4e and me

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The statement was from 2008. I was just that WOTC was going to "shoehorn" the core products into each setting. thats why I mentioned the Orcs in Dragonlance.

That's a pretty ambiguous statement to freak out about three years after it turned out to not mean what you were worried that it meant.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Here's the link to dragonsfoot:

Dragonsfoot • View topic - 4e rant

Mike

Just curious, but assuming you are familliar with the dragonsfoot crowd what makes you think anyone there cares about 4E?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

EDIT: A totally worthless post on my part. Apologies all, carry on.

 

[billd91]

Redacted by poster

Except possibly for this one, putting up posts that imply people shouldn't be expressing their negative experiences with/impressions of a game or that doing so is "pointless" or "ludicrous".

 

[MrMyth]

Man, I can totally get folks not liking 4E, or that they find other editions better capture the feel of the game they are going for or whatever... but posts like this just come across like someone looking for things to argue about.

(And props to Spinachcat, of course, for his own 'classy' insults aimed at games other folks enjoy.)

I genuinely understand why some folks don't like 4E. But I don't think there is a single criticism in the OP's post that has a shred of genuine truth behind it.

1) Folks not having played 1st Edition. Yes, many gamers are younger than you. But 1st Edition happened quite some time ago. I don't know if it is good or bad - I've never played it - but saying it is a bad thing that gamers aren't forced to go back and learn all the old editions? That's just silly. (And, for that matter, based on the same poll, a good chunk have played from 2nd Ed on, and nearly all played both 3rd Edition and 4E.)

2) Yes, you could heal with bards, paladins, druids. None of them as well as a cleric. Many groups felt you 'needed' a cleric. Mearls is saying that 4E addressed that situation - and it did, in multiple ways. No bending of the truth is going on here - at least, not by Mearls.

3) You've missed the entire point. The issue isn't whether healing should be in the game - it is whether you should have it tied up in a single character (or, even worse, a single character who has to play a specific class and build) in order for the group to have a chance at success. You want to see something that looks like an MMO? That is it! Mearls is advocating a game where, rather than having to say, "We need 2 DPS guys, 1 Tank, 1 Healer" (or, to translate, "We need a cleric, a rogue, and wizard and a fighter"), you could instead have pretty much any mix of character concepts and have a good chance at success.

Now, feel free to object to specific implementations they have taken to get there, but don't say that this idea of building to allow more flexibility in character choice is inherently a bad thing, much less somehow inherently like an MMO. It has nothing to do with an MMO, and every time you gesture that it does, without any rationality behind it, you only serve to weaken your own argument.

4) Classes, yes, still define what a character is capable of. That comes from a combination of powers, yes, along with skills, proficiencies, and class features. Rogues move quickly, hide well, find traps, and stab things in the weak spot. Fighters are big and strong and hit hard, and get in enemy's faces. Clerics heal and pray and smite undead. Barbarians rage and climb and beat things in the face. Etc.

Saying that a 4E Barbarian, who rages 3 times a day because he has three (distinct) daily powers that let him rage, is somehow different from a 3rd Edition Barbarian who rages 3 times a day because he has a class ability that lets him rage... is, again, silly. They found a common mechanical system they could use to represent the different iconic abilities of various classes. You don't like the system - that's fair. But dismissing powers as being entirely divorced from their classes is, honestly, a willfull misreading of the 4E system.

5) Saving throws. Instead of rolling Fort, Ref and Will, the DM rolls against them. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. This is a change, yes, but hardly one that somehow fundamentally breaks the spirit of the game. You don't have to like it, but it represents the same exact thing, and just changes the burden of rolling from one person to another.

6) "One word POWERS instead of spells." I take it you haven't looked in a PHB and realized that Wizard Powers are called spells, right?

The mechanic remains - several times a day, the wizard expends his most powerful spells. Each combat, he expends slighlty less powerful ones.

Overall, yes, he has fewer such spells than in past editions. Vancian magic has definitely changed. But again, insisting it is gone entirely requires actively misreading the rules.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Man, I can totally get folks not liking 4E, or that they find other editions better capture the feel of the game they are going for or whatever... but posts like this just come across like someone looking for things to argue about.

(And props to Spinachcat, of course, for his own 'classy' insults aimed at games other folks enjoy.)

I genuinely understand why some folks don't like 4E. But I don't think there is a single criticism in the OP's post that has a shred of genuine truth behind it.

1) Folks not having played 1st Edition. Yes, many gamers are younger than you. But 1st Edition happened quite some time ago. I don't know if it is good or bad - I've never played it - but saying it is a bad thing that gamers aren't forced to go back and learn all the old editions? That's just silly. (And, for that matter, based on the same poll, a good chunk have played from 2nd Ed on, and nearly all played both 3rd Edition and 4E.)

2) Yes, you could heal with bards, paladins, druids. None of them as well as a cleric. Many groups felt you 'needed' a cleric. Mearls is saying that 4E addressed that situation - and it did, in multiple ways. No bending of the truth is going on here - at least, not by Mearls.

3) You've missed the entire point. The issue isn't whether healing should be in the game - it is whether you should have it tied up in a single character (or, even worse, a single character who has to play a specific class and build) in order for the group to have a chance at success. You want to see something that looks like an MMO? That is it! Mearls is advocating a game where, rather than having to say, "We need 2 DPS guys, 1 Tank, 1 Healer" (or, to translate, "We need a cleric, a rogue, and wizard and a fighter"), you could instead have pretty much any mix of character concepts and have a good chance at success.

Now, feel free to object to specific implementations they have taken to get there, but don't say that this idea of building to allow more flexibility in character choice is inherently a bad thing, much less somehow inherently like an MMO. It has nothing to do with an MMO, and every time you gesture that it does, without any rationality behind it, you only serve to weaken your own argument.

4) Classes, yes, still define what a character is capable of. That comes from a combination of powers, yes, along with skills, proficiencies, and class features. Rogues move quickly, hide well, find traps, and stab things in the weak spot. Fighters are big and strong and hit hard, and get in enemy's faces. Clerics heal and pray and smite undead. Barbarians rage and climb and beat things in the face. Etc.

Saying that a 4E Barbarian, who rages 3 times a day because he has three (distinct) daily powers that let him rage, is somehow different from a 3rd Edition Barbarian who rages 3 times a day because he has a class ability that lets him rage... is, again, silly. They found a common mechanical system they could use to represent the different iconic abilities of various classes. You don't like the system - that's fair. But dismissing powers as being entirely divorced from their classes is, honestly, a willfull misreading of the 4E system.

5) Saving throws. Instead of rolling Fort, Ref and Will, the DM rolls against them. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. This is a change, yes, but hardly one that somehow fundamentally breaks the spirit of the game. You don't have to like it, but it represents the same exact thing, and just changes the burden of rolling from one person to another.

6) "One word POWERS instead of spells." I take it you haven't looked in a PHB and realized that Wizard Powers are called spells, right?

The mechanic remains - several times a day, the wizard expends his most powerful spells. Each combat, he expends slighlty less powerful ones.

Overall, yes, he has fewer such spells than in past editions. Vancian magic has definitely changed. But again, insisting it is gone entirely requires actively misreading the rules.

I think you really hit the nail on the head right here. I agree with every single one of your points made and would give you exp for the post except I've apparently given out too many already (bleh).

 

[Pentius]

Only a couple points I want to make.

the “everything” fits if its D&D so now there’s Dragonborn and orcs in the Dragonlance setting…

What? 4e doesn't have a Dragonlance sourcebook, so WotC is not putting orcs and dragonborn into the setting. If individual DMs are doing it, that's on them.

1st edition
“I have never played this edition: 43.4%” from the poll at
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (What's With the Polls?)

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.

So, by those numbers, more than half of the players who are involved enough with 4e to go take polls on WotC's website have played 1st edition. More than 90% played 3rd. More than 70% played 2nd. I think you you are overestimating the issue.

“Making healing an optional resource is a tricky proposition, one that offers many obvious routes that conceal follow-up problems. However, solving this issue would go a long way toward creating a game where players are free to create the characters they want.”
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Problem of Clerics)

Ummm solving this ISSUE, and people complain that 4e is like an MMO and GURPS is too lethal. NO you solve that issue by making 5e a PURE MMO and you lose more people from playing D&D. Healing needs to be part of the game just as it is in other rpg’s. You don’t need an abstraction where BANG my character heals itself on a whim. That’s kind of like healing surges and 2nd wind in 4e is to me. The cleric and other spell casting classes provide tons of healing. Other editions didn’t have the characters heal themselves and that from the beginning was a big issue for me with 4e. Go backward’s with this and don’t SOLVE it.

I think it's funny that you link the idea of not making healing required with D&D becoming more like an MMO. I have never played an MMO where any serious group undertaking didn't require one or more healers. Also, since HP is an abstraction, why should healing not also be an abstraction? Is it not stranger for one to be abstract and one to be concrete?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Except possibly for this one, putting up posts that imply people shouldn't be expressing their negative experiences with/impressions of a game or that doing so is "pointless" or "ludicrous".

Actually, you're right. My apologies to everyone. I should have just bowed out completely.

 

[billd91]

5) Saving throws. Instead of rolling Fort, Ref and Will, the DM rolls against them. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. This is a change, yes, but hardly one that somehow fundamentally breaks the spirit of the game. You don't have to like it, but it represents the same exact thing, and just changes the burden of rolling from one person to another.

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.

 

[qstor]

I genuinely understand why some folks don't like 4E. But I don't think there is a single criticism in the OP's post that has a shred of genuine truth behind it.

OK I get your points. I still don't get how you can spread healing "out" anymore. If you have a wizard, thief and a fighter IMHO you're stuck and "no healing for you" unless you have a wand of CLW and the thief other another PC has ranks in Use Magic device.

But your post reminds me why I stopped frequenting this forum for a long time. I felt like it was more "pro" 4e than neutral. And that crapfinder comment strengthened my feelings on the subject.

Mike