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

[Remathilis]

That sort of counters the "in 3E, casters out-rogue the rogue" complaint.

Only if your the only caster. The "caster out-rogues the rogue" comes into bloom when you have more than one caster on the group (typically more than one arcane caster, and more than one divine/healer). It also doesn't count on the value of scrolls and wands for utility spells.

/threadjack over, my exercise in sadonecroequinphillia is over.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is what I got as well, and the tee-ball analogy drove the point further home.

-O

My understanding of the comment was in the context of refuting the argument that a game is superior because it is less complex.


RC

 

[Mallus]

My understanding of the comment was in the context of refuting the argument that a game is superior because it is less complex.

Strike that, reverse it (BryonD sure sounded like he was saying 'complex = superior').

 

[Scribble]

I don't feel rules mastery (no matter how complex or simple the rules) is really needed to make a good DM. Working knowledge of the rules, sure... But rules mastery? Not so much.

I have a friend who I would say has rules mastery. He can put together characters and such to achieve almost any mechanical effect. Power gamer to the max when he wants to be. He would even be a useful real life index... "Hey what page is X on?"

His campaigns/adventures tended to suck though. They were always fine mechanically, but they lacked a bit of... "umph."

It's the umph that makes a great DM in my opinion.

 

[RefinedBean]

1) It is badwrongfun
2) This will never end, until ones person superior play-style and mind has been proven once and for all and be adopted by everyone.

Spoiler

Sorry.

1. Entschuldigung.
2. Ach, schade. Well, I suppose when that does happen, we can all rejoice.

I agree with you on things being much easier from a player's perspective, too.

I'm in both 3.5 and 4E games, and the difference between them is telling. I'm not saying either one is better or worse, but I'm enjoying 4E more because we discuss tactics more often, find cool and interesting ways for powers to interact, and find more time to do RP in-combat since we're not flipping through books and sheets all the time.

In 3.5, it's more of an attitude of "Gosh, we're all badasses, why don't we all just do our own thing and then meet up later for coffee?" Sure, everyone likes to flank now and then, but ultimately you set up your formation at the beginning of combat and stick with it, for the most part.

 

[Halivar]

I don't feel rules mastery (no matter how complex or simple the rules) is really needed to make a good DM. Working knowledge of the rules, sure... But rules mastery? Not so much.

It depends on the group, and the group's expectations. In our group, the DM must be able to tell a story, and must be able to tell good ones.

Everything else is icing on the cake. Anything less is lipstick on a pig (in our group).

 

[Henry]

...I feel that the majority of magical items should be so straight forward that writing 'longsword +1' on your character sheet should contain all the information you need to use that item.

In earlier editions items that did something other than just +X were unusual to say the least. I continued that trend in 3E, but it appears other DMs didn't.

I have to disagree that this was uncommon prior to 3E; I recall the Encyclopedia Magica from TSR, released circa 1995 or so. It consisted of THOUSANDS of magic items released in the twenty prior years of D&D, and the majority of them were specialized items that had unique powers. Swords that drank blood, roses that caused sleep, spoons that fed armies, swords that became rowboats, you name it, some demented TSR designer dreamt it up. It was the rule rather than the exception after 1983 or so.

If anything, I have liked 4e's return to "interesting items" with something other than plusses to hit and AC, just like I really enjoyed the Magic Item Compendium from 2007 -- it was something other than the "power six" (cloak, belt, boots, armor, weapon, amulet) that someone could spend cash on and feel good about the purchase, and not wasteful.

 

[Celtavian]

I have to disagree that this was uncommon prior to 3E; I recall the Encyclopedia Magica from TSR, released circa 1995 or so. It consisted of THOUSANDS of magic items released in the twenty prior years of D&D, and the majority of them were specialized items that had unique powers. Swords that drank blood, roses that caused sleep, spoons that fed armies, swords that became rowboats, you name it, some demented TSR designer dreamt it up. It was the rule rather than the exception after 1983 or so.

If anything, I have liked 4e's return to "interesting items" with something other than plusses to hit and AC, just like I really enjoyed the Magic Item Compendium from 2007 -- it was something other than the "power six" (cloak, belt, boots, armor, weapon, amulet) that someone could spend cash on and feel good about the purchase, and not wasteful.

I have to admit, I like the new magic items as well. What they did with artifacts was pretty cool. You can now make a great adventure around an artifact and have a nice, simple ruleset for doing so.

I like having a magic item with power, though I'm hoping they give a few of the higher level magic items besides artifacts some multipower abilities for a little diversity. They already have in place an inherent limit for magic item use per day, there isn't much need to limit high level items to one power given the existing limitation.

So I hope they get a little more creative and expansive with high level items. Players don't like having swords that do one thing over and over again. Players like choice and variety in their uber magic weapons.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Strike that, reverse it (BryonD sure sounded like he was saying 'complex = superior').

No striking, no reversing. I gave my understanding of what ByronD said, not your understanding.

Given that the mantra of sales for 4e, from announcement on, was "Hey! It's less complex, and therefore better!", and given the way that has been swallowed wholesale, I understand his point (if I do understand his point ): If you prefer T-ball, that's fine, but if you champion T-ball because you can't hit a pitch, then that is qualitative as well as preferential.

(And, since I am working on a mechanically simpler system myself, don't take this as me insulting you for liking something less complex! I don't think mechanical simplicity has to lead to overall simplicity.)

RC

 

[Zustiur]

You're correct that most of the advantages that tend to be described are from the DM side. I wouldn't conclude yet that it's less fun from the players side (of course this might be your experience, I would just hesitate to generalize it yet.)

Oh no, I was just referring to the trend in this thread and a couple of others that I've read. I have no doubt that there's plenty of players enjoying the game... they're just not the ones posting regularly in these threads.

1) No Combat Matrix. As a player, I often had to write up several variations of my full attack routine (attacks + damage), depending on the buffs that I gained. The math was not "hard" (it's just addition or subtraction), but it still felt very tedious. And how often do we forget one or two modifiers?

You're still doing this. But you probably print them out on separate cards and call them powers. I actually find it's MORE of a combat matrix now than before. I used to get away with 2 or 3 lines for most of my attacks (1 or 2 melee, 1 or 2 ranged). Now I need at least 4 just for 'basic' attacks, plus half a dozen others, all of which differ from each other in the tiniest way.

2) Less frustrations. The game often included frustrating moments - rolling terribly bad against a save or death/sit ...

From my limited experience of 4E, this hasn't changed. There's still tonnes of frustrating moments. They're just different moments to before.

3) A nice balance of complexity. This is not to everyones liking,

Agreed. Not to my liking for example.

4) No ability spamming.

HAH! I can't count how many times I've heard 'sly flourish' from our rogue. If that's not power spamming I don't know what is. Sure it's not fireball or some other big boom-y power, but we're only level 1. I can think of... maybe two rounds where that wasn't the power used by the rogue. I'm sick of hearing it already. Partly this is due to the name though. Sly flourish sounds to me like something that should happen when you're about to beat the pants off of someone, not something you do every 6 seconds. It's how I'd describe the swashbuckler's finishing move, or his posing move prior to the actual combat, not every attack he makes.

5) Think during the game, not at home.

I never had this problem anyway, so YMMV.

That means that I don't have to sit through an entire game session with a bad choice I made at home.

Really? Hmmm. Funny, I was thinking that during my last session of 4E. I'll be trading out one of my two almost identical powers next level so that I can actually have a power that lets me do something in future.

Of course, if I screw up in the game, I am still screwed - but that's something I expect and wouldn't want to make impossible by the system. (I, not the system, should be responsible for not screwing up during play. )

Nothing new here.

I have to disagree that this was uncommon prior to 3E; I recall the Encyclopedia Magica from TSR, released circa 1995 or so. It consisted of THOUSANDS of magic items released in the twenty prior years of D&D, and the majority of them were specialized items that had unique powers.

Oh, sorry, I should clarify. I was talking about how often they were handed out, not how many existed in books. Particularly when you look at weapons that added extra dice of damage to every attack, or items that altered your primary attributes (str etc), I did not see those being handed out on any sort of regular basis. Then again, this could be unique to my play group?

I have to admit, I like the new magic items as well. What they did with artifacts was pretty cool. You can now make a great adventure around an artifact and have a nice, simple ruleset for doing so.

I like having a magic item with power, though I'm hoping they give a few of the higher level magic items besides artifacts some multipower abilities for a little diversity. They already have in place an inherent limit for magic item use per day, there isn't much need to limit high level items to one power given the existing limitation.

So I hope they get a little more creative and expansive with high level items. Players don't like having swords that do one thing over and over again. Players like choice and variety in their uber magic weapons.

I find that it lacks elegance, and leads to an increase of the combat matrix Mustrum_Ridcully was referring to earlier. I continually forget how many dice of each type I need to roll, and what damage type they all correspond to.