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

[Vocenoctum]

4e doesn't have cooldowns for PC's like MMORPG's, only previous versions did. The comparison is to 4e, and therefore is incorrect. Streamlining roles is good game design. The roles have always existed (read Role-Playing Master (C) 1987 by E. Gary Gygax), nothing new here - only the comparison is. Gygax calls wizards Artillery and fighters Tanks. Many gamers weren't even born yet. Video games such as MMORPG's didn't exist yet. The lexicon already existed, but has become more well defined and is now fully shared.

RPG's have always had a generality of roles, certainly. MMO's tightly defined these roles as a function of gameplay. and 4e has followed that pattern into tightly defining it.

If you don't see that, look at the agro mechanics, or the strict definition of who can be an ARCHER for heaven's sake. Wizards, Druids, Clerics, they used to share plenty of spells. Now the powers are divided up, with sharing based only on dabbling with a feat into another class. (itself a huge cut of 3e's multiclassing) Even two weaponing can only be done efficiently by the ranger.

In defining the roles further, they didn't accentuate the positives. They just ripped that potential from other races so they could define it tighter.

I never said their were no similarities. I said, "they've always existed because MMORPG's are based off of D&D." This whole comparison that 4e is a video game is bogus. It's the other way around. Video games emulate D&D.

So, you think it feels like a video game because video games share the same base...

So you do think it feels like a video game? "D&D is a video game" is a straw man, no one said everything is the same. Folks speak to a general tone that feels more like the video gamey "fight, rest, fight, rest" mechanic.

If you're a WoW player, reading through the book, you can spot plenty of "WoWisms" right down to the sample characters looking like talent trees from the game.

 

[Andor]

Since when are 3e classes filled with plots, intrigue, and social situations? Since when are Classes and Prestige Classes about out of combat options? They never have been. Classes and Prestige classes are about combat and powers that are useful in combat.

DMG pg 189 Horizon Walker. A Ranger prestige class for explorers whose powers are entirely focused on adapting to harsh enviroments and not on combat.

For that matter the Loremaster isn't particularly combat focused either.

The Eberron Campaign setting gives us the Extreme Explorer and Master Inquisitive neither of whom are combat focused. For that matter a House Tharashk Heir of Siberys isn't exactly a combat powerhouse. Or at least not because of that prestige class.

Complete adventurer offers us the Blood Hound, Dungeon Delver, Exemplar, Maester and Spymaster none of whom are combat focused.

Do I really need to go on? 3e has plenty of out-of-combat material. 4e has... um ... some skills have non combat uses. And that's about it.

For the love of rolling dice people why the anger towards anyone who suggest 3e may not be completely obsolecent? 4e is not perfect for everything. If you want a campaign of intrigue in a bardic colledge 4e doesn't offer a hell of a lot.

 

[timbannock]

See, that is exactly the kind of thing that violates the "reasonable person" standard. That is a well put and concise description of why 4e feels video-gamey to me.

Thank you.


RC

Except it doesn't make sense. Not in the 4e I've run, anyway. Or read.

Perform skill:
Why is the perform skill a dealbreaker? Are new skills that hard to create?

 

[Vocenoctum]

Well, I barely thought about converting my existing PCs... I wanted to play with the "new toys" of the game. Of course, if your group doesn't contain much of the core D&D classes (Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard), no surprise that converting between editions proves problematic. Though in the end, conversions always are difficult.

It was actually kind of funny seeing how many iconics couldn't make it to the new system...

 

[LostSoul]

See, that is exactly the kind of thing that violates the "reasonable person" standard. That is a well put and concise description of why 4e feels video-gamey to me.

Thank you.

No problem!

I don't really understand, though. How does acknowledging that a player is the one making decisions for the character mean that the character can't, in his fictional world, take any action that a resonable person with a similar skill set could take?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

for the love of rolling dice people why the anger towards anyone who suggest 3e may not be completely obsolecent? 4e is not perfect for everything.

qft.

 

[DandD]

It was actually kind of funny seeing how many iconics couldn't make it to the new system...

Which iconics are you talking about? The Barbarian, who became iconic in the 3rd edition (he was better then the fighter in every way, safe for heavy armour, unless you invested a feat in it, or bought mithral fullplate)? The sorceror, who became iconic too in 3rd, and who's only viable difference from the wizard was already taken away from the new wizard? The bard, who has been decried as useless character class, and the only one really dependent on a perform (music instrument) ability?

The goal of the 4th edition team is a good one. Don't throw in mechanics that don't work or make superficial characters. Only publish them when the mechanics are sound and workable.

Now, when the PHB II-classes come out, we will see if the classes are somehow good or not. But no half-baked classes that are system-mastery-traps. That was the worst thing 3rd edition ever introduced.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No problem!

I don't really understand, though. How does acknowledging that a player is the one making decisions for the character mean that the character can't, in his fictional world, take any action that a resonable person with a similar skill set could take?

Game mechanics that can be perceived by an inhabitant of the fantasy world can and will be noticed by a character unless the player just agrees to handwave and turn a blind eye. A reasonable person will notice the difference between the actual effectiveness of using a power and a the lack of effect for using a fluff filler and calling it the same thing. As long as the players in a game generally know when they score a hit and when they miss, these effects become obvious.

In the disarm example, the fighter will know that his opponent actually loses combat effectiveness ( hp damage) from his power and be equally aware when his opponent drops his weapon but is otherwise unaffected. A character who does not notice this is very unaware. ( And the dumb as rocks fighter is a classic) For sharper characters this makes no sense.

If narration truly ruled over mechanics then a character could just claim to be the greatest swordsman ever and refuse to accept hp damage because he is "just that good". That doesn't work.

What 4E does is lay down the law on the combat board and leaves players to clean up thier own inconsistency mess with a handwavy "whatever works". As long as combat is reasonably balanced I can live with this for a beer and pretzels combat session but as system for playing a character who is actually part of a world It fails to impress me.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Which iconics are you talking about?

I was replying to a post where he mentioned not bringing characters forward, and was talking about 3e iconics.

As for your retort, I've already said that in my view, 4e is a great core game, but that too much of the stuff they just didn't convert. IMO, development ended too late/ too quickly, and troublesome problems were simply excised rather than corrected. The fact that these elements may/ will be eventually converted and be available for extra money at some point isn't really to my advantage.

 

[Fifth Element]

DMG pg 189 Horizon Walker. A Ranger prestige class for explorers whose powers are entirely focused on adapting to harsh enviroments and not on combat.

For that matter the Loremaster isn't particularly combat focused either.

The Eberron Campaign setting gives us the Extreme Explorer and Master Inquisitive neither of whom are combat focused. For that matter a House Tharashk Heir of Siberys isn't exactly a combat powerhouse. Or at least not because of that prestige class.

Complete adventurer offers us the Blood Hound, Dungeon Delver, Exemplar, Maester and Spymaster none of whom are combat focused.

To be fair, you should only be using examples from the 3.0 core books, not from 3.5 or splats and settings from years after 3E was first released.

That narrows your list down to loremaster (horizon walker was not in 3.0), which is a pretty good example, though IIRC most of the "loremaster secrets" you can acquire involve improving combat-related stats (BAB, HP, F/R/W etc).