIFFERENT daily/encounter power that has a greater impact and is presumably more exhausting.

 

[LostSoul]

Fighter Level 1 Daily Power Brute Strike, described as shattering armor and bone with a ringing blow.

"Aha! I have struck you a mighty blow with my mundane weapon, using only my martial skill....and if you should dare come back to this place at about the same time tomorrow, I will be able to strike mightily again!"

I agree that you can only do 3[W] damage once per day.

I disagree that you can't "shatter armour and bone with a ringing blow" only once per day.

Level 5 Rain of Steel also comes to mind as something that is seemingly meant to not have any sort of magical source, but if at 8am in the morning you 'swing your weapon about, slashing and cutting into nearby enemies', you need to realize that at 8pm you won't be able to do it again, even if it's a good idea.

Only if you believe that Level 5 Fighters should be able to do this at-will. I imagine that they are always trying to do this, but they are failing. Once in a while, when you get enough skill, you can do it and succeed. Not always, but often enough.

The only way your point has any strength in the face of these is if you introduce the idea that these daily powers are NOT mundane, and are drawing upon some mystical source that replenishes with the rising sun or some other daily event.

I could say that your points only make sense if you have the rules define the gameworld, instead of having what you describe defining the gameworld.

If you want to describe the gameworld in a way that doesn't make sense to you, you can do that. I don't see why you'd want to, though.

Now maybe the constraints on what you can describe are too strong and you can't see how you can describe the mechanics at the table in a way that makes sense in the gameworld. That's fine, it's a question of personal taste. But I think you're wrong when you say you can't describe things in a way that makes sense.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Why is saying it plays like a videogame 'insulting to pnp fans' - - it feels to me like a situation where people are choosing to be insulted. Many people feel that it plays this way to varying degrees, including people who love this new edition.

I find it insulting to even insinuate that. I've been playing D&D for a long time, and if I don't qualify as a P&P Fan, than my bookshelves have lied to me.

I would also suggest that if there are instances where it begins to sound like people have memorized a complaint, it may be a sign that the complaint is in fact VALID. I can't tell you how many times people have warned me not to eat raw chicken, and I'm frankly tired of their rote complaints about the issues with doing so.

The internet doesn't allow for admission of valid points for the "other side", so you have to instead be insulted.

Points where 4e is like WoW:
Tightly defined class roles: check
Minor variations within the class to pretend to be more different than it is: check. (talents vs sample builds)
Disenchanting to reduce to generic stuff to use to enchant: Check (Actually, WoW was first here, has better variety too)
Recharge Time: check (replace short rest with 2 minutes in WoW, or long rest with 30 minutes in WoW)
Races that add minor benefits, with no weakeness: check
Lots of combat powers that require little adjudication: check

I mean, really, what sets it apart? Quest XP? oh, whoops...

 

[JesterOC]

I'd be interested in hearing your take on this then in more detail. It sounds like as it's playing out in your campaign, the wizard was able to deceive, open doors (stealing thunder from the rogues), distract enemies, and understand languages (thus stealing thunder from those with language skills).

What is your opinion then of this thunder stealing?

There is no thunderstealing at the moment. But the cantrips did make things a bit easier.

Mage hand use: The opening doors was for an unlocked door, but they were afraid of a trap. If the trap was there, a rogue could have disarmed it, which is much better than having it go off and alert the dungeon to the parties presence. The mage hand just helps reduce the chance of someone getting hurt.

The lighting of the fire caught me by suprise I had assumed they would use a sun rod. So it just saved them from using a sun rod. No biggy.

The smell of meat for the bear could have been done in a more mundane fashion. Perhaps by tossing rocks down into the cave, but it was safer to use an invisible think like a scent because the kobolds had less of a chance to notice it.

The comprehend languages was the most dangrous use. It took 10 minutes to accomplish the ritual. Durring that time they holed up in a small room. I rolled for 'Random encounters' about 5 times, which is honestly more than I would have done if they kept moving, but I think I was subconsciously trying to let them know that rituals in the enemies lair is risky.

Overall he added a lot to the party communication. Everyone added their coments on just how it they should work the plan. Until Yesterday most of their plans where, kick down door, kill all inside.

Now this can work out quite differently with different players, but for us it really made the session much more enjoyable.

JesterOC

 

[phloog]

Perhaps the problem is in the fluff that WOTC has described...but I still don't like the idea that only certain times per day can you really get a mighty whack in. We can agree to disagree on that, but I don't think the point is that I am UNABLE to describe why they can't do it at will...and I KNOW that the point is not that I WANT them to be able to do huge insane damage at will...the point was only that you have to do a bit of leaping and hand waving to explain away how sometimes you can do this mundane thing, and sometimes you can't...

...and I think for me this is another revolutionary, not evolutionary bit of the game that probably rubs me the wrong way. It feels like WOTC has given us a form of 'Plot Cards'...not sure if there's an official term for these, but those little cards that are intended to give players more control over the plot "I play this card and it turns out the bandit chieftain and I are friends from way back!". It's well-intentioned but always in practice ends up a bit goofy.

But I think my earlier statement is likely more accurate - -WOTC has turned this into a game where wizards are mighty in combat, this I knew long ago...but it also turns out that all classes have been given powers that are essentially magic...and Vancian magic at that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

These are the points that turn a "review" into "edition wars" and get everyone on your case

This is exactly why so many people who don't support 4e are getting so sick and goddamn tired of the "edition wars" BS; because they can't criticize ANYTHING about the game without someone jumping on them and claiming they're trying to start an edition war.

 

[Janx]

One thing that I like about the new spell system is that a person doesn't have to choose between memorizing an out of combat spell or a combat spell.

Also, with spells being memorized at the start of the day in earlier editions it tended to negate the benefits of a large, diverse spell list. Assuming the player didn't know the exact tasks that would be required that day it was safer to go with the more generic spells.

BINGO!

back in 2E, we house ruled that wizards and clerics didn't have to memorize, but were still constrained by number of spell castings per day (just like Sorcerors in 3E). Intant fix, for the same problem.

4E simply has a different solution.