4e A different type of disconnect??
- Thread starter Imaro
- Start date
Ginnel
Explorer
Coo groovy discussion, I've played games like Marvel Supers Card Game and Nobilis which I think promote free form and also 3/3.5 edition D&D (as well as a number of others including WW, LotFR, CoC)
I want solid rules for general combat, with the DM able to say yes when I want to improv, I don't think any ruleset excludes the DM saying yes.
My views on 4e stunts they should be along the lines of a Bulls Rush attack in terms of effect if you can do it all the time, if its a one off taking advantage of a unique situation/terrain object e.g. wobbly wall and pushing it on top of an enemy (athletics/endurance DC whatever
) that should probably be more like an encounter power. This would seem balanced to me something that 4e is concerned about and I particularly enjoy about the system, some people extremely dislike this aspect.
My initial experience of disconnect as you phrase it with 4e was thinking it was all too tactical and all move here do this with your figures like a tactical RPG (this was heavily influenced by peoples description of this on these boards), but then I played more I ignored the comments about videogamey and played it like I played any other RPG, play my character and do the things that he would, with a handy list of suggestions in the forms of powers for stuff he was good at, and now the combat plays very much like any other RPG but with a wider range of combat maneouvers/powers my character can take advantage of.
I want solid rules for general combat, with the DM able to say yes when I want to improv, I don't think any ruleset excludes the DM saying yes.
My views on 4e stunts they should be along the lines of a Bulls Rush attack in terms of effect if you can do it all the time, if its a one off taking advantage of a unique situation/terrain object e.g. wobbly wall and pushing it on top of an enemy (athletics/endurance DC whatever
) that should probably be more like an encounter power. This would seem balanced to me something that 4e is concerned about and I particularly enjoy about the system, some people extremely dislike this aspect.My initial experience of disconnect as you phrase it with 4e was thinking it was all too tactical and all move here do this with your figures like a tactical RPG (this was heavily influenced by peoples description of this on these boards), but then I played more I ignored the comments about videogamey and played it like I played any other RPG, play my character and do the things that he would, with a handy list of suggestions in the forms of powers for stuff he was good at, and now the combat plays very much like any other RPG but with a wider range of combat maneouvers/powers my character can take advantage of.
I don't experience this disconnect with 4e --or any RPG, for that matter-- because I don't find/expect/require logical consistency in the rules. There is always tension between the fictional game space depicted and the rules given for interacting with it. The ugly seams where game, story, and setting intersect. It's a 'serving three masters' thing.
I kinda see this as an inevitability in RPG's. So I guess I expect the disconnect; what bugs me is a rule set that's inflexible and cumbersome to use.
LostSoul
Adventurer
It's only that way if you choose to see it that way.
You can trip someone at first level if the DM allows it (and if the DM is following the advice in the DMG, i.e. saying yes). What's more, you can drop someone prone at first level with some powers.
Tumble is a stickier issue, but if you think people should be able to move without taking OAs, let them. I think it's a little too powerful to allow. Maybe an Acrobatic stunt as a standard action vs. the OA to shift 1/2 your speed, failure means you get hit by the OA.
ExploderWizard
Hero
This works great in a rules light system. The DM simply makes the call.
This is part of the disconnect problem the OP was talking about. Non-combat actions being very free form and combat being a mix of extremely restrictive rules with a sprinkling of DM judgement clauses tossed in. As a whole, the system comes with mixed signals.
The DM making stunt calls for cool moves isn't a bad thing until you encounter overlap with established powers and abilities. This is where too many detailed rules gets in the way of on the fly storytelling.
This mix seems to hit the sweet spot with some players and rub others the wrong way.
LostSoul
Adventurer
You bring up good points. I will think about them.
Obryn
Hero
Eh? What are you talking about?
The rogue in my group gets a +5 to her AC vs. all opportunity attacks because she's tumbling past her foes. It's one of her class abilities for picking the Artful Dodger feature, combined with the fact that she's a nimble little halfling.
Oh, you mean the actual Exploit called "Tumble"? Yeah, she has that, too, so once per encounter she doesn't need to worry about them at all.
-O
As my sig says, it's going to get worse long before it gets better. The longer the game is out, the more books and more powers are going to be made, and you're going to have to rely more and more on multiclassing into those powers in order to use them.
Jasperak
Adventurer
Try any of that at a RPGA sanctioned event. What works in one's home game doesn't work at RPGA games nor would I expect at online DDI games. The whole point of 4e should be one set of rules that everyone can agree on.
re
My initial enthusiasm for 4E has cooled. I'm finding different problems than you state. I don't know that I feel like returning to 3.5, but 4E has some serious problems.
1. 4E is too easy past 1st level: I felt challenged at 1st level. But now that my group is 2nd and 3rd level, they are mowing through most encounters even with me boosting numbers to account for six people. The players have more powers than the monsters and usually better powers. They crush the monsters with ease making the entire encounter feel like not much of a challenge.
Encounter based powers allow for a full array of powerful attacks each enconter faced. Then combine that with dailies and action points and the party has a huge advantage over what they fight. So they end up crushing most encounters including solo encounters.
They do eventually run out of healing surges, but it takes a while. As they level their healing surge value allows them to heal more efficiently while monster damage doesn't seem to be scaling with the character's hit points.
Throw in magic item dailies and you have a party of adventurers that motors through just about anything they fight. The only time they had a close call was when a series of very unlucky rolls killed the cleric. And even then they managed to win even with the paladin out of Lay on Hands to start the fight.
There are so many abilities that give temporary hit points or healing that the party seems almost unbeatable the majority of the time.
2. The game is harder to run than 3.5: I kept hearing all this talk of 4E being so much easier to run and play than 3.5. That hasn't been my experience at all.
It is easier to prep adventures. I give 4E that victory by a landslide.
But running the game is a huge pain. Each round is like being bookkeeper for some fast moving business that buys and sells every few seconds. I have to keep track of every marked target. I have to keep track of every spell that lasts more than one round. I have to keep track of temporary hit points, modifiers to each creature, temporary damage on multiple creatures, temporary effects on multiple creatures, when certain things are bloodied, recharge checks each round for a monster with a recharge power, whether or not the monster used his recharge or encounter power, action point expenditure, ammo expenditure, on top of the usual hit points.
Whoever said running 4E is easier than 3.5 wasn't speaking from experience. I know 3.5 well and there was nowhere near as much bookkeeping as their is for a 4E game on a combat to combat basis. This makes combat take quite a while as the player's level and gain more encounter powers.
I had to rerun a whole combat because I screwed up on a powerful monster effect when a creature was bloodied that might have killed a party member if I hadn't forgot about it. Alot of little things to keep track of and remember running 4E. It slows the game as much as 3.5 supposedly slowed the game with too many rules.
It seems to me there are just as many rules in 4E as 3.5. And way more combat to combat bookkeeping.
And sometimes it doesn't help that minis are being used for battle. Minis have no numbers, so myself and the other DM sometimes make mistakes on who has been damaged and who hasn't in large combats because we don't recall what number a particular mini is.
Love to hear some suggestions from other DMs on how they keep track of damage to a particular creature when they are using a mini with no number designation in a large scale combat. I know I get lost sometimes. It hasn't had a huge effect on the game, but it is a bit frustrating to have to keep careful track of all the movement when the minis look the same for multiple creatures. When I used numbers on a grid map, keeping track was much, much easier.
Overall, I'm going to keep playing because my other players seem happy. But some of the luster of 4E has worn off for me. It is just another game system with different mechanics. Some I like, some I don't. I do know it isn't any easier to run than previous editions. There is a tremendous amount of bookkeeping for 4E. Even though it is resolved quickly, you have to be on top of every little change to make sure you aren't short changing anyone. That can bog down play quite a bit the more complex a particular group of monsters are. I never had this kind of problem in 3.5 when a spell either worked or it didn't, resolved in 1 round. An attack hit and did damage, end of story. So suffice it to say I'm not seeing the easier to play factor of 4E.
I'm seeing the easier to start playing. But not shorter, less complex combats. I'm seeing the opposiite as my player's level. Harder to track, longer, more complex combats that require careful awareness of how each mini moves and what effects are in place on each person on the map.
I'm beginning to long for simpler days.
My initial enthusiasm for 4E has cooled. I'm finding different problems than you state. I don't know that I feel like returning to 3.5, but 4E has some serious problems.
1. 4E is too easy past 1st level: I felt challenged at 1st level. But now that my group is 2nd and 3rd level, they are mowing through most encounters even with me boosting numbers to account for six people. The players have more powers than the monsters and usually better powers. They crush the monsters with ease making the entire encounter feel like not much of a challenge.
Encounter based powers allow for a full array of powerful attacks each enconter faced. Then combine that with dailies and action points and the party has a huge advantage over what they fight. So they end up crushing most encounters including solo encounters.
They do eventually run out of healing surges, but it takes a while. As they level their healing surge value allows them to heal more efficiently while monster damage doesn't seem to be scaling with the character's hit points.
Throw in magic item dailies and you have a party of adventurers that motors through just about anything they fight. The only time they had a close call was when a series of very unlucky rolls killed the cleric. And even then they managed to win even with the paladin out of Lay on Hands to start the fight.
There are so many abilities that give temporary hit points or healing that the party seems almost unbeatable the majority of the time.
2. The game is harder to run than 3.5: I kept hearing all this talk of 4E being so much easier to run and play than 3.5. That hasn't been my experience at all.
It is easier to prep adventures. I give 4E that victory by a landslide.
But running the game is a huge pain. Each round is like being bookkeeper for some fast moving business that buys and sells every few seconds. I have to keep track of every marked target. I have to keep track of every spell that lasts more than one round. I have to keep track of temporary hit points, modifiers to each creature, temporary damage on multiple creatures, temporary effects on multiple creatures, when certain things are bloodied, recharge checks each round for a monster with a recharge power, whether or not the monster used his recharge or encounter power, action point expenditure, ammo expenditure, on top of the usual hit points.
Whoever said running 4E is easier than 3.5 wasn't speaking from experience. I know 3.5 well and there was nowhere near as much bookkeeping as their is for a 4E game on a combat to combat basis. This makes combat take quite a while as the player's level and gain more encounter powers.
I had to rerun a whole combat because I screwed up on a powerful monster effect when a creature was bloodied that might have killed a party member if I hadn't forgot about it. Alot of little things to keep track of and remember running 4E. It slows the game as much as 3.5 supposedly slowed the game with too many rules.
It seems to me there are just as many rules in 4E as 3.5. And way more combat to combat bookkeeping.
And sometimes it doesn't help that minis are being used for battle. Minis have no numbers, so myself and the other DM sometimes make mistakes on who has been damaged and who hasn't in large combats because we don't recall what number a particular mini is.
Love to hear some suggestions from other DMs on how they keep track of damage to a particular creature when they are using a mini with no number designation in a large scale combat. I know I get lost sometimes. It hasn't had a huge effect on the game, but it is a bit frustrating to have to keep careful track of all the movement when the minis look the same for multiple creatures. When I used numbers on a grid map, keeping track was much, much easier.
Overall, I'm going to keep playing because my other players seem happy. But some of the luster of 4E has worn off for me. It is just another game system with different mechanics. Some I like, some I don't. I do know it isn't any easier to run than previous editions. There is a tremendous amount of bookkeeping for 4E. Even though it is resolved quickly, you have to be on top of every little change to make sure you aren't short changing anyone. That can bog down play quite a bit the more complex a particular group of monsters are. I never had this kind of problem in 3.5 when a spell either worked or it didn't, resolved in 1 round. An attack hit and did damage, end of story. So suffice it to say I'm not seeing the easier to play factor of 4E.
I'm seeing the easier to start playing. But not shorter, less complex combats. I'm seeing the opposiite as my player's level. Harder to track, longer, more complex combats that require careful awareness of how each mini moves and what effects are in place on each person on the map.
I'm beginning to long for simpler days.
