Removing homogenity from 4e

[NoWayJose]

What if a PC had access to a pool of powers, which they could then split into a number of at-will/dailies/encounter powers (following certain guidelines specific to each class)?

For a fighter, this equivalent to trying a few risky high flying kicks vs sticking to the basics for the duration of the fight... or giving it your all in the 1st fight and being tired in the 2nd fight vs pacing yourself for both encounters.

For an arcane user, this is a choice of unleashing your magic in all its fury or slowly siphoning it.

This would provide a mini-game for those who want it, and it's more realistic for those who don't believe that PCs should exhibit certain behaviors in "pre-programmed" ways.

I realize that this goes against the 4E philosophy of all PCs always contributing equally. However, at the end of the day, all PCs are equally important (and equally balanced), just not necessarily equally important at every single round

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.

To which I say "So?"

Just because it's the NEW version doesn't mean you have to like or play it. There are a ton of retro clones or d20 variants out there.

This might be worth forking... I don't know but I think there is more to this than just saying, "find another game/game system/variant". When the D&D you used to know changed into something you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When a lot of the creative minds on EN World are mainly/only replying to the new D&D that again, you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When the new version gets some fantastic tools (DDI) but these don't support the game you prefer... it kinda sucks. When the two magazines that were a staple support the newest version of the game which you don't enjoy as much... it kinda sucks. My point is that there are a whole heap of ramifications of one's enjoying and participation of our hobby as a whole that "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to play it" does not cover. There are few enough of us who enjoy this hobby that splitting that group further and further and further... well it kinda sucks too.

Being told to "play what you enjoy" is generally not helpful advice in the context in which it is normally delivered. If someone can get something out of this thread that helps them enjoy 4E more than they are, then surely that is a good thing and deserves to be supported.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Remathilis]

The key phrase is "the latest iteration".

Just because he doesn't like 4e doesn't mean he can't enjoy the earlier editions of his favorite game. If I don't get a PS3, I can still play my PS2, and I can still talk to people who like talking about video games about my PS2 games.

I still have 3.5, Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia to get my fix, but there is a piece of me sad that the game I enjoyed has moved on in a different way. I really tried to like it, it didn't work.

Then again, I still use Windows XP, so perhaps I'm getting stubborn in my ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The key phrase is "the latest iteration".

Just because he doesn't like 4e doesn't mean he can't enjoy the earlier editions of his favorite game. If I don't get a PS3, I can still play my PS2, and I can still talk to people who like talking about video games about my PS2 games.

Totally right. I would expect someone discussing a failing of the PS3 (such as "too expensive") on a place for Playstation discussions, though, to not be told "so what?" I might expect some reasons for it, some people debating the merits and flaws of a high price point, some possible strategies for overcoming the flaw, and, possibly, if Sony is clever and listens to their consumers, a PS3 priced at a cheaper cost.

I might even expect a few PS3 truefans to say something like "lol u want a cheap system buy a used game boy, welfare baby." It wouldn't be that helpful, but I'd probably expect it.

The Playstation fans got that result. People who are fans of complexity are getting some results, too (the monk, the psion, possibly more stuff in the PHB3 and DMG3?).

I mean, to me, it's pretty evident that the discussion of a thing's possible flaws and ways to alleviate them are part of how you make that thing better, or at least how you better meet the demands of your likely audience (and your goal is to meet as many of those demands as you can, for a fee).

If you'd prefer not to discuss those things -- or don't care about people's problems with the game -- there's plenty of other places on ENWorld to talk about other aspects of the game. This thread seems to be about that problem, though.

 

[MerricB]

The third is more about the fact that every character chooses a suite of powers which basically define what they do. Other than daily powers, they have this suite available for each combat - it's sort of like a pre-programmed list of actions they can/will take in combat. I haven't seen a lot of tactical variety in 4e. Most combats play out the same for most characters, because of the set of powers they have that defines what they do. The best DMs can do a lot with opponents and terrain to disrupt the "program" of actions, and make the players really think about their actions, but they can't (and shouldn't, IMO) do that every combat.

I'm interested in having your take on how tactical variety was more diverse in previous editions of the game. To my eyes, the martial characters were all depressingly similar - each having perhaps two tricks in addition to "I hit him". Meanwhile, a wizard - although theoretically having a great deal of variety - needed to concentrate their spells all in a small area unless having reached a high enough level that they had enough spells to work differently.

Cheers!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

110% agree. Which is why even my humble suggestions are merely smoke. I couldn't re-write 4e to fit my tastes, nor would I want to. Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.

Its a sentiment you hear a lot on the internet. I want to be a D&D player and be part of the D&D community, but I don't want to play the current edition of D&D.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This might be worth forking... I don't know but I think there is more to this than just saying, "find another game/game system/variant". When the D&D you used to know changed into something you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When a lot of the creative minds on EN World are mainly/only replying to the new D&D that again, you don't like as much... it kinda sucks. When the new version gets some fantastic tools (DDI) but these don't support the game you prefer... it kinda sucks. When the two magazines that were a staple support the newest version of the game which you don't enjoy as much... it kinda sucks. My point is that there are a whole heap of ramifications of one's enjoying and participation of our hobby as a whole that "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to play it" does not cover. There are few enough of us who enjoy this hobby that splitting that group further and further and further... well it kinda sucks too.

Being told to "play what you enjoy" is generally not helpful advice in the context in which it is normally delivered. If someone can get something out of this thread that helps them enjoy 4E more than they are, then surely that is a good thing and deserves to be supported.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

This does suck, and it is true. The problem is, it isn't likely to change, and there isn't anything that can fix this for you. One can only complain or learn to exist in the new paradigm.

 

[NoWayJose]

This does suck, and it is true. The problem is, it isn't likely to change, and there isn't anything that can fix this for you. One can only complain or learn to exist in the new paradigm.

IIRC, in an interview in a recent Dragon issue, someone at WoTC admitted that there was a "grain of truth" (or some euphemism like that) to the "sameness" argument. This would indicate that:
a) WoTC admits (partially and/or grudgingly) that there is some validity to homogenity argument
b) WoTC is actually listening to what people say on forums

So "complaining" may lead to change in the long run.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Monsters do a small handful of things again and again. Incomparison, 3E monsters had more variety/complexity (but obviously too much for some which is why WotC reigned this in).

Well I would like to make a counter point to that. In 3.5, the general assumption was that a party of 4 PCs would battle one monster. Therefore the monster could be more complex because that one creature was the only monster the DM had to control.

In 4th, the general assumption is that there will be one monster per PCs. Each single monster will be simpler to run because it's assume that the DM will run mutiple monsters. Having mutliple monsters per battle also means you can combine monster A and monster B to create unique combinations of monster groups for your encounters. You also have to consider synergy between monsters. If monster A does this then monster B can do that.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm interested in having your take on how tactical variety was more diverse in previous editions of the game. To my eyes, the martial characters were all depressingly similar - each having perhaps two tricks in addition to "I hit him". Meanwhile, a wizard - although theoretically having a great deal of variety - needed to concentrate their spells all in a small area unless having reached a high enough level that they had enough spells to work differently.

Cheers!

Hi Merric,

I think part of this is not just what they could do, but what they had to deal with and how they could react to it. Monsters could pull out some really nice surprises on a group. Some were just a bag of hit points, but others were just damn dangerous to deal with, and everything in between. You knew that if they grabbed you, you were gone (to the point of relying on other PCs to save your bacon). There was more variety and more danger that a basic martial character had to react to. I'm not talking save or dies (which as a DM, I always tried to control anyway), but stuff that felt nasty and could be.
And so even though you only had a handful of different attacks, it is the myriad of circumstances in which they could be deployed and would need to react to that would keep the sense of tactical variety vibrant.

4E on the other hand puts a lot of variety (or perceived variety) in the hands of the PCs and less (or a more manageable amount) in the hands of the DM. The lethality of the game was toned down to be less swingy, but I'm not to sure that this is as greater feature as some make it out to be. For 3.x, rather than damage and a possibly ongoing condition, there just seemed to be more variety. This is not to say that 4E is completely lacking in this area (funnily enough, I found the goblins shift on a miss to be fantastic flavour-wise and variety-wise). I'd just like to see a marriage of the two, take some of the fantastic ideas from 4E and blend them in with 3E's scope to let them breathe rather than be constrained by the almighty balance deity.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise