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

[vagabundo]

Frankly, it's never enough. This thread is about if 4E does it for me, and I outlined why it doesn't, helping to defend the OP against the horde of irrational 4E fans who seem to want to pass over our points as though they're trivial, and resort to hyperbole and sarcasm as though that ends the debate. I have to deal with this sort of thing every time I visit with my local GM Club and some of them want me to run a 4E game again, which I won't. I've heard every argument for 4E and the premise of it, but they don't wash.

Your misrepresenting a lot of 4e fans on these boards, there are a lot of 3e diehards around too and they resort to the same tactics.

And your points are trivial to many DMs and players. They are to me, I'm having the most fun with DND, at the moment, then I have had for a number years.

Your comment about DMs who find 4e easier to prep is inflammatory. I use the extra prep time to put more story detail into my game, it is also easier to improvise in-game. I don't appreciate being called lazy.

If you think 4E is great, fine. I disagree completely, and I won't play it or run it or support it anymore with material to Dungeon, nor will my colleagues. Maybe, in five or ten years when they come out with 5E, they'll fix it to where it's a role-playing game again. But until then...

That's fine you play the game edition you prefer. I wish you well.

 

[That One Guy]

Re: taking whatever you roll, no choice of class, and all that stuff. . .

Okay, cool. Thanks!

 

[MerricB]

Show me in previous edition books where it specifically said you need to have a balanced party.

"Once the objective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fulfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters of hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? When agreement regarding these and any similar questions has been reached, each participant must ready his or her character, but preparations must be made with the welfare of the whole group in mind." - AD&D PHB, page 107.

"A party wishing to attempt this adventure should contain several fighters, at least one or more clerics and magic-users, and at least one thief." - Slave Pits of the Undercity.

"It is recommended that... you give your players a chance to survive by observing the following: 1. The composition of the party must be well balanced with respect to magic-users and fighters, and at least one thief and two clerics should be along..." - Vault of the Drow.

One aspect of the First and Second Editions of the game that I rather liked was the way the game said to roll up characters that offered another challenge; playing with what you got.

"As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires." - DMG, page 11

I think that directly contradicts your assertion. 3d6 in order was never part of the AD&D 1st edition rules.

I realize few people even in those days played the game like this, but I sure did, and I loved that sort of challenge. And it's when you can overcome such things like that that exercises your mind, enabling you to go through very challenging adventures like White Plume without a Thief. In fact, we went through Castle Ravenloft the first time without a Mage; it was very hard, but we did it.

I don't mind playing D&D like that. Heck, I ran a game a couple of years ago where the druid had 1 hp! (Poor deceased, Druid!) However, I don't think that making it the default for all campaigns is a good idea.

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why would a villain NPC tailor and deploy his monsters just on the basis of what the PCs had in the party?

Narrative Causality.

If the PCs make too much racket why not swarm them with a huge mob and kill them all?

I don't know, tell me.

Why not put the a trap out there to guard a very precious treasure or magic item that, if tripped by a PC's fumbling finger kills him instantly, or, at least, turns him into stone? At least if he's stone he can be restored (if he's not too damaged).

Because that's what magic just can't do? I mean, why can't my PC just cast a spell "Solve all my problems?" Or at least a spell "Kill Villain (no save)?"

 

[Baumi]

I play 4E in three Groups and they all like it.

I wouldn't want to use it for every Setting/Campaign, but for me it is the optimal RPG for a fun Heroic/Cinematic Fantasy Campaign (beats even my beloved Savage Worlds in that regard).

 

[ExploderWizard]

And I think your assumption is wrong in that regard that per default, the system assumes that these items exist. Just like they assume that certain classes and races exist. The moment the designers decided that you had to account for magical items to balance the game system, the moment it was no longer just in the hands of the DM. And that point was already achieved in 3E, and that the magical items are not in the PHB was just because the entire concept was so new that they didn't understand all the implications yet.

If the DM finds a particular item is inappropriate for his campaign, he does the same as he would do with a particular spell, feat, skill, or class he wants to restrict. Convince your player that despite all their entitlement issues, they want be allowed to use them. If you can't do that, maybe that is a sign that the DM and the player have different ideas on the game they play and should try to work them out before they go on!

Yes the same logic could be applied to races, classes, powers, ect. The placing of magic items in the PHB just seems at odds with the premise that one of the 4E design goals was to get rid of the dependence on magical items. It just seems a bit strange that magic items appear in the PHB as if they were standard equipment for the first time in an edition that claims to reduce the need for them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes the same logic could be applied to races, classes, powers, ect. The placing of magic items in the PHB just seems at odds with the premise that one of the 4E design goals was to get rid of the dependence on magical items. It just seems a bit strange that magic items appear in the PHB as if they were standard equipment for the first time in an edition that claims to reduce the need for them.

I think the premise was either presented wrong or understood wrong. When they decided to keep +X bonus items, there was no chance that magical items would become irrelevant. But what they did address was the reliance on the standard Big Six (all ability boosters appropriate for your class, and all AC and attack enhancements that everyone got).
They didn't remove them entirely, but they reduced them to 3 types of items: Weapon/Implement (attack), Neck Slot Item (defense), Armor (AC). No other items give you permanent bonuses to your "core numbers" (attacks and defenses). That's it. This makes it easier to remove magical items and replace them with fixed bonuses (that might have been the intent, or just a side effect.) But it doesn't remove the reliance on magical items. And more importantly, this means you can run a character with only 3 magical items on his body. Sure, you will probably need to rest more often, since you don't have that extra daily power from your boots or your bracers (it would be stupid if the magical items had no effect!). But at least the math will work out for you. You couldn't do the same easily in 3E. You needed to find ways to compensate the loss of a Belt of Giant Strength, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magical Armor, Magical Shield, Gloves of Dexterity...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yes the same logic could be applied to races, classes, powers, ect. The placing of magic items in the PHB just seems at odds with the premise that one of the 4E design goals was to get rid of the dependence on magical items. It just seems a bit strange that magic items appear in the PHB as if they were standard equipment for the first time in an edition that claims to reduce the need for them.

The designers never claimed they were going to reduce the need for magic items. They were designing magic items to reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect." I think the confusion stems from people having differing definitions of the CTE. From what I can gather, the designers were trying to cut down the stacking effect of 3.x, where every slot was sought after to boost stats, saves, attacks, or armor class. The did accomplish this goal. There are now only three slots that affect your characters numbers, 1) armor to increase AC, 2) neck slot to increase other defenses, and 3) weapon/implement to increase attacks. Any other items beyond those three grant small or limited bonuses that don't affect your character's statistics on an ongoing basis.

So they may not have accomplished what you wanted to see with magic items, but they certainly attained their goals.

 

[scruffygrognard]

3E is key lime pie. Very tastey.

4E is key lime cheesecake. Like, holy crap, who doesn't like key lime cheesecake?

That analogy works for me because I like key lime pie and I like cheesecake BUT I don't like key lime cheesecake... and that's how I feel about 3rd and 4th edition.

It combines two different flavors of game that, to me, don't go well together.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Okay, guys, if you don't know the rules of ENWorld because you're new here, go ahead and hit the link at the top of the forum immediately.

Or follow this link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/announcement-rules-please-read.html

The rules. Know them. Love them. Live them.