Farewell to thee D&D

[Zustiur]

I'm not trying to convince you to like 4e, or any edition/game for that matter, but the statement I quoted seems really... odd. OD&D, AD&D, and 3.x are completely different game systems that share some common terminology. The differences between 2e and 3e alone are significant. They play differently, and perhaps more importantly, the encourage very different types of play.

Oh certainly. I see 4th ed as being the first time the fundamental mechanics of combat have changed. In 0-3.p characters rolled a d20 to hit (str vs ac), then rolled the appropriate damage die, and that was about all there was to it. In 4E they have to determine one of 5 or so different attacks to make, roll to hit... which may not be str vs ac, then roll a varying number of damage dice.

Put another way, in all editions I know exactly how to play a fighter, because they're fundamentally the same. Yes they gained more options over time, but the standard walk up and swing your sword action was always a viable option. Now you never do that as you always have at-will powers with funky abilities to use. And those powers are hands down better than the basic attack. Using alternate actions such as disarm or power attack always came with negatives to balance them out against the basic attack (e.g. not dealing any damage). Few of these powers have such negatives.

Maybe this is just me, but the sheer concept of non-spellcasters having powers the way they do now just doesn't feel right. It's a sacred cow to me, although it's one I've only just identified. Like fireball should have a large area of effect, a fighter should be a valuable member of the party by walking around swinging his sword, with the mundane everyday 'basic attack'.
The option to make a basic attack is present in 4E, but I've yet to see it used with any non ranged weapon. I'd feel much more at home if the at-will attacks were removed, leaving just the encounters and dailies (wizards being the exception).

Even though the maths has changed over time, the mechanic really hasn't. THAC0 becoming the current AC system made perfect sense. They're the same mechanic, just turned upside down. Having numerous combat moves with fancy names is a new mechanic.

I can easily follow a ranger using two weapons in any edition, but now everything has weird names that throw me off. Twin strike - sure that one is obvious. Dire wolverine strike? What the hell does that do? Other players should not need to read out the text of their actions for it to be obvious what they're doing. Power names NEED to be clear descriptions of what the move is.
Freezing cloud? Got it.
Sleep? Got it.
Fireball? Got it.
Hammer and anvil? What the?
Reaping strike? What?
Steel serpent strike? What the heck is a steel serpent, and what does it look like when a character tries to mimic one?

I also rail against pointless names for abilities. If an ability isn't something you use it does not generally need a name. Why waste space and mental power saying 'Dwarven Resilience' when you can just have a dot point that says Dwarves can use second wind as a minor action instead of a standard action?

To be fair to the system itself; a lot of my complaints revolve around a mentality that the developers have employed, where everything has to sound cool and look exciting rather than just being written plainly and simply. I'm damned if I'm going to learn names for rules that don't need names, and I'm damned if I'm ever going to remember 50 different powers for every class, a quarter of which have names that don't describe the action.

I don't have much experience with the system, I'll admit that. I've only played twice so far, but I'm already sick of saying "I use priests shield" instead of "I swing my mace". As the OP put it, saying things like this takes me out of the suspension of disbelief. I feel like I'm watching power rangers, or dragonball Z instead of Conan or LotR. Everything feels flashy and overstated. Too many things exist in this edition that serve very little purpose, or no purpose at all.

"Oh good, my team-mate gets +1AC for one round. I sure hope something attacks him so that I didn't waste my time saying priests shield instead of basic attack".

The rogues' sly flourish could just as easily have been written this way:

When using a basic attack with a viable weapon, the rogue adds her charisma bonus to the damage in addition to the normal dice and modifiers. This bonus does not apply when using special attacks. Viable weapons are: light blades, cross bow, sling.

The effect is the same, but the player no longer has to repeat the words 'sly flourish' every round.


Maybe that's it. I should stop using my at wills for a while to see if it actually makes any difference to the outcome of the action.

 

[Dausuul]

Although I'm a solid believer in 4E, I'm with Zustiur on the terminology for at-will attacks. Encounter and daily powers can have flashy names, but at-wills (which PCs will be using over and over) ought to be simple and unpretentious. "Cleave" is good. "Reaping Strike," not so much. WotC has always sucked at naming things, though.

Another thing I recently realized is that I actually agree with the people who say 4E doesn't feel like D&D any more. To me, after 20 years of BECMI, AD&D, and 3.X, I have a pretty well-worn groove for what D&D feels like, and 4E is way out of that groove. The difference is that I find 4E to be a much better game than the D&D I grew up with, so it doesn't bother me.

 

[Cadfan]

Zustiar- that change makes it impossible to have multiple at will powers.

 

[Zustiur]

Suits me!
Less almost identical powers to sift through sounds like a clear improvement to me. But then I was also suggesting getting rid of them altogether.

 

[Fenes]

Suits me!
Less almost identical powers to sift through sounds like a clear improvement to me. But then I was also suggesting getting rid of them altogether.

The at-wills are for all effects and purposes, the basic attack. I see no point in having the basic attack.

 

[WayneLigon]

The at-wills are for all effects and purposes, the basic attack. I see no point in having the basic attack.

My experience has been that Basic Attack only gets used if for some reason you can't do your at-wills; not having the required weapon for some reason, for example.

 

[Kishin]

My experience has been that Basic Attack only gets used if for some reason you can't do your at-wills; not having the required weapon for some reason, for example.

Several powers also give you the opportunity to make an immediate basic attack. There's always opportunity attacks, as well.

Zustiur, I really don't understand your 'If its D&D, it damn well be the same game.' None of the editions of D&D play very much like the previous (1E and 2E may be the closest).

It really is a different game. Just as it was with 3E and 2E.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It's good to see that some people understood the point of the thread. The comment about not arguing was aimed at not making this into another edition war. But some people just can't resist attempting to argue their pro-4E point at every turn in every thread even if the person they are arguing with has already experienced the game system and did not like what he experienced.

I love the "whiner" shots from people that couldn't just ignore the thread. That was rich. I wonder if they even realized how hypocritical they were with their own "whining" that I was wrong and carrying on their whine for however many pages when they were told that I wasn't planning to change my mind. Personally, I always wish I could meet such people face to face so they could see who they were calling a whiner. One thing about Internet forums and long-distance communication, civility is left at the door and people that would normally know well enough to keep their mouths in line are allowed to prattle off whatever drivel they feel their clever, rude minds can conjure up.

I also loved the number of people that brought up moot points and prime examples of what I was talking about like "powers that don't actually mean what they say they mean because you can just say the person is doing the same thing even when they aren't using a power with that given name". It was a fine example of what I was talking about with 4E being all style and no substance.

4E is like watching a movie of a movie being made rather than watching the movie after it is done. You can see all the cameras and special effects.

I've even noticed the change with my players. They claim they love 4E. And at the same time they play the game with the mechanics in mind first rather than reacting as a character would react in a story. They are constantly looking at what their powers do rather than being fully immersed in the game and story. They love to shoot their powers off rather than waste time role playing.

It is to the point where the DM I run with just said "I'm not going to focus on story too much. This game is designed almost completely with combat in mind. Everyone just likes to blow off their powers. So I'm just going to focus on combat."

It's all a pretty sad change IMO. I was looking forward to a new version of D&D. Just not this thing they put out. Too focused on mechanics, powers, and balance. They lost alot of the flavor of the game for me. I know some people are fine with the changes, but I don't like it.

In previous editions, I liked that people respected the fighter because he was good fighter that could bring the pain if ignored, not because he has Combat Challenge or Divine Challenge. Every round I'm switching tokens from Combat Challenge to Divine Challenge. The monster must attack the fighter or paladin because otherwise he takes added damage. And then the rogue just bashed him for a ton of damage anyway. Most solos and elites have no chance at all in such a fight.

Whenver I hear someone had a hard time with a solo or elite, I wonder what game they're playing. Because all you need is a defender holding that aggro with a cleric or warlord unloading powers to boost everyone's damage and a few strikers and that supposedly tough solo is basically fighting a solo with 5 plus attacks per round depending on how many characters have action points. It's pretty pathetic.

I personally think the veneer of 4E is going to wear off faster than any edition as people get higher level and get a taste for the game. I've been playing 4E two times a week since a week after it came out. It didn't take long for the luster to wear off.

I'ved DMed a long time over multiple game systems whether they be versions of D&D or GURPS (a game system I love, but is just too hard to play for too many people), I've yet to play a game system as heavily favored towards the characters as 4E. Even my friend who for the most part likes 4E is making house rules to boost the lethality of the game. He can barely stand that undead went from scary suck your life away creatures to easily killed do a little necrotic damage lamers.

I hope Necromancer Games gets to do some 4E material soon. My friend likes Necromancer Games modules and monster books. Maybe they'll boost the lethality of the game like they did with 3E. They have some creative folks over there that know how to make a module that can challenge D&D players of any variety be they power gamers or otherwise.

 

[Zustiur]

Zustiur, I really don't understand your 'If its D&D, it damn well be the same game.' None of the editions of D&D play very much like the previous (1E and 2E may be the closest).

It really is a different game. Just as it was with 3E and 2E.

It's a gray area. Not a black and white switch.
You could change it in many hundreds of ways and still title it 'Dungeons and Dragons', but in the end it has to FEEL like Dungeons and Dragons. If the feeling isn't right, then it's not the same game anymore, and then it should have a different name.
All the previous editions have felt right. 4E has not settled with me, but so far it does not feel right.
To be blunt, it feels like I'm playing Magic or some similar CCG system. The fact the DM has printed out cards for all of our powers isn't helping to get past that feeling, but the point remains. This strikes me as a game written for the Pokemon/MtG generation. Everything has to sound cool, even if it's the most minor power in the game. Nothing can be plain or simple because that just doesn't sound cool enough.
That's what I was getting at when I suggested removing at-wills. Without those, you'd return to DnD's previous standard of everyone using a normal attack the majority of the time, with the remaining powers being for special situations. In all previous editions, the mage was the only one who could even consider using powers every turn. Everyone else just rolled to hit and damage as per the current 'basic attack'. Somehow that change has put me off.

The benefit of many at-will attacks is so negligible that I'd be much happier just removing them altogether. As mentioned earlier, I'd allow the wizard and maybe the warlock to keep theirs, which would go a long way towards differentiating them from the other classes.

Put it another way, turn at wills into feats. Maybe place some restriction on which ones you can buy so that you only ever have two from your class, but get rid of the playing card mentality.

But to get back to your point, "It's not the same game so get over it" doesn't wash with me, because I remember that argument being used when Vivendi and Irrational games were making Tribes Vengeance. The fan community pointed out hundreds of things that were changing the feel of the game for the worse. The companies just said their making their own game, not the clone of the previous two games in the Tribes franchise. In the end the whole franchise died. Hardly anyone new wanted to play the game, and the previous community was so alienated by the changes that they stopped playing.

I'm afraid of that happening to DnD, because I have many of the same misgivings about changes that have been made.
If a company wants to make something new, that's fine. But don't make something new, and claim that it's something related to the old game of the same name.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've even noticed the change with my players. They claim they love 4E. And at the same time they play the game with the mechanics in mind first rather than reacting as a character would react in a story. They are constantly looking at what their powers do rather than being fully immersed in the game and story. They love to shoot their powers off rather than waste time role playing.

So, they are having fun, but you do not? That's certainly subopotimal, to use one of my favorite euphemism.

In previous editions, I liked that people respected the fighter because he was good fighter that could bring the pain if ignored, not because he has Combat Challenge or Divine Challenge. Every round I'm switching tokens from Combat Challenge to Divine Challenge. The monster must attack the fighter or paladin because otherwise he takes added damage. And then the rogue just bashed him for a ton of damage anyway. Most solos and elites have no chance at all in such a fight.

Whenver I hear someone had a hard time with a solo or elite, I wonder what game they're playing. Because all you need is a defender holding that aggro with a cleric or warlord unloading powers to boost everyone's damage and a few strikers and that supposedly tough solo is basically fighting a solo with 5 plus attacks per round depending on how many characters have action points. It's pretty pathetic.

Well, ever looked at how often the Defender has been bloodied or even reduced to 0 hit points? Or are you always using equal level challenges?

Of course, as far as I have seen, Solos need some interesting environment to be played. I also like the encounter template that uses a lower level Solo with several Minions or regular monsters. Fighting a single monster was never particularly interesting, regardless of edition or game. (Heck, the last time it happened - and ended with a TPK - was in Torg. The fight against the 50 Shock Troopers before that one was a lot more interesting...)

I personally think the veneer of 4E is going to wear off faster than any edition as people get higher level and get a taste for the game. I've been playing 4E two times a week since a week after it came out. It didn't take long for the luster to wear off.

I'ved DMed a long time over multiple game systems whether they be versions of D&D or GURPS (a game system I love, but is just too hard to play for too many people), I've yet to play a game system as heavily favored towards the characters as 4E. Even my friend who for the most part likes 4E is making house rules to boost the lethality of the game. He can barely stand that undead went from scary suck your life away creatures to easily killed do a little necrotic damage lamers.

I hope Necromancer Games gets to do some 4E material soon. My friend likes Necromancer Games modules and monster books. Maybe they'll boost the lethality of the game like they did with 3E. They have some creative folks over there that know how to make a module that can challenge D&D players of any variety be they power gamers or otherwise.

Still waiting for GSL news that were announced like - two, three, four weeks ago?