4e and me

[amerigoV]

I'm posting this on ENworld, dragonsfoot, paizo and the troll lord forums
...
Umm I see a big number of people that voted on the poll and that are reading his column’s are younger than me. And don’t have the experience of editions apart from 4e, which I think is a bad thing. I’ve played 4e and other editions. I have to say that was a good thing in my mind. Like I test drove the edition.

Is this a necro thread? I swear this stuff is about 3 years out of date. The sides on the edition war have been firmly entrenched. You cannot switch sides now.

If current, you must be frickin old. Don't you know that breakups are done via social media these days? Go Tweet it and change your Facebook status to "its complicated". Then, you can yell it to the world on Google+ and have it all covered.

Old people - they never know what to do these days...

 

[MrMyth]

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think it changes the impression of the saving throw. In earlier editions, it's a last ditch attempt to avoid the inevitable - being affected by something nasty. The PC failed or succeeded on the player's (un)lucky roll. Now, it rests on the DM's luck with the roll. I prefer the luck responsibility on the defender's shoulders for these things.

In addition, for those of us who like the action points mechanic from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana or Eberron or other saving throw reroll mechanics, they would no longer work as elegantly in a save-as-static-defense as in 4e.
Edit: I'd like to amplify this a bit - by being able to modify their own saving throws with action points or rerolls, this puts choices in the players' hands regarding how far they want to extend or push their luck in their own defense - something I very much prefer to the 4e alternative.

Finally, spells (or other save-worthy effects) as attacks qualify for critical hits. I can't say I'm really in favor of that.

Chalk me down for thinking the change from saves to static defenses as being part of 4e I really don't like.

Oh, I can absolutely get not liking the difference. (I've got one friend who is the same... being someone who is comically bad at rolling attacks, he's always preferred playing spellcasters who force the DM to roll instead!)

Now, logically, the luck itself does not really change - but the feel certainly does, and it is definitely true that specific mechanical benefits/weaknesses may differ.

But I think the fundamental core of what they represent remains true. And that is what Mearl was talking about in that post, and what qstor was objecting to.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Is this a necro thread? I swear this stuff is about 3 years out of date. The sides on the edition war have been firmly entrenched. You cannot switch sides now.

If current, you must be frickin old. Don't you know that breakups are done via social media these days? Go Tweet it and change your Facebook status to "its complicated". Then, you can yell it to the world on Google+ and have it all covered.

Old people - they never know what to do these days...

Definitely time for the mods to shut this thing down, it's starting to degrade rather quickly.

 

[qstor]

Definitely time for the mods to shut this thing down, it's starting to degrade rather quickly.

The thread is degrading cause it was stuck in the fridge when Hurricane Irene hit.

Mike

 

[billd91]

Oh, I can absolutely get not liking the difference. (I've got one friend who is the same... being someone who is comically bad at rolling attacks, he's always preferred playing spellcasters who force the DM to roll instead!)

Now, logically, the luck itself does not really change - but the feel certainly does, and it is definitely true that specific mechanical benefits/weaknesses may differ.

But I think the fundamental core of what they represent remains true. And that is what Mearl was talking about in that post, and what qstor was objecting to.

Logically, the luck may not change. But I think the energy at the table does. And I can't discount that as a change that isn't real.

Same with the action point system I prefer and lack of spellcasting crits. Definitely real mechanical changes, albeit linked to game mechanics (in one case optional) that I like better.

 

[Dannager]

I'm posting this on ENworld, dragonsfoot, paizo and the troll lord forums

Your thread on the Paizo forum didn't even survive one reply.

I’ve been really on the fence the last few months about 4th edition.

And, of course, the reasons for which you have (of course) decided that 4e now sucks are so important that you had to go on pretty much every D&D forum community you could think of and tell them exactly why it sucks. Because your reasons are so novel and unique and no one has thought of them before and they certainly have never been refuted a thousand times in the past.

 

[qstor]

Old people - they never know what to do these days...

Sorry I didn't have computer usage for a LONG time, in the nursing home I'm staying at.

Mike

 

[qstor]

Because your reasons are so novel and unique and no one has thought of them before and they certainly have never been refuted a thousand times in the past.

Yeah you know I NEVER realized that until you pointed it out!

Mike

 

[MrMyth]

Logically, the luck may not change. But I think the energy at the table does. And I can't discount that as a change that isn't real.

Same with the action point system I prefer and lack of spellcasting crits. Definitely real mechanical changes, albeit linked to game mechanics (in one case optional) that I like better.

Sure, but by the same token, the fact you can modify saves with action points doesn't mean that 3.5 is no longer using the same spiritual 'saving throw' system as that used in 1st Edition. (Where, I admit I have no real experience, but suspect that it was relatively difficult to modify saves after the fact.)

That's the point - Mearls was saying that these elements - that characters have something that represents their ability to evade various sorts of dangers. (Early on, those dangers being specifically petrification/death magic/etc; later one, those dangers being ones you can either dodge, or withstand physically or mentally.)

4E did change the roll from the player to the DM, but either way, it still represents the character withstanding or avoiding the danger (or failing to do so). The 4E mechanics absolutely retain that, even as they do change the mechanics in order to provide what for some are benefits, but for others are downsides. Some folks like spells that can crit, some do not. But whether one likes it or not, the core of what is being represented is still there.

 

[Dannager]

I've been a DM since 1979 and I love 4e almost as much as 0e. If 5e regresses into a Crapfinder clone

Hey. Not acceptable. There are people who treat 4e this way, and they are not fun to be around. Figure out a way to be enthusiastic about the game you love without dirtying up the communal pool in the process.