D&D 4E 4E is the Right Direction for 5E

[pemerton]

I think 4e is incredibly tough on new players.

I haven't tried to introduce new players to it, but this strikes me as highly believable.

I have introduced Rolemaster to new players, and that is tough, and 4e seems to me about as complex both in building and in play as RM.

There is exactly one build of one class that IME the typical new player can handle ok, and that is the 4e PHB Ranger Archer -it doesn't take much to say "Twin Strike!" when your turn comes up.

Agreed. And the flipside of this is that, as soon as the Hybrid rules came out, the archer ranger player in my game rebuilt his PC as a ranger-cleric, in what was known as Operation Have-My-Character-Do-Something-Other-Than-Twin-Strike.

Seeing new players trying to cope with Leader classes is painful, and Controllers aren't much better.

Sounds plausible. And my experience suggests that a well-built fighter is hard to play also. In a recent session the player of our fighter PC was absent, and the player of the sorcerer - who has built the most optimised PC at the table, and is himself a serious wargame and bridge player - was given the job of playing the fighter. And was moved to comment that it is a complex PC to play (mostly the variety of condition infliction from the interaction of various forms of attack, of forced movement, and of conditions).

I agree with [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] - the only form of D&D I know that could be described as beginner-friendly is Basic. AD&D can be made that simple if someone who knows the system strips away or handles all the more complex stuff (like choosing proficiencies, rolling starting spells for a mage, etc) - and even at full bore is obviously less complex (although also sometimes less intuitive in play) than 4e. I've heard good things about the Paizo starter set, but haven't seen it.

 

[Pour]

I think 4e is incredibly tough on new players. There is exactly one build of one class that IME the typical new player can handle ok, and that is the 4e PHB Ranger Archer -it doesn't take much to say "Twin Strike!" when your turn comes up. Seeing new players trying to cope with Leader classes is painful, and Controllers aren't much better. You'd think Essentials Knights & Slayers ought to work, but IME the Stance mechanic is non-intuitive and confusing, far moreso than PHB Powers. And all the melee Strikers are really hard to make survivable.

Coupled with the Character Builder, introducing new players to 4e (of which I've run at least 15) was as easy as going through the steps with them, describing some in-game examples of what a class or race might be like, and sometimes likening it to an existing fictional character, genre, movie, or game. They really took the rest on themselves, and never shied from more complicated options (I never ran Essential, as they all prefered PHB 1-3 classes for whatever reason). There was an obvious learning curve, especially some of the finer points of, say, the swordmage or assassin, but power cards were very helpful in all instances, as was my somewhat liberal DMing (which, I admit, allowed them to utilize certain class features and complicated powers in simpler ways that both kept things moving and didn't needlessly complicate).

The only trouble I ever had with new players and 4e was at the start of the Evard's Legacy Encounters, where there was no access to the Character Builder and the DM was too busy shooting the **** with the other morlochs to actually help the table. I spent an hour going through the bits and pieces with two complete rpg newbies, like never heard of a hit point or a d20 (well, one did play WoW and other games like that before, so he had some sort of reference). They sat next to me and I helped them through, even as the DM started using a hodgepodge of 4e and 3.5e rules, and then started getting angry we didn't know his various systems. It was... a nightmare, and even still the one player continued the next week. Sadly, I had to bow out just because of the untenable situation. It's a shame, though, since about 75% of those players were good people, their experience dragged down entirely by a bad DM. Then there was the other 25%, but that's another story...

I guess my point is any game can be learned with knowledgeable and helpful people to facilitate the learning. Now, for new players outside the reach of organized play or forums or tutorials, I can definitely see how that would be a hurtle all its own... but I did it once, and I imagine others could too. How many stories have we read about kids playing the game entirely wrong and having a blast with it. I think the videos of Chris Perkins running various people through modules is fairly helpful for newbies, too.

Though, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize the game is no longer for kids, is it. Kind of the same deal with comic books. On the whole, it's an older audience than at its inception. Or is it? Did Gary envision kids playing his games, really? Part of me thinks not. The youngest I ever taught was high schoolers (well, save when I was like 11 and taught my little brother a very horrible version of 2e).

 

[ren1999]

I guess that the reason I find 4E easier than Pathfinder is that the powers are pretty logical in 4E. In Pathfinder there are a lot of advanced rules that are mentioned in the spell descriptions.

As said before, I think 4E is on track. It just needs to have advanced rules like Pathfinder. For example, spell concentration..

There are also too many redundant spells and powers in 4E. I want to see the game return to the traditional spells but with that 4E scaling. I also want the spells to be worth something in combat encounters -- not just during ritual.

Here is a draft of my latest "Anti-Gravity" and "Phase" or teleportation spells.

Feather Fall
Spell Type: Anti-Gravity
Level: Wizard 1 or Custom Spell Casting Class 1
Action: triggered by fall
Range: touch
Target: self and all allies within 1 square burst
Effect: the caster's fall is slowed to a harmless speed.
Level-Up Scale: protect allies at 2 square burst at 11th and 3 square burst at 21st level

Spider Climb
Spell Type: Anti-Gravity
Level: Wizard 2 or Custom Spell Casting Class 2
Action: standard encounter
Range: touch
Target: self, and 1 ally
Effect: the caster climbs vertical and ceiling surfaces at speed 2 with no climb penalties. If this spell fails Feather Fall activates if known.
Level-Up Scale: self and 2 allies at 11th and self and 3 allies at 21st level

Force Jump
Spell Type: Anti-Gravity
Level: Wizard 3 or Custom Spell Casting Class 3
Action: standard encounter
Range: touch
Target: self, and 1 ally
Effect: the caster can jump 1 square
Level-Up Scale: 2 squares at 11th and 3 squares at 21st level. If this spell fails Feather Fall activates if known.
targets self and 2 allies at 11th and self and 3 allies at 21st level

Force Levitate
Spell Type: Anti-Gravity
Level: Wizard 4 or Custom Spell Casting Class 4
Action: standard encounter
Range: touch
Target: self, and 1 ally
Effect: the caster can levitate up or down 1 square. If this spell fails Feather Fall activates if known.
Saving Throw: levitate one foe intelligence versus will 1 square. Fall damage is 1d10 per square
foes are levitated 2 squares up and take 2d10 at caster's 11th level, 3 squares and 3d10 damage at 21st level.
Level-Up Scale: levitate up or down 2 squares at 11th and 3 squares at 21st level
targets self and 2 allies at 11th and self and 3 allies at 21st level

Force Fly
Spell Type: Anti-Gravity
Level: Wizard 5 or Custom Spell Casting Class 5
Action: standard encounter
Range: touch
Target: self
Duration: encounter
Effect: the caster can fly with a speed of 6. The caster gets a +1 bonus to armor class and reflex and a +1 swoop attack roll
Level-Up Scale: fly with speed 7 at 11th level and speed 8 at 21st level. +2 to armor class and reflex, +2 to attack at 11th and +3 at 21st level.

Blink Shift
Spell Type: Phase
Level: Wizard 1 or Custom Spell Casting Class 1
Action: triggered encounter
Range: touch
Target: self
Duration: encounter
Effect: The attacker must reroll an attack on the caster while caster enters any empty square on the map.
Level-Up Scale: The caster can use the spell x2 encounter at 11th, and x3 encounter at 21st level

Pass Wall
Spell Type: Phase
Level: Wizard 2 or Custom Spell Casting Class 2
Action: standard encounter
Range: touch
Target: self, and 1 ally
Effect: The caster can walk through 1 impassible square on the map.
Level-Up Scale: targets self and 2 allies at 11th and self and 3 allies at 21st level

Teleport Portal
Spell Type: Phase
Level: Wizard 3 or Custom Spell Casting Class 3
Action: standard encounter
Range: touch
Target: self, and 1 ally
Effect: The caster can teleport to any previous location of the game session
Level-Up Scale: targets self and 2 allies at 11th and self and 3 allies at 21st level

My Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition and Pathfinder Module Tester kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[mkill]

I guess that the reason I find 4E easier than Pathfinder is that the powers are pretty logical in 4E. In Pathfinder there are a lot of advanced rules that are mentioned in the spell descriptions.

What you call "advanced rules" is 3rd-edition D&D. Frankly, I was very happy when 4E cut out most of the subsystems and complications and streamlined the system. I miss some of the old-style utility spells, but when it comes to combat magic, 4E wins hands down. I'm currently playing a PF Sorcerer and I would kill for something like Thunderwave or Chaos Bolt. Color Spray is effective, but not exactly "manly combat magic".

Can you give an example for those "advanced rules"?

As said before, I think 4E is on track. It just needs to have advanced rules like Pathfinder. For example, spell concentration..

I guess you could houserule that back in.

4E spellcasters don't need it that much, though. Usually, you can shift away, hit them with a close blast or burst, or even trigger an opportunity attack on purpose to have the defender smack a marked enemy.

There is also the "defensive mobility" feat, which gives a bonus against all opportunity attacks, including those triggered by spellcasting.

There are also too many redundant spells and powers in 4E. I want to see the game return to the traditional spells but with that 4E scaling. I also want the spells to be worth something in combat encounters -- not just during ritual.

Ok, I'm trying to guess what you mean. You want rituals with shorter casting times, so you can use them in combat? But those are utility spells. There might be a few rituals that could be useful in combat, but not much - endure elements, maybe, or disenchant magic item, or raise dead.

For 90% of rituals, though, casting time is a non-issue, because you normally don't use them under time pressure. The real limiter is the casting cost.

(4E casting times are still too long, but it's more a general inconvenience. If you need to use Passwall to get in somewhere, everyone has to wait for 10 mins in-game time while the Wizard casts. It's not like the others can press forward in the meantime, because, well, there is a wall in the way. It's the same thinking that gives fighters ridiculous penalties for sneaking in platemail and doesn't see that it punishes the whole group.)

Here is a draft of my latest "Anti-Gravity" and "Phase" or teleportation spells.

Feather Fall
Spell Type: Anti-Gravity
Level: Wizard 1 or Custom Spell Casting Class 1
Action: triggered by fall
Range: touch
Target: self and all allies within 1 square burst
Effect: the caster's fall is slowed to a harmless speed.
Level-Up Scale: protect allies at 2 square burst at 11th and 3 square burst at 21st level

Please explain how and why you need to rewrite the existing Feather Fall spell. I'm not even sure which edition this is supposed to be for. The level part is 3E, the rest 4E, except that 4E doesn't have auto-triggers as far as I know, unlike 3E (and earlier) contingency.

 

[Incenjucar]

4th edition is pretty damned easy to teach if you start out at level 1 and the DM isn't trying to gear the campaign toward experienced players. Themes took off partly because 4E was TOO simple for a lot of people at level 1.

 

[D'karr]

Teaching a player has been a cinch in 4e, and I've done quite a bit of that at conventions and with my groups.

I had a new player at my regular campaign start yesterday. She had never played before at all. Within 10 minutes she was already playing like a pro. The trick is not to overload them with minutiae, including character creation. Get a concept for what they want and build character for them or give them a pregen. When she is ready to tackle character creation she'll have a better handle of what she wants. She can also retrain as she wants if she wants to modify the base character she started with.

Teach them as you go. The play is the thing, not the instruction.

My biggest instruction to them is "if you can imagine your character doing something you can attempt to do it." Don't worry about the rules, I'm the DM let me worry about those.

She had a blast and is already talking about what she wants to do for the next game.

I could do that with 3.x also, but a lot of things were more complicated (AoO, grappling, spells, skills). So they had to remember or look up more details.

With 4e it's Standard, Move, Minor, and how to attack and that's pretty much it. Most stuff that requires rules is on the sheet. The rest is completely situation dependent so not important for a new player.

 

[Kynn]

D&D Gamma World is the best game for introducing players to 4e D&D.

 

[S'mon]

Sounds plausible. And my experience suggests that a well-built fighter is hard to play also. In a recent session the player of our fighter PC was absent, and the player of the sorcerer - who has built the most optimised PC at the table, and is himself a serious wargame and bridge player - was given the job of playing the fighter. And was moved to comment that it is a complex PC to play (mostly the variety of condition infliction from the interaction of various forms of attack, of forced movement, and of conditions).

I can't recall seeing a brand new player playing a Defender. I do know a non-newbie player who's maybe not the shiniest nickel in the barrel, and his attempt to play an Essentials Knight was very much not good. I put it down as much to the very poor design of the online character builders' character sheet as to the complexity of the class, though. If he had actually read the Knight entry in "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" rather than rely on the tiny print of the builders' sheet, I think he'd have been ok. When I played an E-Thief I built him manually and I found that HoTF took me through it effectively, so that I felt I understood the character's capabilities well; but people who only use the charbuilder don't get that.

 

[Incenjucar]

Reading the books does in fact remain an important part of 4E. People who don't read the books usually come on complaining about the game because they don't understand things because they haven't read the books.

 

[S'mon]

Though, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize the game is no longer for kids, is it. Kind of the same deal with comic books. On the whole, it's an older audience than at its inception. Or is it? Did Gary envision kids playing his games, really? Part of me thinks not. The youngest I ever taught was high schoolers (well, save when I was like 11 and taught my little brother a very horrible version of 2e).

Gygax wrote for the college level, Moldvay & Mentzer wrote for smart 10(!) to 12 year olds - I'm not sure even a smart 10 year old could grasp D&D rules without help, but AIR that's the listed minimum age on the redbox!

I don't know what's happening below age 18, since my D&D Meetup says you have t o be 18+ to attend. I do know that we don't get a huge number of 18-20 year olds, I suspect they're busy having fun in college, but we do get lots & lots of 21-23 year old recent graduates. And they mostly seem keen to persevere with 4e despite struggling* with the rules. I think older returnees from pre-3e are probably the more likely group to give up in despair.

*I think perhaps the biggest effect of the complex rules is to segregate by IQ. In the old days you had to be pretty bright to GM a good game, maybe IQ 105+ to GM Mentzer Red Box, but lots of people of below average IQ could enjoy playing D&D, and have a good time. I don't think that's possible now. Of course computer games give them an attractive alternative, anyway. I suspect that the few players at the Meetup I think of as 'not so bright, struggles with the math/mechanics' etc are still well above average.