D&D 4E Convince me that 4e is worth my time

[Zephrin the Lost]

At a guess, he's commenting on the change in the Fighter's role to "the guy who soaks up all the damage" from "the guy who soaks up and gives out the most damage (excluding magic)".

This happens at least once a session in my weekly 4e game: Dwarf fighter uses an encounter power, hit, rolls several dice, announces some absurd amount of damage, other players and DM sit silent for a moment, and then someone asks for his sheet to check the math. It's always right.

Only the rogue outshines him, and he can't nearly take the same punishment. There are other builds that might do less damage, but that's the same of every edition, I believe. Even with all the new classes, I've found 4e fighters to be the choice when you want to take and deliver punishment.

But the I agree with the apparent consensus that the OP might be happier playing something else. 4e was love at first sight for me and does everything I need a system to do, but it's not going to be that for everyone.

--Z

 

[Goonalan]

After 30 years of DMing D&D all editions and many of the games you listed I find myself content to play 4e. Although the 4e I play is not the game that you describe- in fact, your description is a little odd, you seem to have settled upon defining the game by the rules.

In previous paragraphs you describe a number of other games, and again come to the conclusion, at times, that the rules are broken.

The last session of D&D I played (4 hours long), involved no combat, a singing competition, a githyanki being chatted up by a Tiefling, some gambling, and half-a-dozen encounters that involved players doing things that involved the rules slightly [make an x check] and then me the DM (me) adjudicating the results, but as reliant on the PCs RP skills as the dice roll. The only skill challenge involved each PC humming (or la-la-la-ing) a tune for the other players to guess at- 4 successes before 3 failures (this was the singing competition)- no dice were used at all.

Next week there'll be a fight or two, also one of the PCs will be delivering a 200 word sermon at the House of the Sun (Temple of Pelor)- the sermon needs to include quotes from famous Pelorian saints and will be written and not ad-libed. Another PC will be further romancing a female Tiefling (diner at the Silver Unicorn Inn)- a Skill CHallenge of sorts for which the player is preparing a comprehensive list of his most effective chat up lines- ever, he has promised he will 'get into my pants'.

The week previously there were two combat encounters, one a big fight with lots of Undead that was pretty nasty, the other with three PCs versus 21 Giant Rats, with the rats appearing 1- then 2- then 3- then 4- then 5- then 6 (round by round), with each PC not being able to move out of their section of the room- all Rats were Minions and the entire thing was played as a mini game- Splat the Rat! The fight was a chance for Rogar (Halfling Monk, and ex-Ratcatcher) to prove to Bith the Ratter (NPC Ratcatcher) that he still had the old magic. It took fifteen minutes to play out.

I keep reading threads here that descibe D&Dx as being- insert rules, in many respects the game I play (called D&D) has changed very little in the last 30 years, it's as broad as our colective imaginations and governed by my judicious touch (the mailed fist within the silk glove).

There are rules of course, and I've read a few of them, but the last rules book I read all the way through was... damn, I don't even think I read the first edition books.

In previous installments PCs have undertaken drinking competitions (with physical activities thrown in, which the players (not the PCs) have to do), romanced Princesses, taken part in detective like scenarios, discovered that they were actually a prototype automaton (a Dwarforged), slept with an Aboleth, arm-wrestled Ogres, danced with Fey, gambled with a Frog, surfed on lava, romanced a ghost, escaped a sea on poisonous blood by leaping from on top of a demon's head and then leaping to the next, and the next...

Dice were involved, sometimes, I get that this version has a lot of stuff about combat, if fights are not what you want then don't do them, or at least change the rules to suit your needs. 4E, IMHO, has been the easiest iteration to bend to suit my needs, and the easiest to improv on the fly.

You should see the stuff I have got lined up for my PCs... Just madness.

As to wether you should try 4e another again- meh, as Yoda said-

"Do, or do not. There is no try."

Good luck with whatever you go for.

Oh and like you I found my players here at ENWorld, they've been with me for three years now, and are dotted all over the globe, I've had four players leave in that time- all due to time/work, four of my players have been with me since the beginning. Three of the players that have had to leave have stayed in touch, still read our adventures and e-mail me still asking questions, commenting and trying to find ways to get back in the game (at times). Only I, and one other player, had played 4e previously when we started.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

After 30 years of DMing D&D all editions and many of the games you listed I find myself content to play 4e. Although the 4e I play is not the game that you describe- in fact, your description is a little odd, you seem to have settled upon defining the game by the rules.

In previous paragraphs you describe a number of other games, and again come to the conclusion, at times, that the rules are broken.

The last session of D&D I played (4 hours long), involved no combat, a singing competition, a githyanki being chatted up by a Tiefling, some gambling, and half-a-dozen encounters that involved players doing things that involved the rules slightly [make an x check] and then me the DM (me) adjudicating the results, but as reliant on the PCs RP skills as the dice roll. The only skill challenge involved each PC humming (or la-la-la-ing) a tune for the other players to guess at- 4 successes before 3 failures (this was the singing competition)- no dice were used at all.

Next week there'll be a fight or two, also one of the PCs will be delivering a 200 word sermon at the House of the Sun (Temple of Pelor)- the sermon needs to include quotes from famous Pelorian saints and will be written and not ad-libed. Another PC will be further romancing a female Tiefling (diner at the Silver Unicorn Inn)- a Skill CHallenge of sorts for which the player is preparing a comprehensive list of his most effective chat up lines- ever, he has promised he will 'get into my pants'.

The week previously there were two combat encounters, one a big fight with lots of Undead that was pretty nasty, the other with three PCs versus 21 Giant Rats, with the rats appearing 1- then 2- then 3- then 4- then 5- then 6 (round by round), with each PC not being able to move out of their section of the room- all Rats were Minions and the entire thing was played as a mini game- Splat the Rat! The fight was a chance for Rogar (Halfling Monk, and ex-Ratcatcher) to prove to Bith the Ratter (NPC Ratcatcher) that he still had the old magic. It took fifteen minutes to play out.

I keep reading threads here that descibe D&Dx as being- insert rules, in many respects the game I play (called D&D) has changed very little in the last 30 years, it's as broad as our colective imaginations and governed by my judicious touch (the mailed fist within the silk glove).

There are rules of course, and I've read a few of them, but the last rules book I read all the way through was... damn, I don't even think I read the first edition books.

In previous installments PCs have undertaken drinking competitions (with physical activities thrown in, which the players (not the PCs) have to do), romanced Princesses, taken part in detective like scenarios, discovered that they were actually a prototype automaton (a Dwarforged), slept with an Aboleth, arm-wrestled Ogres, danced with Fey, gambled with a Frog, surfed on lava, romanced a ghost, escaped a sea on poisonous blood by leaping from on top of a demon's head and then leaping to the next, and the next...

Dice were involved, sometimes, I get that this version has a lot of stuff about combat, if fights are not what you want then don't do them, or at least change the rules to suit your needs. 4E, IMHO, has been the easiest iteration to bend to suit my needs, and the easiest to improv on the fly.

You should see the stuff I have got lined up for my PCs... Just madness.

As to wether you should try 4e another again- meh, as Yoda said-

"Do, or do not. There is no try."

Good luck with whatever you go for.

Oh and like you I found my players here at ENWorld, they've been with me for three years now, and are dotted all over the globe, I've had four players leave in that time- all due to time/work, four of my players have been with me since the beginning. Three of the players that have had to leave have stayed in touch, still read our adventures and e-mail me still asking questions, commenting and trying to find ways to get back in the game (at times). Only I, and one other player, had played 4e previously when we started.

I wrote too much on ly post comments but yes I agree and the idea that the rules are the limit of what you can do need to be challanged. I see a lot of it also and since I only became involved in internet discussion on rpgs in the 3.x era I kind of associate it with 3.x but it may be older and more widespread than thaf. It is a very limiting idea.

 

[Firebeetle]

I've been playing D&D and RPGs for 30 years, I love 4E and I'm never going back.

Why:
A.) As a DM, I'm finally no longer a slave to the rules. Now the rules serve me. If I want to create something, I do it. Making dynamic encounters far better than anything that used to be possible is child's play. Once I spent three hours statting up a villain that the player he was built to fight took out in three rounds of lucky rolls (and unlucky roles for me.) That was 3e, I felt like such a tool.

I can now devote my prep time to making my game awesome, instead of worrying about it just being 'street legal'.

B.) More options for players. 4e takes all the wacky things players used to attempt and gives them a codified rule set to do it with. This is a good thing. Before, melee classes really had two choices, hit with my missile weapon or hit with my melee weapon. After collecting some feats they might get to do something kind of cool. Now, each 1st level character rocks and has something cool to do every turn. I love that feature.

Player can still try to do wacky things, a good encounter should have lots of terrain features that encourage this. Want to swing from the chandalier? OK, here's the rule. Want to get the stack of barrels rolling down the hallway? Here it is. 4e isn't the problem, people trying to play 4e while still in 3e mode is the problem.

C.) Skill challenges. I love skill challenges, they take what I used to do (ah, roll a skill check. You're closer to your goal now. . .) and codifies it. I now have a mechanic to handle things, AND it handles lengths of time. Players want to build a smuggler's network? OK Players have to survive winter in Icewind Dale? Got it.

Between my ability to make combat encounters quickly, and skill challenges being able to handle anything the players think they can do, I can completely improvise is the PCs go off the plot wagon. This used to kill sessions in 3.5 as I would wrap it up so I could plan for next week.

D.) Miniatures and terrain. You obviously don't like the dynamic battlemap, and that's a shame. I got into miniatures during 3e, and now I'm adding terrain bits. I like that the map is always changing. Before, miniatures represented where players started and where they ended up, surrounding some beastie and doing their best impression of LAPD vs. Rodney King. Now they fight teams of monsters and everyone is constantly moving. I love this, it's fun and engaging and my efforts on miniatures and terrain always seem more valuable.

YMMV, but I love 4e and I'm not going back. It's not all about combat, most of the preprinted adventures are, but 4e is more capable of roleplaying, not less. Players now need to think a little like DMs and describe what they do, just like we did back in the day. I don't think 4e is the problem, I think it's your thinking about 4e that is the problem, no offense intended (and you are not the only one doing so).

Good luck with whatever you choose.

 

[wedgeski]

I think basically you can go one of two ways with this. You can decide that the game is expressed in rules which "offend" you (I mean in the least pejorative sense possible), and you're probably never going to like it as a consequence; or, you consider the idea that you're judging the game on slightly arbitrary criteria born out of comparison with other systems, which is honestly what it looks like to me.

The best way to be convinced that 4E is worth your time is to play a few sessions with a good, experienced DM, not a session and a half with someone who got the rules wrong.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Really, there is not need to convince you to try 4E. Especially after such a negative post.

If you tried 4E and did not like it, and do not like how it runs, you are wasting your time trying it again. If you think you have not given it a good try, then find a good GM, and give it a month or two of play.

But if you do that, then stop comparing it to every other game out there. Doing that only leads to disappointment.

 

[Greg K]

I
Why:
A.) As a DM, I'm finally no longer a slave to the rules. Now the rules serve me. If I want to create something, I do it. Making dynamic encounters far better than anything that used to be possible is child's play. Once I spent three hours statting up a villain that the player he was built to fight took out in three rounds of lucky rolls (and unlucky roles for me.) That was 3e, I felt like such a tool.

Why were you a slave with 3e? My copy of the 3.0 DMG tells me that, as the DMG, I can ignore or change what I don't like. As for building NPCs, why slave? It is not like the players will know if you are using a variant monster, added classes or templates, etc. The only time I can see needing to follow the PC creation rules is if you are writing for publication. So, I put the blame for spending three hours on you.

As for players wiping out a villain or NPC, I don't know why some DMs get all bent out of shape about it. I think it is cool if someone gets a really lucky shot.

I can now devote my prep time to making my game awesome, instead of worrying about it just being 'street legal'.

B.) More options for players. 4e takes all the wacky things players used to attempt and gives them a codified rule set to do it with. This is a good thing. Before, melee classes really had two choices, hit with my missile weapon or hit with my melee weapon. After collecting some feats they might get to do something kind of cool. Now, each 1st level character rocks and has something cool to do every turn. I love that feature.

Player can still try to do wacky things, a good encounter should have lots of terrain features that encourage this. Want to swing from the chandalier? OK, here's the rule. Want to get the stack of barrels rolling down the hallway?

Did you ever read the 3.0 DMG (I don't own the 3.5 version so can't comment other than knowing it dropped some things like 0/0 Level multiclassing at first level)? My 3.0 DMG includes
a) an example of a monk wanting to grab a chandelier and Swing. A Dex check (DC 13) to grab the chandelier (player can request to use tumble). If successful, treat as a charge with +2 to the attack
b) the barrels? Avoiding something is a Reflex save as discussed in the section about Saving Throw or Ability Check.

There is also a section on environment and another small section on unusual terrain like uneven platforms, steam vents, fog etc.

C.) Skill challenges. I love skill challenges, they take what I used to do (ah, roll a skill check. You're closer to your goal now. . .) and codifies it. I now have a mechanic to handle things, AND it handles lengths of time. Players want to build a smuggler's network? OK Players have to survive winter in Icewind Dale? Got it.

Between my ability to make combat encounters quickly, and skill challenges being able to handle anything the players think they can do, I can completely improvise is the PCs go off the plot wagon. This used to kill sessions in 3.5 as I would wrap it up so I could plan for next week.

With regards to skills, I'll give you successes over time (UA, however, does have extendend skill checks) and, while I can't comment on the 3.5 DMG, my 3.0 DMG discusses setting difficulties and modifiers under DM's best friend. The base modifier to the roll or DC is +2/-2 modifier. However, depending upon circumstances modifiers can be anything from 2 to 20. There are also several examples DCs and a section in the DMG with discussion about degrees of success and how that can affect things like how much information I character may get.

 

[Herschel]

Because we 4Eers aren't trolling the 3E threads?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Any reason you might have for playing or not playing any game would be better judged by yourself rather than the peeps here.

You have tried it and did not like it very much, what is some random person going to say that would have more impact than your own personal experience?

Play what you have the most fun with.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why were you a slave with 3e? My copy of the 3.0 DMG tells me that, as the DMG, I can ignore or change what I don't like. As for building NPCs, why slave? It is not like the players will know if you are using a variant monster, added classes or templates, etc. The only time I can see needing to follow the PC creation rules is if you are writing for publication. So, I put the blame for spending three hours on you.

While eyeballing it in any edition has been possible, it takes a great deal of expertise to end up with something that's balanced and useable. Using the rules was supposed to be how you did it.

In 3e, using the rules to make an NPC was complex, because the rules were for PCs, and a character was the focal point of one entire person (the player). As a DM having to do that for multiple NPCs was pretty nightmareish. Even reskinning wasn't all that easy (well, all I do is change humanoid to undead and... oh. I have to redo every stat it has!) unless you fell back on just eyeballing it.

As for players wiping out a villain or NPC, I don't know why some DMs get all bent out of shape about it. I think it is cool if someone gets a really lucky shot.

The key is that the comparison metric is time-to-create vs face time. If your face time is 3 rounds, you want the time-to-create to be about the same as any other no-name nothing in the campaign. If it's substantially higher, then it feels like you wasted your weekend planning it.

a) an example of a monk wanting to grab a chandelier and Swing. A Dex check (DC 13) to grab the chandelier (player can request to use tumble). If successful, treat as a charge with +2 to the attack

Which is a little punitive, given that most monks can drop 20ft and charge without needing that check...

But yeah, 3e definately has "jazz up combat" in it's advice, and the adventures show that. In fact, given that without doing those things, the monks options are "well, you can stand still and punch things, move and punch things, or charge and punch things" with variations depending on how trip or grab-optimized he is, players tended to do that sort of stuff more often. Which might be construed as good or bad.

b) the barrels? Avoiding something is a Reflex save as discussed in the section about Saving Throw or Ability Check.

There is also a section on environment and another small section on unusual terrain like uneven platforms, steam vents, fog etc.

The key here is that 4e has a nice chart for the damage that such an attack should cause, and that only serves to make things easier. Because like we all know - if you can just ad-lib that sort of stuff, you can feel free to and you're not losing anything by having a nice guide.