D&D 4E Help me understand 4e

[justrob]

As the title says, I'd like some help in "getting" 4e.

First, a little background to the question.

I first started playing D&D back in '94. Some of the older kids in school were playing it at lunch. They let me join in one day and that was that.

This was 2nd edition. Most of my history with the game is with that edition, though I ended up in a lot of very loose and freewheeling (with the rules) 3e games.

I fell out of the hobby for a little bit just before 4e was released. What I read about it as it came out and the months following made me feel like the game was no longer the game I remembered. I was angered by the way WotC had changed the game so much to cater to the WoW crowd, at the expense of several things that I held dear about D&D; Vancian magic, freedom of combat versus "time bubble" encounters. etc. I was firmly in the 4e is THE DEVIL camp for awhile.

I still wanted to actually play the thing, as I was well aware of the fact that all my prejudices against it were formed without having played it yet. I was on the fence about investing in the books when my girlfriend surprised me for christmas 08 with the 3 book starter set and from there I just said screw it and went all in.

My experience with running 4e is running a home campaign and setting for two years for my girlfriend and some of her friends as my players. I did run a couple of Encounters sessions as a fill-in DM at Pax East when they were in need of help, but that's about it. Nothing beyond that small sampling.

Now, as to the understanding of the game, there are a few things that always irked me and have given rise to my not really wanting to use 4e anymore. Hopefully someone can help me see things differently as I still have a little leftover 4e is the devil in me...I'm not sure if I'm just a crappy DM in the grand scheme of things or if there is something to my thoughts.

- The time bubble thing. 4e is the only edition where I felt like encounters existed in a time bubble, and not part of the overall experience. I feel like planning sessions is all about the encounters and how to fit them into the story I want to tell.

- The way powers and rituals work in 4e is, I think, what brings this one to mind. The whole concept of powers that can only be used during combat just flies in the face of what I'm used to as someone who grew up with the earlier editions from a young age.

- The tactical combat. Just...wow. I literally spent hundreds of dollars in minis, tile sets, battle mats (Until I discovered Gaming Paper. That stuff is AWESOME), etc to support the almost mandatory grid-based combat for miniatures. Yes, it's possible to run combats completely verbally "From the couch" as in the old days but, not really.

Uhm...I guess that's all I can think of for now. Don't get me wrong, this isn't supposed to be about edition bashing. There are TONS that I absolutely love about 4e. I've been going the older editions, trying to think of one I would rather jump back to but it all leads me back to seeing the progression of things that were fixed with newer editions. Stats, skills, defenses, conflict resolution, I LOVE their 4e incarnations. Status effects kind of piss me off, but that leads back to the tactical video game nature of combat etc.

So, can anyone help me wrap my head around the way 4e handles the things I mentioned above? The streamlining of the core rules really impresses me but the base mechanics of the edition being skewed towards combat and enhancing encounters just pisses me off. I'd like to be able to say 4e is all I need, but I really need some help in seeing these bad things from a different perspective.

 

[Klaus]

You can use your powers outside of combat. "Encounter" powers can be used once, and then will only be available again after you take a breather (a 5-minute short rest). In fact, a lot of the Utility powers have almost zero use during combat (Suggestion, for instance).

Encounters exist in their own time bubbles, yes, and you can use that to serve your story. Your "encounter" could be a series of challenges representing a cross-country trek, or a long negotiation with the enemy leaders.

Status existed waaay back (I was just reading the 1e Greyhawk Adventures book the other day), only they weren't codified for ease of play. Now you can just say "he's dazed" and everyone knows what that means. It's easier than saying "he can only take one action, attackers have a +2 to hit them and they can't gain a bonus from attacking an opponent's sides".

I used to buy minis, make maps and even went so far as to make small stand-up paper minis for my PCs, all the way back to 2e (this was what, 1991, I guess). But the rules these days make their use more effective, IMHO.

Anyway, ask away and I hope I can help ya!

 

[ShaggySpellsword]

- The time bubble thing. 4e is the only edition where I felt like encounters existed in a time bubble, and not part of the overall experience. I feel like planning sessions is all about the encounters and how to fit them into the story I want to tell.

- The way powers and rituals work in 4e is, I think, what brings this one to mind. The whole concept of powers that can only be used during combat just flies in the face of what I'm used to as someone who grew up with the earlier editions from a young age.

I'm going to address a couple of things from your post as best I can:

First of all, could you explain more what you mean by "Time Bubble" encounters? Is it the fact you have to transition from general narration to initiative-order actions that creates this time bubble phenomenon for you? 3rd edition had this, and I suspect it was a part of 2ed too, but I can't say for sure, as I only ever played 2ed computer games.

Or does this time bubble idea come from your conception that encounter are separate things with completely different rules?

Because you CAN, and occasionally are EXPECTED to use powers, especially utilities, out of combat. Bards get all sorts of social utilities, skill utilities have a handful that can serve, even Avengers have at least 1 utility that, while it will most likely be used in combat, has long-term role-playing effects that scope far beyond combat.

Maybe it would help me to understand what you are asking or where your confusion is if you could describe what your typical combat that made sense to you looked like at the table.

I'm not going to argue that the tactical aspect of 4th ed isn't intense, but then, my friends and I have always played DnD very tactically, and the tactical nature of combats mixed with the compelling storytelling potential has always been the perfect combination for me and my friends. 4ed didn't do anything to hurt our ability to tell stories and role-play. It did give us new and exciting things to do tactically.

 

[OnlineDM]

Time bubble: I gather that you're referring to the fact that you roll initiative when combat begins and proceed in turn order until combat ends. What method are you used to? (I've only played 3e and 4e, so I don't know the 2e alternative.) I will say that you absolutely do NOT have to freeze the outside world during a combat; feel free to have more monsters or allies wander in partway through. That's usually fun!

Powers outside of combat: You are ABSOLUTELY allowed to use powers outside of combat, and I encourage my players to find creative ways to do this. Some are more obviously useful outside of combat than others (Fey Step is great in lots of situations), but if your fighter wants to use Tide of Iron against a stuck lever, why not?

Tactical combat: Yep, D&D4e is built around this. If you and your group don't enjoy tactical combat, you could theoretically try to run it in more of an old-school way, abstracting from tactical positioning, judging things like combat advantage for sneak attack based on flavorful description and so on. That's throwing away a lot of what 4th Edition is all about, but if you don't like that stuff, pitch it!

Outside of combat stuff: I think you're saying, "The 4th Edition books give me tons of support for running tactical combats. That's lovely, but I'm really interested in running interesting role-playing and cool stuff do to outside of combat." This is true. The DMG2 is good for a lot of the non-combat stuff (I highly recommend it), but most of that is up to the DM to develop on their own. I think that's because tactical combat lends itself well to lots of rules in books, but fun role-playing and exploration is less rule-based and so it's left to your imagination.

I think some people interpret this to mean that D&D4e is just about combat, and I think that's a mistake. You're just left more to your own devices when it comes to the non-combat parts of the adventure. As a DM, I'm fine with that! I like my own devices for non-combat stuff.

 

[BobTheNob]

The OP didnt raise points in a "flaming" manner, so I will respect his tone in my response

I did find it funny the reponse to the need for the tactical board. Thats the one thing of 4e that I think made it shine above previous versions. We have always had that there are ways to dominate encounters : bigger hitting attacks, better spells, more potents heals, pets. With 4e's tacitcal layout they brought a new dimension...Strategy!

A whole new aspect to how you can contribute to success. Sure, my warlord doesnt hit that hard, and he wont keep up with Larry the cleric for heals, nor will he incinerate that bunsh of hobgoblins behing the barricade over there. But then you have this horrible situation where everyo0nes in the worng place and flanked, my warlord does what he does and re-positions the battlefield!

I never saw tactical positioning as a crutch for 4e...I saw it as a chance for players to do things right.

 

[Piratecat]

Welcome!

It's worth pointing out that while 4e emphasizes tactical combat (although I'd argue not any more than 3e did, except that it uses more "gamey" terms), you don't need any more of an elaborate set-up than you did for 2e. I say this because my combat setup hasn't changed! A battlemap or a gridded flipchart from Staples, a pen, and a hodgepodge of painted miniatures, unpainted miniatures, glass beads in different colors, 2D tokens, and plastic kid's toys. Combat is still a blast even without the accessories.

 

[UHF]

First.. if its not your cup of tea.. why do you bother? The first rule of 4e is, "If it isn't fun don't do it." That seems to apply here. Even if you drop 4e.. try to think of the things you can take from it to your other games. (Counting squares and square explosions.. oddly makes the game more fun 'cause its easier to do. Its faster.)


Balance
Most people don't get what is balanced about 4e. The characters aren't. What is balanced is that all the players get to participate and contribute on a relatively even level all the time. We all participate and cheer on as the party finishes off the foe. Even the guy gurgling his second to last breath.

My last AD&D battle was cool fun epic.. we charged into a clearing full of hobgoblins.. and I got hit by a Hold Person. I spend the next 2 hours drinking beer waiting for the fight to finish up. Was it cool? Did it feel real? Hell yeah. But it wasn't fun.

Skill challenges are a means of getting all your players to solve a challenge as a group. You can role play them or you can roll play them... its really up to the DM.

Ever sat there watching as some skill laden character does all the work? Watch him screw up by rolling low? Wish you could help? Want to call out an answer?


Time bubble
Umm.. I've been using minis in AD&D for 30 years. Encounter crops up... minis come out. (Actually my current AD&D DM uses pennies.) It is more jarring in 4e in that its all action, and they somewhat reduced the after effects. People can role play searching the room to their heart's content if they want. (I've spent half an hour role playing searching rooms in AD&D... was it fun?)

Most parties do spend some effort cleaning up after a fight in 4e... that's no different than any older version.


Powers Out of Combat
Do it all the time. Archer's Staircase is totally cool. Want to go up a wall? Over trap? My other favorite is Rogue (Thievery) Bump... just hit the lock with a rock. Given that like 80% of all modern locks can be bumped... I just like it.


Rituals
I'm still kind of meh on them.. I think I prefer the old spell casting way of doing things. But having non spell users pick up the 'out of combat' stuff is just totally awesome. I have one party without a Wizard, and the Rogue fills in for spells. She used Water Walk just the other day. In AD&D we'd all sit down for a day while the Cleric prayed before we could do anything.



Tactical Combat
I tend to agree with you on that point. 4e is very tactical... and everyone is meant to be looking for ins and outs during the fight.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

D&D, 4th Edition in a nutshell: If a character wants to do something that has a chance of failure, they roll a d20.

The result of the roll may be modified up or down (depending on the character's abilities, the situation, previous planning and preparation, etc.). The DM picks a target number. If the modified result of the roll is higher than the target number, the character succeeds.

Almost every other rule and subsystem builds from this base, further defines the modifiers that might affect the roll, or further defines the target number.

If you don't like a 4E subsystem or rule, experiment with stripping it back to this base mechanic.

Regarding your specific points:
- If you don't like the tactical combat system try taking out conditions, taking out actions, and/or taking out combat advantage. That should give a system that feels very much like original D&D, though with the elegance of the Standard/Move/Minor system.

- You can use powers whenever you want. You can't reuse encounter powers until you've taken a short rest and you can't reuse daily powers until you've taken an extended rest. Power descriptions and combat rules take up most of the PHB and Heroes books, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should take up most of your play time.

- The time bubble thing sounds like a PEBRAP (problem exists between rules and players, meaning the DM is the problem). If the encounter feels like it's interrupting the flow of the session, it probably wasn't designed well or isn't being run well. If you are not having fun, simplify combat down to a skill challenge, handwave, or strip it all the way back to the golden rule.

4E is the most elegant version of D&D ever. If it feels too complicated, take a step back and refocus.

 

[Chzbro]

First let me say to the OP that I appreciate that you actually tried the game despite your misgivings and found things about it that you like.

Like the OP, I have played D&D for years. I started with Redbox, had my hiatus during 2E, and came back for 3.5 and 4E. However, unlike the OP, I don't feel any particular love for Vancian magic, wandering monsters, or non-tactical combat. While all of these things were part of the games I played, none of them defined D&D for me.

Having said that, I can certainly see why certain issues with the current game might become sticking points for players who have a different view than I about what D&D "is." I don't want at all to try to convince anyone that my way of seeing the game is the "right way," but since I think the OP is asking why those points he expressed don't bother me the same way they do him, I'll try to explain.

To me, D&D has never been about the ruleset. My games have always been an imperfect attempt to recreate the kind of heroic (sometimes dark) fantasy that my friends and I read in novels, watched in movies, and daydreamed about on summer afternoons. In some ways, I find that 4E facilitates this more easily than earlier rulesets because it allows me (as either a player or DM) do things appropriate to the story even if there are no rules to explicitly allow it. An encounter can revolve around 2 powerful wizards engaged in a magical duel, for example, and I don't have to worry at all about what spells they are casting or how they're maintaining the shield the PCs are trying to batter through. They just are, because it's cinematic and awesome.

And that brings us to the "time bubble" issue with encounters. This doesn't bother me, because I try to think of encounters as cinematic fights rather than old school, sweeping-out-the-dungeon fights. I've never read a fantasy novel (nor do I think I'd care to) where the heroes march from room to room in a dungeon killing whatever they find (please note that I am NOT saying this is how the OP runs his game). This, for some, is an age-old trope of D&D, but to me not a very satisfying one. I don't care about wandering monsters and yard trash; those were never anything more than resource drains. When I have a fight in D&D, I want it to be because it's important, it's dramatic, and it's memorable. To me, this means the "time bubble" as opposed to spending 3 rounds outside the door buffing or beating the snot out of yet another group of wandering bugbears. I don't mind the "time bubble" because to me planning an encounter like that means the encounter is *important.*

There's not much to be said about the tactical combat, except maybe this: not all combats have to be tactical. If you're burning out from combat after combat, remember that there are other ways to beat the snot out of those wandering bugbears. Skill challenges can really shine in situations like this, especially if you get creative with them. Why not throw some skill challenges in now and again that simulate things like running combats or killing guards without any minis on the board? Make the players describe what they're doing, how they're fighting. I did this once to simulate a running battle WITH minis, only no one did any moving around. Each success with different skills removed 1 or 2 enemy minis from the board until none were left and the PCs escaped. They had to imagine the fight (mostly flight, actually), but we did it all with no tactical combat at all...and it went great. So again, I think heavily tactical combats are a wonderful addition to the game, but that doesn't mean every "combat" has to be tactical.

And then there are powers. Also tricky in that it's all about your perception. If you MUST think of powers in a literal sense ("why can't I use this encounter/daily all the time") it's problematic. If, however, you think of them in a "literary" way, they make much more sense. In stories and movies, the hero doesn't knock his opponent down every time he swings his sword. It only happens once, usually when he needs it most. In 4E, we let the player decide when that "I need it most" moment is. It's one of the things that I think is strongest about 4E: shared storytelling. You can't think of powers as mechanics of the game; you have to think about them as part of the story...they are the way that players are able to influence the story in combat in much the same way that they influence the story outside of combat through role-play (and sometimes utility powers/rituals).

I'm sure I could go on, but that pretty fairly sums up how I think of the game and how I "adjusted" to the peculiarities of 4E. For me the adjustment wasn't hard because I like a cinematic game and 4E is a very cinematic edition. I have to say, I still kind of bristle when I hear people describe it as "video gamey;" if anything it's "storybook-y," and I don't hear a whole lot of people complaining about their D&D game feeling too much like their Eberron novels. I mean, isn't it supposed to?

 

[justrob]

Wow, wasn't expecting so many responses so quickly.

I had an amazingly long reply typed up, hitting on every single one of you with an individual reply...and then the power went out. Yep. Wiped the whole damn thing. Spent over two hours typing it all up.

Sucks. However, it did give me a little perspective on what I'd said.

I've revised my thoughts on the time bubble thing. I originally meant it as equating to the jarring change as in video games when your party encounters an enemy, and it changes over to a combat screen and the whole game stops while you grind away...

Yeah, that sounds as stupid to me after writing it as it does to you guys. It boils down to the transition from narrative to combat is just more jarring, to me, than in previous editions. Combat is simplified yes, streamlined etc, but it's so much more WORK at the table. That's something I need to wrap my head around and find a new system for. Same issue with the status effects. It's just always been something I find as more work than fun. I need to find some sort of system for managing them on the fly and that issue will be gone.

The minis issue. Well, I think that's just me whining. We rarely used minis when I played previous editions, except for 3.5. It's a big mindset change from using them for pretty much just relative positioning, to the main tool of running combats.

Now, let me clarify about the things I DO like about 4e. First, I LOVE how it's a refinement of the d20 system. Like Tikk said, anything someone wants to do, make them roll a 20 and modify it by blah blah. It's simple and elegant. Good things add to your chances, bad things take away. The only other system I've ever found to be as simple was Shadowrun's d6 system, albeit way more involved.

Stat bonuses are simplified, Skills are ridiculously simplified. A FAR cry from the non-weapon proficiencies I grew up with. I still think feats can be improved, but I see them more as character flavor than a real mechanics enhancing part of the rules.

Defenses are a godsend vs saving throws. I like how combat powers are based on [w] for base damage and not some arbitrary damage scale of their own.

I think the healing system is pure cheese. Yes yes, cinematic and all, but pure cheese. Taking a breather after watching the last bad guy fall dead is not a good explanation for instant healing or refreshing, even considering the vitality vs wounds perspective.

I still don't "get" rituals, but I think I just need to read more.

Oh, PoL as the base "known world" is really really boring. This one is just a nit, we all use our own settings or more fleshed out packaged ones anyway.

Chzbro, you actually provided exactly what I was looking for...perspective. I think I just needed to bounce my views on the system off of people to let me see them from the outside. This is how stupid opinions and flame wars start, people don't ask for critique on their views, they just spit out what they see as gospel and that's it.

Thanks guys. Keep it coming if you have more.

My NEXT question...

Should I look at essentials as an errata printing of the core books? I have the 3 PHBs and DMGs and MMs. Is essentials...essential as an errata reprint of the books, or can I ignore changes and just keep using the books as printed?