D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[MerricB]

And yet my group enjoys multi-classing in SWSE 100x more than the multi-classing rules in 4e...

I'm not surprised by that.

Talents better than powers and the fact that jedi (spellcasters) play totally different than non-jedi (non-casters) yet aren't overpowering.

How do you handle Move Object? That has proven to be utterly Too Good in our game.

Talents frustrate me utterly. For my noble, I've taken talents to boost the rest of the party, but Born Leader stops working if I even try to hide - and if I don't hide, I'm down very, very quickly and I can't heal. I like the idea of talents, but the gap between Force talents and Noble talents is extremely big.

I mean Star Wars isn't a superhero game, and depending upon the era shouldn't be forced to have that feel.

It's just too easy to be taken down in Star Wars as a PC, especially if your opponents are smart and take the Aim option. And for some reason, Stormtroopers are really, really hard to take down! Oh, for the minion rules!

Cheers!

 

[Imaro]

I'll throw some answers out, they're from memory as I don't have my book with me...so bear with me. But I also don't want to really derail the thread, so we could discuss SWSE in a forked thread after this if you want.

How do you handle Move Object? That has proven to be utterly Too Good in our game.

Well I think a few things to remember about Move Object are that...

1. It can only move an object a maximum of 6 squares.
2.To move anyone that resists the Jedi his UtF check has to be higher than it's Will Defense.
3. to damage a target the jedi must exceed the UtF check to move the object and exceed the targets Reflex Defense.
4. As GM you control what size objects are available to your players with this power.
5. Not sure if it's an "official" rule but as GM if players try to lift objects that are anchored, secured, stuck, etc. I definitely increase the UtF check DC.


NOTE: I think alot of the force powers, not just Move Object, are much more powerful when you have the opposition in large clustered groups. My advice for this (if you want a more challenging opposition) is either spread your enemies out or have them show up in waves so their is no ultimate opportunity to take them all out.

Talents frustrate me utterly. For my noble, I've taken talents to boost the rest of the party, but Born Leader stops working if I even try to hide - and if I don't hide, I'm down very, very quickly and I can't heal. I like the idea of talents, but the gap between Force talents and Noble talents is extremely big.

First...if this was the case, Distant Command should have been your second Talent, it totally solves your problem. Also the Inspire Talents, allow you to give bonuses that are not loss if line of sight is broken.

Also, if you have a "noble" whose in combat alot, why not give him a few levels of soldier or at least armor proficiency as a feat... and get some good armor...there''s also fighting defensively, getting concealment and or cover.

I also don't see a big gap between the jedi talents and nobles talents....Demand Surrender is pretty powerful, as is Spontaneous SKill, Weaken Resolve, and Trust are all pretty powerful talents.

It's just too easy to be taken down in Star Wars as a PC, especially if your opponents are smart and take the Aim option. And for some reason, Stormtroopers are really, really hard to take down! Oh, for the minion rules!

Cheers!

See this, IMO, is a minor problem...ok give people another second wind if you want, or more FP's...I didn't have a problem with this when I ran the game (actually I had the opposite problem)...but it doesn't seem hard to fix for a different feel. Unlike the multi-class rules in 4e, which really can't be patched with a quick fix like the above if people wan to.

 

[SenseiMike]

My own problems with 4E are numerous. I've read many of the supporters of 4E, and I can see where they're coming from. Perhaps my own experience of running and playing D&D in all of its incarnations was quite different.

The OP pointed out the interdependence of the roles assigned to classes in the game, and I've seen the ubiquitous response, "There's nothing in the rules that say you need to have a Striker, Controller, Defender, etc." Like any RPG, no rules system ever says you must do this, you need to do that. They all have the standard qualifier that says that these rules are meant to be guidelines.

Of course, if you're a writer who wants to write adventures for Dungeon Magazine you have to follow the manner to which the game operates if you expect to have an adventure of yours published, so those aren't really guidelines, are they? Every adventure I've read for 4E is designed around specific paradigms as presented in rules in the DMG. One paradigm is the five person party, where each role is represented by at least one player. If you are missing a specific role, it goes on to tell you what problems the PCs will face and how to adjust the game accordingly so you don't kill them off.

Granted, the other versions of the game had those roles, more or less, but in truth it really wasn't an issue for the DM to worry about if the PCs went along without a Cleric. That was the party's problem, not the DM's.

Another paradigm this game rigidly follows is that, of the PC party, all of them will be competent in their specific roles. Note that the game does not have rules that say "Roll 3d6 for each stat." In fact, it doesn't really want you rolling for stats at all. They would rather take the six general stats and place them where you want, or point-buy them. This is because of the paradigm at work in the design of the adventures they've laid out. If you go in there playing a Fighter with a 10 STR, you're a liability for the rest of the party. Yes, some people want to play a Fighter with a low primary stat and higher stats such as DEX or CON, but the 4E devotee would recommend that that player play something like a Rogue or a Ranger where such stats might come in handy.

At this point, D&D 4E has ceased to be a role-playing game and is a wargame with certain role-playing elements. You can't really play the character you want. Someone on this thread mentioned how much "depth" the 4E Classes have; I'm sorry, but I nearly fell out of my seat laughing at that statement.

The previous editions did not require such interdependency among the party members. I'm sorry, I used the word "require." I should say "suggest." But the previous editions were truly more about role-playing than they were about min-maxing for competence. That's what's missing in 4E.

Ironically, in their quest to make characters as specifically competent in their roles, they've also sort of hamstrung them in the event the party becomes separated. In previous editions, a PC who was separated from his party could have some measure of competence against enemies because in those editions encounters were not specifically tailored to meet a party of five that had all the aforementioned roles. Sure, he might also be very well overmatched, but this wasn't a guaranteed situation as it is in every 4E published adventure I've read.

Other problems I had were the Encounter Powers, the nature of Paladins and Wizards, and Ritual Spells. One other person on this forum pointed out the weird nature of the Encounter Powers, being something out of a videogame designed for game balance than something that puts you into a fantasy world, so I won't go there. And he mentioned how pathetically weak and inflexible the 4E Wizard has become. So, I'll focus on Paladins.

I've always liked Paladins. In 1E and 2E, these people were exceptional Fighters who were blessed with powers that comes from living a Good life better than most mortals can. For some reason which I believe relates to this concept, Wizards of the Coast designers had it out for the Paladin. In 3.x, they democratized the Paladin, allowing any race to be a Paladin, and basically made him less competent a warrior than the Fighter, provided he didn't multi-class. 4E further emasculated the Paladin by weakening him to the point that he's not really on par with the Fighter in overall ability, and that his fighting skill comes from his faith in any particular deity, good or evil.

Now, I know the argument that the 4E classes aren't meant to be taken too literally, that they're more for an abstract paradigm. If you want to be a warrior of the faith but be a competent combatant or an archer, play a Fighter or a Ranger, the 4E fan will tell me. That is an inherent flaw. You see, if I have to play a different class to get to the character concept that I'm looking for, then once again this game has ceased to be a role-playing game and is something different. The DM isn't going to look at my Lawful Good Fighter as anything but a Lawful Good Fighter, not a Paladin. He's not going to be treated like a Paladin, even if he takes the ridiculous multi-class feat for the Paladin's abilities. Also, by allowing any deity to employ Paladins in this manner basically flies in the face of what Paladins are supposed to be, and the nature of the universe in general.

Some have said that 4E is an easier game to DM. To me, I wonder if there's a bit of laziness at work here. I've never personally had a problem with any game I've run, as I've got great organizational skills and a strong work ethic.

As a DM who has run 4E, this game bugs me on other issues as well. I don't like Minions; I think they're a patronizing monster. There's nothing less satisfying than wasting an Encounter or a Daily Power on a Minion. I don't like what they did to Dragons, and I don't like how monster special abilities are handled now. It used to be that a certain ability was guaranteed to come back in the combat encounter provided the monster lived. Now, on some powers, you have to roll a certain number on a d6, hoping beyond hope that it'll come back for you to use. It's quite frustrating to see that your precious dragon's fire breath isn't going to come up because you didn't roll a five or a six.

While we're talking about monsters....

oh, never mind.

4E is a travesty. As a writer, and as a gamer, I find this edition of D&D to be the worst edition. There are so many things wrong and bad about this game that it would take a huge article, perhaps its own blog, to list them all.

For those of you who love this game, bear in mind that I'm not trying to dissuade you from playing. Enjoy the game. For me, it's a gigantic letdown. I bear no 4E player ill-will, but I do insist that you try to see things from the point of view of those of us who played a game where a Wizard was once something to be feared, with a Fireball that could wipe out entire formations of troops in one blast and could cast Wish when he could achieve that level, where Dragons were truly awesome, and when Dungeons and Dragons was something wonderful, that under a good DM could take you to some epic places. 4E has lost that wonder.

 

[catsclaw227]

My own problems with 4E are numerous. I've read many of the supporters of 4E, and I can see where they're coming from. Perhaps my own experience of running and playing D&D in all of its incarnations was quite different.

<snip lots of stuff>

As a long time DM of almost all editions of D&D, I disagree with almost all of your post, but I can accept your opinion for what it is. I am guessing that 3.x wasn't your style either, but that's cool. Keep playing the game you love to play.

Only one comment stood out as a bit condescending.

You suggested that if I believe that 4e is easier to DM, there must be some laziness to be had. It has nothing to do with laziness. I am well organized and have a strong work ethic, too. But I don't want to spend 4 hours (or for high level 3.x, even more) preparing for a 4 hour session. I have a life outside of D&D and it has nothing to do with laziness. I call it priorities.

I have DMed both Heroic and Paragon tier 4e. So whatever you may think, my experience has shown that 4e is much easier for me to DM than 3.x and in many cased earlier editions too. I don't need to deal with a bunch of misplaced and unrelated mechanics.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, I know the argument that the 4E classes aren't meant to be taken too literally, that they're more for an abstract paradigm. If you want to be a warrior of the faith but be a competent combatant or an archer, play a Fighter or a Ranger, the 4E fan will tell me. That is an inherent flaw. You see, if I have to play a different class to get to the character concept that I'm looking for, then once again this game has ceased to be a role-playing game and is something different.

This is as opposed to 1E, where if you want to play a warrior of the faith who is an archer, Unearthed Arcana tells you "Sorry, missile weapons are forbidden to paladins, and you are required to wear full plate armour as soon as you can afford it"?

If you wanted to play a priest with a sword, you were out of luck... unless you were a multiclassed half-elf or half-orc?

I'm not sure how "If I have to play a different class to get to a certain character concept" is a 4E-only problem!

-Hyp.

 

[SenseiMike]

This is as opposed to 1E, where if you want to play a warrior of the faith who is an archer, Unearthed Arcana tells you "Sorry, missile weapons are forbidden to paladins, and you are required to wear full plate armour as soon as you can afford it"?

If you wanted to play a priest with a sword, you were out of luck... unless you were a multiclassed half-elf or half-orc?

I'm not sure how "If I have to play a different class to get to a certain character concept" is a 4E-only problem!

-Hyp.

I never agreed with that ruling in 1E either. What's to prevent a Paladin from using a longbow or any ranged weapon? Nor did I agree to the limitations on the Clerics - why are blunt weapons more acceptable than bladed ones?

But these situations were fixable with some basic house rules. In 1E, you do that and I seriously doubt you'd make Paladins or Clerics that much more powerful, even if suddenly they got access to magical weapons previously denied to them. And allowing free reign for the Paladin to choose his armor as he saw fit whether or not he could afford Plate was not going to be imbalancing to the game.

4E, on the other hand, has made the classes even more rigid than 1E designers could've ever dreamed of. You no longer can make the dedicated archer Fighter if you wanted; a military man who was not the tracker that the Ranger was. The 4E Fighter's powers are all built around melee weapons and STR based attacks. 4E players have told me to make him into a Ranger. I have a L22 Paladin character from 3E that's more of a swashbuckler than a straight out fighter that I cannot possibly translate into a Paladin in 4E for similar reasons; I was told to make him into either a Rogue or a Ranger! People have said to me that 4E will likely address this situation in the future with new books and updates, but of course, this wasn't the situation when 2E went to 3E. Sure, I couldn't bring a Wu-Jen from 2E to 3E initially, but most character classes were there and could easily be converted with some limitations. 4E doesn't let me play the character I want to play.

 

[CardinalXimenes]

Every adventure I've read for 4E is designed around specific paradigms as presented in rules in the DMG. One paradigm is the five person party, where each role is represented by at least one player. If you are missing a specific role, it goes on to tell you what problems the PCs will face and how to adjust the game accordingly so you don't kill them off.

As opposed to earlier editions, which just left the DM to learn by trial and error what to change for oddball parties. I have a hard time reading 'superior support for novice 4e DMs' to be a flaw in a brand-new edition.

Granted, the other versions of the game had those roles, more or less, but in truth it really wasn't an issue for the DM to worry about if the PCs went along without a Cleric. That was the party's problem, not the DM's.

It was the DM's problem in the sense that he actually cared whether or not the party would get slaughtered by the adventure. I'm sure there are some DMs out there who blithely follow their script with cheerful indifference as to whether or not the party can deal with it, but I think the small legion of players 'encouraged' to play a Cleric in earlier editions gives strong evidence that it wasn't just the players who wanted parties that would have a chance of surviving.

Another paradigm this game rigidly follows is that, of the PC party, all of them will be competent in their specific roles.

...

At this point, D&D 4E has ceased to be a role-playing game and is a wargame with certain role-playing elements. You can't really play the character you want.

You're right. The game does not support choosing to play an intentionally incompetent PC. As you example, there are some players who honestly want to play a cripplingly incapable PC. This edition has lost them. Speaking personally, I'm delighted at the idea that I won't have to put up with them any more. I have met very few, but those I have met have universally confused authenticity of character with how badly they can inconvenience the rest of the party.

Other problems I had were the Encounter Powers, the nature of Paladins and Wizards, and Ritual Spells. One other person on this forum pointed out the weird nature of the Encounter Powers, being something out of a videogame designed for game balance than something that puts you into a fantasy world, so I won't go there.

Two out of three Jack Vance characters agree that spell slots per day are vital to fantasy verisimilitude. Every other magical character not ripped from the pages of a D&D novel disagrees, and half the WotC-published properties wish they could too.

I've always liked Paladins. In 1E and 2E, these people were exceptional Fighters who were blessed with powers that comes from living a Good life better than most mortals can. For some reason which I believe relates to this concept, Wizards of the Coast designers had it out for the Paladin.

...

You see, if I have to play a different class to get to the character concept that I'm looking for, then once again this game has ceased to be a role-playing game and is something different. The DM isn't going to look at my Lawful Good Fighter as anything but a Lawful Good Fighter, not a Paladin. He's not going to be treated like a Paladin, even if he takes the ridiculous multi-class feat for the Paladin's abilities. Also, by allowing any deity to employ Paladins in this manner basically flies in the face of what Paladins are supposed to be, and the nature of the universe in general.

Little known fact: the flipside of the tablets of the law that Moses brought down from Sinai? 1E AD&D Paladin class description.

Some have said that 4E is an easier game to DM. To me, I wonder if there's a bit of laziness at work here. I've never personally had a problem with any game I've run, as I've got great organizational skills and a strong work ethic.

And your wife's beautiful and your children are all above average. Unfortunately, not all of us are so richly blessed in virtue, and yet we remain strangely possessed of money that WotC desires.

4E is a travesty. As a writer, and as a gamer, I find this edition of D&D to be the worst edition. There are so many things wrong and bad about this game that it would take a huge article, perhaps its own blog, to list them all.

For those of you who love this game, bear in mind that I'm not trying to dissuade you from playing.

It's love. It's just tough love.

Enjoy the game. For me, it's a gigantic letdown. I bear no 4E player ill-will, but I do insist that you try to see things from the point of view of those of us who played a game where a Wizard was once something to be feared, with a Fireball that could wipe out entire formations of troops in one blast and could cast Wish when he could achieve that level, where Dragons were truly awesome, and when Dungeons and Dragons was something wonderful, that under a good DM could take you to some epic places. 4E has lost that wonder.

And for me, 4e has brought back a joy in the hobby that 3.x tried to kill like a legion of hardbound splatbook ninja assassins.

 

[MartM]

Doing it fo me?
....no....

I'm greatly disapointed, and it's shred my 6 years old gaming table in two!!
i try to like this new edition.. but more i try, more i hate it...

 

[SenseiMike]

You suggested that if I believe that 4e is easier to DM, there must be some laziness to be had. It has nothing to do with laziness. I am well organized and have a strong work ethic, too. But I don't want to spend 4 hours (or for high level 3.x, even more) preparing for a 4 hour session. I have a life outside of D&D and it has nothing to do with laziness. I call it priorities.

It wasn't meant to be condescending, but let's be honest. A lot of DMs do not do well at their game precisely because they didn't prepare adequately or didn't bone up on the game as they should've if they wanted to play. I realize that a lot of people have priorities, as do I, but if you lose much in the process of simplifying a game, then I ask what's the point? I could simplify the rules of Football too by making the field shorter, prohibiting kicks, and allowing only eight men on a field per side, but then it would be Arena League football and not the NFL.

As opposed to earlier editions, which just left the DM to learn by trial and error what to change for oddball parties. I have a hard time reading 'superior support for novice 4e DMs' to be a flaw in a brand-new edition.

False premise. The previous editions, 3.x probably excluded, didn't exactly tell you to tailor anything to anything, just design your adventure. They did tell you to try not to overwhelm your PCs, if at all possible, with something they couldn't possibly defeat if the purpose of the monster is to be a defeatable challenge. This is key to understand about D&D previously. In 4E, all encounters must be surmountable for the PCs, according to the DMG, and they must be specifically tailored to the PCs in a way they outline. In previous editions, you weren't supposed to really worry if the party had a cleric or not, because, frankly, you as the DM weren't supposed to care that much about them. Because, after all, nobody really loses in an RPG.

I'm sure there are some DMs out there who blithely follow their script with cheerful indifference as to whether or not the party can deal with it, but I think the small legion of players 'encouraged' to play a Cleric in earlier editions gives strong evidence that it wasn't just the players who wanted parties that would have a chance of surviving.

This indicates to me that my experiences are vastly different than most other folks, and that's okay. A cleric in a party was no guarantee that the party would even have a chance of surviving anything. It's a false premise that they ever did have such a chance. Magical healing is nice, but if you have a savvy DM it isn't always necessary, unless you play straight forward "dungeon of the month" episodically. I've had groups where there were no spell-caster types in the party, with no clerical or paladinic support, and they did fine. Sure, they had to leave the locale they were at a lot to rest up and heal. All a cleric (or, for that matter, a mage) does is, if you think about it logistically, allow you to spend more time at work in between rest periods.

You're right. The game does not support choosing to play an intentionally incompetent PC. As you example, there are some players who honestly want to play a cripplingly incapable PC. This edition has lost them. Speaking personally, I'm delighted at the idea that I won't have to put up with them any more. I have met very few, but those I have met have universally confused authenticity of character with how badly they can inconvenience the rest of the party.

I love it when 4E defenders resort to hyperbole.

Suppose you wanted to play something like Samwise Gamgee, a halfling who, before he left for Mordor with Master Frodo, had virtually no combat experience whatsoever. Whatever you decide to make him, be it a Rogue (more likely) or a Fighter (I've seen some examples that make him out to be like this, given how he fought Shelob), it's clear that he's not going to be a very strong or agile guy as compared to, say, the Grey Mouser or Tasselhoff Burrfoot. Either way, he's not going to be particularly competent in the contrived "role" of the Striker or Defender. In other words, he's not going to be much of a help in either role in a typical 4E party, and therefore you can't make the character you want.

Conversely, in essence, you can't make a Raistlin or an Elminster either. True, they came out with a Forgotten Realms book for 4E. I haven't seen it yet, but I know for certain that however they've converted Elminster to 4E he is less of the man he once was in previous editions. Wizards are not powerful enough nor can they ever be powerful enough in 4E to match their previous incarnations. Run the numbers if you'd like. But if Wizards are a bit too powerful, how about being someone like Aragorn taking on all those Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep. No way in 4E could you make or develop in levels a character like that, Ranger or Fighter. In previous editions you could over time.

Two out of three Jack Vance characters agree that spell slots per day are vital to fantasy verisimilitude. Every other magical character not ripped from the pages of a D&D novel disagrees, and half the WotC-published properties wish they could too.

Even Jack Vance had viable explanations for his character's abilities and limitations. In previous editions to D&D, you could get around slots for spells with scrolls, wands, and other devices (especially in 3.x, where you could make such things). And the slot idea wasn't entirely contrived - it was a measure of your ability to channel magic. But Encounter Powers are entirely contrived. There is no in-game explanation for their use. Why can't I use something I learned all the time? Why do I have to wait five minutes or until the next encounter to use an Encounter Power again? Especially if it's a power derived from a Martial source. The only explanation I could fathom was.......game balance.

Game balance. So every time I used an Encounter Power, I no longer thought that I was in a fantasy world, but that I was playing a game. Totally loses the escapism factor, if you get my drift.

Little known fact: the flipside of the tablets of the law that Moses brought down from Sinai? 1E AD&D Paladin class description.

Little known fact: I could still make the Paladin I wanted, per the prerequisites, even if I didn't alter them with house rules, far more than anything that could be possibly done in 4E as written. They've even taken away his horse.

And your wife's beautiful and your children are all above average. Unfortunately, not all of us are so richly blessed in virtue, and yet we remain strangely possessed of money that WotC desires.

Now we're down to sarcasm. I must be making you angry.

It's love. It's just tough love.

Whatever.

And for me, 4e has brought back a joy in the hobby that 3.x tried to kill like a legion of hardbound splatbook ninja assassins.

Did you really believe that all books published for use for the 3.x system was canon, that all were supposed to be a part of your game whether you wanted it or not? You know...you didn't have to accept every book from every publisher that printed for d20 or 3.x, even if it came from Wizards of the Coast, right? Since it seems that all those splatbooks seem to bother you that much, then, logically, you must've come to that conclusion. I know, I'm using a little hyperbole and sarcasm, but then again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I figure.

 

[MerricB]

In previous editions, you weren't supposed to really worry if the party had a cleric or not, because, frankly, you as the DM weren't supposed to care that much about them. Because, after all, nobody really loses in an RPG.

Hmm. I don't agree with that. I seem to remember Gygax writing about Monty Haul and Killer DMs in the AD&D DMG.

Certainly, the idea of "the DM must make sure the party is balanced" is one thing that in earlier editions that was placed squarely on the shoulders of the players; I think it's even in the advice for players in the AD&D PHB. However, conversely, DMs were enjoined not to make the game too hard or too easy lest their players desert them.