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

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't really view it as reskinning though, simply for some reason "shift" for instance seems to be a stopping point for you. One could easily enough have said, "I move 5 squares and attack" in 3.5 as much as they can say "I shift 5 squares and attack" in 4e.

It is the exact samething adding ones own flair and narrative to combat as one has always done before (though with the added bonus of having less-precise rules/more streamlined, to make the narrative a larger part of combat and not overshadowed by having to go through lots of rules).

 

[Fenes]

I don't really view it as reskinning though, simply for some reason "shift" for instance seems to be a stopping point for you. One could easily enough have said, "I move 5 squares and attack" in 3.5 as much as they can say "I shift 5 squares and attack" in 4e.

It is the exact samething adding ones own flair and narrative to combat as one has always done before (though with the added bonus of having less-precise rules/more streamlined, to make the narrative a larger part of combat and not overshadowed by having to go through lots of rules).

But I'd not have, I have never said "I move 5 squares". I say "I charge him". And as I said - it's not much, but it adds up. Some patching here, some patching there, all in all it comes up as "not doing it for me".
You can post whatever you want, but you can't change this: As 4E is atm, it simply does not appeal to me, not at all.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I am not so much trying to change your opinion as I am trying to figure out where the change is, where the difference has occurred that what you did in 3.5 is no longer doable for you in 4e?

Like, where is that point in 4e, where it feels you can't say, "I charge him", like you did in 3.5?

Since besides for a couple word changes, if we look past the Power-system which is not really what is being discussed here. There is very little difference in the actual method of discussing/doing combat.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nope, the encounters on the 10-12 level 3e adventure did not have any creature above CR 10. The encounters were built with several lower level creatures (CR8-9) some of them as low as CR 5.

The creatures on the 4e adventure ran a much wider level gap and in terms of level were higher than those for the 3e adventure. The piece for the 4e that I was running was level 9-10.

So no, preparing for a higher level adventure in 4e is still comparably less work than for a 3e adventure.

So, we're comparing lvl 9-10 vs. lv 10-12. I would agree that this is close enough. Thanks for clarifying.

RC

 

[D'karr]

But I'd not have, I have never said "I move 5 squares". I say "I charge him". And as I said - it's not much, but it adds up. Some patching here, some patching there, all in all it comes up as "not doing it for me".
You can post whatever you want, but you can't change this: As 4E is atm, it simply does not appeal to me, not at all.

See, that is the part that I don't understand. We still use the same terminology we used before for combat. However now, my players have become more creative with their descriptions for attacks. In addition they are using the terrain more for combat.

So I don't understand the disconnect. "I shift" or "I take a 5' step" are basically both statements of mechanics and if the DM and players are stating them as such I can see a disconnect, but attributing this to 4e seems disingenuous.

 

[Fenes]

I am not so much trying to change your opinion as I am trying to figure out where the change is, where the difference has occurred that what you did in 3.5 is no longer doable for you in 4e?

Like, where is that point in 4e, where it feels you can't say, "I charge him", like you did in 3.5?

Since besides for a couple word changes, if we look past the Power-system which is not really what is being discussed here. There is very little difference in the actual method of discussing/doing combat.

As I said - there are the little things that add up. Drop by drop, they weigh down on the "not for me" scale.

No perform skill.
No crafting skills.
No profession skills.
Fireball now a daily instead of a staple.
Martial powers do not recharge as well as they do in Bot9S, causing a card game feeling.
Martial powers require too much mental gymnastics to make sense, or drop to "do not think about it"
Game terms and grid instead of real measurements for movement.
Too much "shift".
System is set for far more combats per day than I want.
Skill Challenge system was not playtested, and came out bugged.
Not enough classes.
Lizardfolk as core race.
Too much limiting fluff (tieflings restricted to one appearance, and one origin).
Game terms that remind me of MMOgs (Striker, defender etc.).
Powers not having enough power. I want crits that can one shot enemies, sword attacks that take down half the enemies' hit points. I want a barbarian that can kill an equal-levelled pit fiend in two rounds (Pouncing charge, finishing blow), not a game where we need to grind down enemies MMO-style.

And I guess more I don't recall right now.

All those points, for themselves, are solvable. But together they amount to far too much work for far too little gain for me, and make me consider 4E as clearly "not for me".

 

[Fenes]

See, that is the part that I don't understand. We still use the same terminology we used before for combat. However now, my players have become more creative with their descriptions for attacks. In addition they are using the terrain more for combat.

So I don't understand the disconnect. "I shift" or "I take a 5' step" are basically both statements of mechanics and if the DM and players are stating them as such I can see a disconnect, but attributing this to 4e seems disingenuous.

That you (and others) don't understand that not everyone thinks like you do, and reacts like you do is part of the problem this forum has. As was posted before, everoyne draws the line at another point. Please simply accept that 4E crosses the line for some, but not for you. It's as logical to dislike "shift" but accept "5 foot step" as it is to like dailies but not vancian magic.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That you (and others) don't understand that not everyone thinks like you do, and reacts like you do is part of the problem this forum has. As was posted before, everoyne draws the line at another point. Please simply accept that 4E crosses the line for some, but not for you. It's as logical to dislike "shift" but accept "5 foot step" as it is to like dailies but not vancian magic.

Dailies and Vancian Magic sure are things that one can accept as being fundamentally different and a matter of personal tastes. As well as most of the things you listed in the previous post. That I am not trying to figure out, since that wasn't really what we were focusing on.

More, how does a simple change in phrase from "5 foot step" to "shift" make such a large difference? It could easily have been called, *place gibberish here* but the actual effect is no different, and thus has no actual impact on the game.

 

[DaveMage]

I know, eh?

You know it's funny, but it was only after trying the gameplay itself that I realized "Man, this is too boardgame."

For my groups in 1E and 2E, all the combats took place without a battlemat and it was simple and *fast*. When 3E came out, I used a battlemat & counters for the first time. It took some getting used to, but I have grown to really like the visual part of it (especially with the release of the prepainted minis). However, with 3.x, 4-5 combats a session is about the max whereas in 1E/2E, we could get through twice that (or more) with ease.

3E, in essence, added an enhanced combat simulation framework ruleset into its core, which has been revved up even more in 4E. Perhaps it has simply gone too far for some of us that have played since the early editions. It's not that you can't roleplay or use your imagination in 4E--of course you can--, but with the focus of the game so much on the combat mechanics, maneuvers, and powers, it may simply be that it has taken over as the focus of the game rather than enhanced the RPG aspect. I think 3.x was on the verge of crossing that line (and it certainly did for some), so maybe it's a natural progression, but this is probably why so many are considering and/or going back to OD&D, BEMCI, 1E and/or 2E.

 

[Fenes]

Dailies and Vancian Magic sure are things that one can accept as being fundamentally different and a matter of personal tastes. As well as most of the things you listed in the previous post. That I am not trying to figure out, since that wasn't really what we were focusing on.

More, how does a simple change in phrase from "5 foot step" to "shift" make such a large difference? It could easily have been called, *place gibberish here* but the actual effect is no different, and thus has no actual impact on the game.

Please read my post. It's not a big difference, just part of all the small changes that make me dislike 4E. They all add up.