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

[Imaro]

You say changing the narration was never necessary, but I say it was never allowed! I wasn't supposed to narrate my trip-attempts or regular attacks with such a degree of freedom. Way too often, the rules felt more restrictive on my narration - don't have feat X, don't perform the maneuver described in it! Not that you couldn't use the 4E mindset in 3E, too, but it was not encouraged and many wouldn't fly with that...

This is either true in 4e and 3e or not true in either one. In 4e either you knock someone prone or you don't mechanically...you get a free healing surge from a power or you don't. You can narrate however you want but it's the same thing, only in 4e there is the binary instead of the chance to do it for way more things. It actually takes choice away from a player.

Will probably be included in the PHB II, when bards and other classes will make their appearance. Can't just have PHBs without any new skills, magic items and proposed rules, after all.

As for the first PHB, if you want to do dancing and other body-performing arts, acrobatics is more than enough for that. In fact, that's how it should have been in the first place.

Playing with a fiddle or a violin is problematic for now, but really only the bard had ever usage for that.

The problem with saying just use acrobatics is that D&D 4e has further limited skill choices while still restricting (without the use of a feat) certain skills to certain classes. So unless I spend a feat...I have to be a Ranger or Rogue to dance well.

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?

Never played a babarian so can't comment on that...Sorcerers however, haven't been replaced by Wizards in 4e. Can a Wizard mix and match his dailies and utilities to use them whenever the need for a particular one arises? Or does he still prepare them? He's a sorcerer lite.

The bard apparently was enjoyed by those who didn't focus primarily on combat and as a support character actually wasn't a bad choice.

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.

What is a superficial character? Just curious what is the criteria for this, because I'm not understanding it's usage in this paragraph.

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.

You sure are certain about the future, I think we will see an increase or decrease in power as classes are released. Even in the 4e PHB there is disparity (haven't played long enough to see just how big...but it is there) between effectiveness of classes in the same role.

 

[Imaro]

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).

WOW!! So now it's not just...don't compare 4e core to splat books... it's become wrong to even compare with 3.5 core... That's a real stretch there.

 

[DandD]

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.

The character can claim whatever he wants. What he perceives is what the gm tells the player who controlls him, and what he accomplishes is what the players tells everybody at the table he does in accordance to the game rules.

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.

As everybody should have a modicum of capability to separate in-character and out-of-character knowledge in a roleplaying game, there is really no problem with it. Unless you really play in a Order-of-the-stick-style campaign.
Some things are just meta-game abilities. Levels, the amount of how many spells you can cast, the amount of how many times you can smite evil, perform a defensive roll, attack with your stunning fist and other things, the damage output, all these things are just that. Not-character-knowledge.
You'll have problems too if you want to explain why your character can't perform this things more than once, or why some things get massively better.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

But how did you get from core D&D classes (over several editions) to 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.

Sure? Think about how much space the PHB "I" has devoted for each class. Devoting even more space would have increased either the price, or meant that other parts are restricted. I think the current way is to our benefit. We get the classes (hopefully) in high quality. If I buy the second PHB, I am guaranteed to get something useful, and probably even more then from most supplments so far (though the PHB II for 3E was really good and useful - way better then most 3.5 Completes or 3.0 Splatbooks).

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I'll say it again: Characters only notice these effects if you want them to; and if their noticing these effects bothers you, why would you want them to?

Why don't you want to describe the effects in such a way that the characters don't realize what's going on?

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.

Right, but I don't see how that's really a problem. The fighter executes a nice move, one that he can't pull off all the time, and it's very effective. Sometimes he tries it, and only gets half-way there (a disarm or an attack).

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.

Mechanics provide nice constraints for narration. A character could claim he's the greatest swordsman ever, describe all hit point damage as jarring parries or near misses, and say that he never gets his because he is "just that good".

He's screwed when he goes to 0 hp, though.

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.

Yeah, it does do that, and I can see that it's not everyone's cup of tea. I like it personally because I can describe things in whatever way I think is coolest at the time instead of having to hew closely to the mechanics. The system is abstract enough so that I can really get into character, if that makes any sense.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is either true in 4e and 3e or not true in either one. In 4e either you knock someone prone or you don't mechanically...you get a free healing surge from a power or you don't. You can narrate however you want but it's the same thing, only in 4e there is the binary instead of the chance to do it for way more things. It actually takes choice away from a player.

It is not exactly true or false in either edition. But 4E invites you to do so, because the coupling between narration and mechanics doesn't seem to be as tight.
3E had a feat like "Spell Thematics" that allowed you to change the fluff of your spells, and gave opponents a -2 to identify your spells. This implies that without a special feat, you can't just refluff your abilities. Of course, most groups would probably allow it anyway (just don't expect any mechanical benefits from it).

The problem with saying just use acrobatics is that D&D 4e has further limited skill choices while still restricting (without the use of a feat) certain skills to certain classes. So unless I spend a feat...I have to be a Ranger or Rogue to dance well.

In 3E, I had to spend skill points on cross class skills. I spend 2 points I could have used for a useful class skill and gain just 1 rank in a rank in a lot less powerful cross class skill? And I have to pay this cost every level, and can never hope to get as good as a "class-skiller". I could of course spent one or two feats (Able Mind or Skill Focus) to improve my abilities a little bit.
In 4E I pick one feat and I am set. I am competent at the skill just as anyone else trained in that skill.

Never played a babarian so can't comment on that...Sorcerers however, haven't been replaced by Wizards in 4e. Can a Wizard mix and match his dailies and utilities to use them whenever the need for a particular one arises? Or does he still prepare them? He's a sorcerer lite.

The bard apparently was enjoyed by those who didn't focus primarily on combat and as a support character actually wasn't a bad choice.

People that enjoy supports will love Clerics and Warlords.
People that don't like combat at all will have a problem with D&D in general, since a major part of the system focuses around that. 4E is not a serious improvement in that regard, though skill challenges might make non-combat stuff more interesting for gamists and butt-kickers, possibly improving the chance for the non-comba focused player to have a little more his way. The new classes might make combat more interesting for the non-combattants, since it involves new strategies and a little more activity then the common "I hit/I miss" for martial characters.
And of course the classes have the advantage that you are guaranteed to be good at something in combat, even if you spend all other resources on non-combat stuffs.

You sure are certain about the future, I think we will see an increase or decrease in power as classes are released. Even in the 4e PHB there is disparity (haven't played long enough to see just how big...but it is there) between effectiveness of classes in the same role.

Well, I wonder about that too. So far, most stuff looks fine, but there are some outliers that at least don't look so great on paper - but the question might be how bad they are in practice?

 

[Fenes]

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).

Not at all. We are comparing games that are played here, not books. I am playing a 3.0 game. If I ask myself if I should switch to 4E, I compare games - I look what I can get out of 4E, compared to my current game, not compared to a hypothetical 3.0 core only game.

4E may very well mature into the ultimate edition, and cover all my needs - but at the moment, it offers far, far too few options for my game.

 

[Fifth Element]

WOW!! So now it's not just...don't compare 4e core to splat books... it's become wrong to even compare with 3.5 core... That's a real stretch there.

Wow, calm down there. I think you misinterpreted my point. Just pointing out that it's unfair to say 3.X has a whole bunch of less combat-oriented classes compared to 4E, when most of them came out months or years after the first core rules, since 4E has been out for such a short time in comparison.

That isn't comparing systems, it's comparing options. Of course 3.X has many, many more options available than 4E. But when 3.0 had been out for a month, the options were far, far less than they were later. For obvious reasons. Give 4E 8 years, and maybe it will have just as many less-combat-focussed classes as 3.X eventually did. Or maybe not. But since we can't predict the future, basing the comparison on the initial core rules release is really the only fair way to go.

In support of your point, I'd say the bard is relatively less combat-focused (when compared to the warlord, certainly). And the loremaster is a good example. But the other core classes and prestige classes are fairly comparable to 4E in terms of combat-focusedness.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The character can claim whatever he wants. What he perceives is what the gm tells the player who controlls him, and what he accomplishes is what the players tells everybody at the table he does in accordance to the game rules.

So ultimately narration counts for nothing then.

As everybody should have a modicum of capability to separate in-character and out-of-character knowledge in a roleplaying game, there is really no problem with it. Unless you really play in a Order-of-the-stick-style campaign.

I agree with this. The effects of using an ability that produces a discernable effect ARE in fact character knowledge. The character might not know precisely how many hp of damage are dealt with an attack but will know if the use of an ability had an effect on an opponent. Things thare are transparent are those that the CHARACTER could not readily observe, such as the awarding of XP.

Some things are just meta-game abilities. Levels, the amount of how many spells you can cast, the amount of how many times you can smite evil, perform a defensive roll, attack with your stunning fist and other things, the damage output, all these things are just that. Not-character-knowledge.

Levels (yes)

the amount of how many times you can smite evil, perform a defensive roll, attack with your stunning fist and other things, (no)

the damage output (yes to a degree)

You'll have problems too if you want to explain why your character can't perform this things more than once, or why some things get massively better.

Not at all. Anything that is limited in application per (time period) is very easy to explain. Its magic pure and simple.The per encounter frequency is not worth trying to explain. Why do things get massively better? skills increase with practice over time, and magic has new gifts to bestow from the gods or from dedicated research.

What can't be explained:
Why I forget how to use abilities I just used yesterday?
How does the frequency of getting into a fight have anything to do with my magical energy resources?
How come this great healing elixer won't make me feel any better because I'm out of surges?

None of what I listed above needs to be explained unless the character has any meaning beyond being a playing piece.

 

[Imaro]

It is not exactly true or false in either edition. But 4E invites you to do so, because the coupling between narration and mechanics doesn't seem to be as tight.
3E had a feat like "Spell Thematics" that allowed you to change the fluff of your spells, and gave opponents a -2 to identify your spells. This implies that without a special feat, you can't just refluff your abilities. Of course, most groups would probably allow it anyway (just don't expect any mechanical benefits from it).

No...you paid the cost of a feat so that there was a mechanical benefit to you "reflavoring" your spell. I'm still not seeing a difference, and lke I said 3e actually let you at least try to do more things than 4e does. Unless of course you don't care about nerfing a power by making it a stunt for anyone.

In 3E, I had to spend skill points on cross class skills. I spend 2 points I could have used for a useful class skill and gain just 1 rank in a rank in a lot less powerful cross class skill? And I have to pay this cost every level, and can never hope to get as good as a "class-skiller". I could of course spent one or two feats (Able Mind or Skill Focus) to improve my abilities a little bit.
In 4E I pick one feat and I am set. I am competent at the skill just as anyone else trained in that skill.

I am not arguing that 3e's system for skill allotment was better or worse than 4e's...but it gave more options where variety and individualization was concerned. I would have rather seen a system where you were given differing points to spend on types of skills, like Earthdawn's skill system...than the answer become just remove all of the options. (this is one of the things that has me leaning toward Pathfinder).

People that enjoy supports will love Clerics and Warlords.
People that don't like combat at all will have a problem with D&D in general, since a major part of the system focuses around that. 4E is not a serious improvement in that regard, though skill challenges might make non-combat stuff more interesting for gamists and butt-kickers, possibly improving the chance for the non-comba focused player to have a little more his way. The new classes might make combat more interesting for the non-combattants, since it involves new strategies and a little more activity then the common "I hit/I miss" for martial characters.
And of course the classes have the advantage that you are guaranteed to be good at something in combat, even if you spend all other resources on non-combat stuffs.

Yeah, well I just find it hillarious that the Bard="worse character evar!" while the Warlord= "Tha new bestest!"... though I will note that some people are seeing the same problems crop up with the Warlord that plagued the Bard... mainly that he is a sub-standard warrior unless there is another defender or striker he can reach with his powers.