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

[ExploderWizard]

Okay. How about this: I describe smacking some guy, and then the next guy who misses me I describe as hitting me - but I take it and can keep going because my hatred pushes me on.

So how does describing a miss as a hit or vice versa model what is actually happening in the world?

DM: " With a mighty blow of his hammer, chief Pulpem strikes you squarely across the chest"

Player: " No he didn't"

DM: " He totally did dude. you got hit."

Player: " No way. He misses. I sidestepped and and totally stabbed him in the spleen"

DM: " Why are we rolling dice again?"

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Out of curiosity, when did it become the job of the player to justify the rules?

In previous games, magic AND non-magic effects did what they described. A fireball was a ball of fire, and it destroyed things and set other things on fire. But in 4e, it's not a ball of fire - it's a very specific damage effect that doesn't set anything on fire. Same with non-magical abilities. Whirlwind did exactly what it said - you whirl around and attack everything around you, and you could do it whenever the opportunity presented itself. Tripping was tripping someone. And when someone couldn't use magic more then X times a day, it's because it was magic. Yes, there were non-magical x/day abilities, but the thing was, people didn't like those. So why add more?

That's the issue people have with 4e. As someone's sig that I really like said, you should build combat around the world, not the world around combat. But 4e doesn't do either - the world and combat are in separate little boxes that aren't allowed to interact. When the abilities are looked at, they aren't looked at as "How does this character interact with the world?"

And thus, the players have to attempt to put the two together and justify it.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

Out of curiosity, when did it become the job of the player to justify the rules?

When the concept of Hit Points was introduced.

 

[LostSoul]

So how does describing a miss as a hit or vice versa model what is actually happening in the world?

On a "real" hit, hit points are subtracted.

If we look at an attack as an attempt to reduce hit points, and a healing surge as an attempt to increase hit points, then a miss can be a hit + a healing surge.

So I can say, on a hit, "I take it in the spleen", or, "I dodge out of the way and it just barely misses me, throwing me off balance."

I can say, on a miss, "I take it in the spleen and it just pisses me off," or, "I dodge out of the way."

None of those descriptions fall outside the constraints the mechanics give us.

 

[AllisterH]

Oh Hell no.

We were having such a fine discussion, but now we're heading towards discussing HP?

Where is that trainwreck jpeg when I need it.


I stand by what one of my DMs back during 1E said (after we tried to rationalize healing and HP)

"Looking at HP too closely is like looking at the sun directly with binoculars. All you do is get seriously screwed up".

 

[Starbuck_II]

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...

I'm pretty sure Ebberon was first. The Artificer did it.

 

[Jack99]

Oh Hell no.

We were having such a fine discussion, but now we're heading towards discussing HP?

Where is that trainwreck jpeg when I need it.

 

[Ulrick]

I ran and enjoyed 4e for the first time last Sunday evening.

We played using pre-generated characters from the Keep on the Shadowfell and ran them through the short adventure in the back of the DMG. Overall, player response was positive. There were a few remarks how the game was something out of a videogame, not WoW, but Final Fantasy. And the person playing the wizard really liked the ability to cast magic missile over and over again, but didn't like being limited to the amount of spells she could cast.

I, on the otherhand, found 4e enjoyable to run! 3.5e almost killed my enthusiasm to run a game. I love how combat is faster and intuitive. I like how each monster has a "role" to play. I could go into more detail, but a lot what I enjoy about 4e has been said elsewhere.

What I would like to know is, can 4e be run as a low magic game without seriously tweeking things, like one had to do in 3.5e?

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'm pretty sure Ebberon was first. The Artificer did it.

I assume you mean first before 4e, since WoW's been out for a while. Artificers didn't cover all the cost, but since folks often said 3e was videogamey, it doesn't really change the fact.

 

[Staffan]

I'm pretty sure Ebberon was first. The Artificer did it.

Concurrent development. Both WoW and Eberron were released in 2004, and developed a while before that.