4E Consequences: Being passive, cautious, or a loner is now unoptimized

[Rechan]

Same here, and yet as a DM I knock the Defenders silly. It happens when the average encounter is level+2 vs the party.

It also helps to exploit the defender from behind the screen.

By that, I mean have the monster make a stupid decision (attack someone else when marked, run past a defender, etc). That way, the monster is punished and damaged, and the defender gets to feel good about being a defender because they're punishing the monster. This extra damage also helps speed up the monster's death. (This depends on the monster in question; unintelligent creatures, brutes who have the HP to spare, or skirmishers who just need to get the hell away from the defender).

You can see players using this for their advantage (intentionally provoking opportunity attacks so the monster takes an extra hit).

It can even be exploited from the monster's perspective; in a game I was a player, a boneshard skeleton was next to death. It opted to attack someone else, triggering the defender killing it, which in turn triggered the boneshard's "I explode when I die" power.

We recently had a game reset, but he had been playing Archer Rangers and Dark Warlocks in well balanced and optimized parties. His characters were on par with the other characters, but he didn't have the same impact on things he was used to having when he played 3E. He also tended to be ineffective due to not synergizing with what other people were doing.

To an extent, I think Rangers and Warlocks are one of the classes that benefit the least from teamwork.

Aside from say, an ally dazing a target (thus granting them an extra +2 to hit for Combat Advantage) or a leader giving everyone a blanket plus, the warlock or ranger just shoots (or twf) their target, and that's that.

Really what they need is for a defender to keep the heavy hitters away from them, and the controller to obliterate the minions so they can focus on shooting down their target.

Although, I think the Dark Pact does benefit from having someone willing to suck up some damage so they can put down the hurt.

 

[Rechan]

Does 4e discriminate against loners? God, yes. And it fits perfectly within 4e's gamist paradigm. The goal of a loner character is to go do awesome things by himself. If he's having fun playing a loner character, he's doing so at the expense of the rest of the group, because every minute of gameplay he's doing fun things is a minute of gameplay four other people are doing nothing fun at all. It's a grossly unfair distribution of activity, and fits right in with the other "you don't get to play" mechanics that 4e eliminated. (Charm, confusion, save or die effects, etc.)

A friend of mine once said that 4e isn't World of Warcraft; it's Final Fantasy Tactics.

Compared to say, Shadowrun, where it's: 1 Hour of the Decker doing his thing, 1 hour of the rigger doing his thing, 1 hour of the Street Samurai doing his thing...

 

[Roger]

3. Our loner player has a real problem with 4E. He isn't a team player, and he isn't getting the same results he got with 3E.

He might enjoy a Dark Pact Warlock, from Forgotten Realms Player's Guide.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[ImperialParadox]

I see intra-party dependacy as a feature of 4th edition that I welcome with open arms.

In my 3rd ed games, it seems that more often than not the players opted to create power houses of self-sufficiency - impressive characters, but characters who didn't always seem to need or even want the company of each other. They often had a gimmick which would make them powerful in combat and would frequently try to 'one-up' each other. While fun, this often led to the party splitting up, each player wanting to pursue his idea because he was fairly confident he could accomplish his goal by himself. While often times this was true, it would make the game an exercise of solo play sessions with the DM, with the uninvolved players sitting around bored waiting for their chance to do their own thing. Even worse, due to the nature of the party easily fragmenting, anyone actually making a team-oriented character would often find themselves alone, and in serious trouble.

4th ed seems to embrace the idea of the adventuring party, and it's a welcome change. I've noticed that in 4th ed it is very hard to make a solo artist, and many classes rely on having support from their teamates. As a DM this pleases me, it gives incentive for the party to stay together and makes running the game easier. There are still plenty of oppurtunities for individual players to shine, but the spotlight seems to be a shared thing now, and no single player has the capability to derail the story with their solo exploits.

To those wanting more individual-themed play, I can see how this would be frustrating, but honestly I think the solo artist is running against the grain of the game. With a lot of work this style of play can be pulled off, but I ask those seeking this style of game to sit back and ask the other players what kind of game they prefer. Often times D&D is a group hobby, and despite forced courtesy I don't know many players who enjoy spending long stretches of time watching a solo artist dominate the DM's time. Games with a lot of solo play should be just that - games between a DM and a lone player. Trying to force a lone wolf style into a group-oriented game often has disastrous results.

 

[Asmor]

To an extent, I think Rangers and Warlocks are one of the classes that benefit the least from teamwork.

I feel really bad for the archer ranger in my game... He's got some power that lets him attack when an ally uses a ranged or area attack... and the other players are a paladin, fighter, melee rogue, and melee ranger. Meaning he very rarely gets to use it.

Poor guy.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

As for the teamwork aspect, the Ranger class is probably the one that requires the imput of other characters the least. While the Cleric is a leader, ironically it isn't really tactically dependant on what other people are doing. I wouldn't say the Warlock is a good solo character, because on the whole it lacks the punch of the other strikers. What the Warlock does have are some very subtle and easily missed tricks, like how Infernals are revenge tanks, or Feylocks being able to escape away, or how Halfling Warlocks with Defensive Mobility effectively have Artful Dodger and can not care about opportunity attacks, ever. Playing a Warlock as a solo artist generally results in you being suboptimal. The optimal tactics for a Warlock I have found are being a team player by being a pest and hassling the enemies(aside from attacking them), using your evasiveness and survivability(Warlocks are the most survivable non-Defender class in the game) to provoke enemies into attacking you or chasing you, providing flanking for your allies, and other little things.

 

[Rechan]

I feel really bad for the archer ranger in my game... He's got some power that lets him attack when an ally uses a ranged or area attack... and the other players are a paladin, fighter, melee rogue, and melee ranger. Meaning he very rarely gets to use it..

Guy needs to retrain that puppy out.

I feel similarly bad for a player who whipped up a dark pact warlock. He picked a power that does something special to monsters with vulnerabilities.

Few monsters (outside of say, undead) have vulnerabilities.

 

[Badjak]

In my 3E game, we have a 7th lvl cleric that recently was able to do over 500 hundred points of damage on a critical hit. The guy is a massive powergamer and not only can he do obscene amounts of damage in combat like a striker, he can also take large amounts of damage do to high hp's, good armor, and the fact that he can heal. He also can cast spells in combat too since he took a feat that allows him to cast as a minor action, so he takes up many of the wizards roles as well, and finally he synergized his charisma into getting him massive diplomacy which means that he tends take over most out of battle encounters as well.

Point being, if your a good enough power-gamer you can pretty much render the whole concept of "classes" relevantly moot. And because of that, where you want to go, so goes the party. If you want to go off into the dungeon by yourself, well then adios. We'll wait back at camp and make s'mores.

If 4E has killed off this particular type of player, then I say good riddance.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

You all say that 4e is the Left 4 Dead of roleplaying games? God, i love this game even more.

 

[Skallgrim]

1. I've noticed some people get really discouraged when playing Defenders. Defenders get hit, get hit a lot, and get knocked unconscious a lot. A lot of players, especially those who are used to how 3E ran, just don't like getting beat on to the extent that 4E Defenders get abused. You really have to like being hit to play a Defender. Cautious players don't last as Defenders.

Yes, you have to like being hit. Yes, cautious and defender don't go togther. This is a given. It's like saying you need to like using magic to play a Wizard. Getting knocked unconscious a lot, I cannot agree with. Maybe it's playing a dwarf fighter, or something, but the defender tends to have good defenses, more HP, more surges, better surges, etc. I think that your defender should be using a lot more surges than anyone else, but if the defender is getting knocked out a lot, then I think people are treating the defender as an elite or solo. Defenders are tough, but are not designed to handle the encounter without support.

2. Passive players have real problems with certain classes. You have to take risks and put yourself in harms way for you to accomplish anything as a Rogue. Our most passive player previously preferred the Rogue above all other classes, and she just hasn't been doing well with the 4E Rogue at all. I've seen that passive Rogue players can't consistently achieve combat advantage, and that the Rogue class is powerless without it, while I've seen aggressive players with no regard for life and limb keep combat advantage applied 90%+ of the time. I've also noticed that the 4E Warlock lacks obvious power, but can equal the other characters by taking risks, provoking opportunity attacks to move and attack at point blank range, drawing enemy fire, and being a general pest. People playing Warlocks as being stand back and shoot characters have been very disappointed, while an insane Halfling Starlock who spent most of his time in melee range running around at full speed was often the most effective character we had. On the other hand, classes like Laser Clerics and Wizards are well used by passive players.

I can't speak to Warlocks, but our Rogue is very combat shy, as still really effective. She moves in and out of the combat fairly freely, and doesn't feel compelled to stay, or to stay next to a companion. She, unlike everyone else, runs into and out of the fights, rather than hunkering down to fight. She also will often shift/move into and out of total cover (like a doorway) and shoot, then shift back into total cover. She has VERY few healing surges, so her caution is well-founded, but it hasn't made her less effective. She just waits for her moment. However, she almost never just runs into a fight and stays there. If she's entering a fight, she has a plan for getting her little halfling butt right back out, preferably on her own turn.

It is true that Laser Clerics, Wizards, and Archery Rangers, and, I would say, sniper Rogues are suited to passive players. Some classes are suited to being passive, and others aren't.

3. Our loner player has a real problem with 4E. He isn't a team player, and he isn't getting the same results he got with 3E. In 3E, he was a powergamer who had all the big guns and dominated combat. In 4E, he doesn't synergize well with what everyone else is doing, and feels powerless.

Good.

A guy who wants to be a loner and dominate combat and have all of the big guns is a guy who wants to be better than everyone else at the table. If you want to satisfy him, let him have 5 more levels than everyone else. 4e is designed around balanced team play, with characters cooperating to fill roles. The entire system was designed to give the loner player a problem.

Seriously, either a "loner" player needs to play "alone", or he needs to realize he isn't a "loner" player. It's fine to roleplay someone who is aloof, or distant, or mysterious. To expect all of your friends to be satisfied playing second banana to your Mary Sue is not. Now, maybe you have this gaming group, but it's much easier to deliberately unbalance a balanced game than deliberately balance a game written to be unbalanced.