4e "getting back to D&D's roots" how?

[ExploderWizard]

Do you have a better example? The one you quoted doesn't work.

If the power knocks you prone you don't move from your square unless it also does a push, pull or slide, as such you don't get a save due to being in a precarious position because it's not actually pushing you into the pit.

If the power instead was push you would indeed get a save against falling into the boiling mud, but if you failed that save you'd end up in the mud and if you made it you'd end up prone anyway (the save isn't a complete negate, success puts you prone, its unhelpfully not in a very clear place over the page from the rest of the "falling" rules). Standing with your back to boiling mud is as stupid as you'd expect in 4e.

After looking at the rules more thoroughly it looks like you are correct. There is no way to keep from being knocked down although there is a quasi-real invisible wall behind you (55% chance it holds) when something wants to push you through it. A wall which is not there if something wanted to knock you down on flat ground while surrounded by enemies. I would rather go over the cliff personally.

 

[Gimby]

After looking at the rules more thoroughly it looks like you are correct. There is no way to keep from being knocked down although there is a quasi-real invisible wall behind you (55% chance it holds) when something wants to push you through it. A wall which is not there if something wanted to knock you down on flat ground while surrounded by enemies. I would rather go over the cliff personally.

I think we are getting a little off topic here, but if all the power does is knock you prone, it doesn't matter where it's done - top of a cliff, flat room, whatever. You just go down in your current square.

If the effect is a push, then it does matter where you do it - either you go flying off the cliff or you fall prone in your current square - it's not a "quasi-real wall", it's throwing yourself to the ground to avoid getting bowled over the edge. Note that you don't have to take the save - wording is "can" - so you can choose to get thrown off if you want. Hmm, take all that fallling damage and give up your current position or grant combat advantage and maintain it? Tricky choice, sounds almost, I don't know, "tactical"? Maybe?

-edit On reflection, I think I see where you are coming from with the "quasi-real wall" thing - you don't normally get a save against forced movement, are you suggesting that you should always be allowed to fall prone to avoid the effects of a push, not just when you are about to fall off an edge?

 

[thedungeondelver]

The times I've read through the so-called "4th edition" rules (4th edition of what? AD&D? Then where's the "A"? Of D&D? They missed the boat some 20 years ago to call it the 4th edition...oh well) it's as though the authors were going out of their way to impinge on people the idea that it most certainly was not going back to anything.

For example, they picked an arbitrary date in the late 1980's to say that D&D was becoming popular (courtesy of the little oopsie about DRAGONLANCE being the first published campaign setting for D&D - yes that pisses me off, still).

The language they chose ("blaster", "controller" etc.) refers to MMORPGs, and is jarring.

Frankly the whole thing doesn't seem at all like D&D to me. I recognize in hindsight the many things in d20 D&D that kept it true to its nature, even given how dreadfully top-heavy the rules could be.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Frankly the whole thing doesn't seem at all like D&D to me. I recognize in hindsight the many things in d20 D&D that kept it true to its nature, even given how dreadfully top-heavy the rules could be.

Amen.

I never considered 3e to be remotely old school, quintessentially 'D&D', or anything like that. . .

Until recently.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Hmmm, me thought that was a cloak feature. (Elvenkind cloak kind)

Speaking of elves, when are we going to get our elves who can become invisible at will back?

That's how they were in Chainmail, and that's about as close to D&D's roots as you can get.

 

[Windjammer]

Filthgrinder's post with the forest/tree analogy was pretty spot on.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4503324-post56.html

People debating whether or not 4E feels like old school D&D argue about different things. Just summing up Filthgrinder's point, with which I thoroughly agree, 4E as a whole conveys a game feel, especially to the DM, which is very old school, but there are a bazillion of individual details in the mechanics which, viewed in isolation, are the complete opposite of that.

What I find interesting in this debate is how the designers themselves look at it. They never claimed they wanted to go back to the roots. Most I heard was they took the core trope of the game - enter a dungeon, kill things, take their loot and level up, do the same again - and built a whole new mechanics around that trope. Meaning, their thinking wasn't targeted on preserving, or returning to, old school mechanics such as roll 3d6 for stats(whatever).

That said, there were a couple of things where the designers were caught by the playtesters in going too far. Heinsoo, of all people, was the one perfectly willing to make D&D into a mechanically altogether different game (see interview in Kobold Quarterly 5), as a result of which there were NO daily powers in early versions of 4E. Then playtesters said that without any remnant of Vancian mechanics the game simply doesn't feel like D&D. So we got daily's in 4E. Thank the playtesters. (Read up on this in "Races & Classes")
Another instance would be initiative. Mearls (in his Gaminglands blog) says how there are plenty of mechanically and tactically superior ways to let the party handle initiative, and how he was toying with them in the 4E design process. But if you take away the d20 roll there, you've gone too far. D&D without the DM bellowing "Roll for initiative, guys!" just wouldn't be D&D anymore. So we roll for initiative in 4E.

So there you have it. The 4th Edition Designers were acutely aware of these issues, it's just that the stance they've ultimately taken - meaning, the number of compromises to retain a certain D&D feel even on the level of individual mechanical elements - doesn't suit everyone. Some people think they've taken too few compromises, others wish they had taken less. Which gets us to one of the designers' keylines, "4th edition may be for you, but it definitely won't be for everyone."

 

[mmadsen]

At some point, there must be a tip of the fact that it is a game (in Forge lingo, there must be a "gamist" element).

In order to be a good game, it has to give you interesting choices to make. It doesn't have to contradict realistic expectations.

The end result is that, while we realistically simulated the battle, no one had fun, and we never played the scenario again.

Not all real scenarios will involve interesting choices that lead to a fun game. We can agree on that. Delving into deeper and deeper detail in your simulation won't make the scenario interesting.

On the other hand, making the scenario less and less like a battle and more and more like a board game (one that does not resemble combat, I mean) doesn't solve the problem either.

I've had enough verisimilitude. I wanna play a fantasy game.

I think you've missed my point entirely. I'm not arguing for D&D to become a hyper-detailed war game, where we minutely detail all the least interesting elements of historical warfare.

My analogy was meant to demonstrate that a good rule set "disappears" when you use it. If you do what makes sense in the situation being described, you end up doing what makes sense within the rules.

In a bad rule set -- "bad" in the sense of being a poor model -- the situation being described and the situation within the model are clearly different. If you try to narrate why players make the moves they make, it doesn't make sense outside the game.

 

[teitan]

I can see how "parallels" could be seen, maybe even a similar feel, but thats it.

Still, 3E has parallels, it just got lost in all the complexity. So I can see how 4E's comparative "simplicity" to 3E would remind them of how it used to be in the older editions, however 4E isn't even close to being as simple as the older editions are, just simpler than 3E. Maybe even 2E if you throw in all the "optional" rule book complexities, but we'll have to wait for all of 4E's books to be published to do a fair comparison. Going by core books alone, 3E has the greatest complexity, with 4E, then 1E, then 2E (IMO the 2E core rules set is simpler and easier to understand, learn, and teach than 1E) with OD&D being the easiest. At least in my estimation/opinion. I am sure others will disagree.

I can agree with you here except... the Priest class was, while flavourful, poorly represented in the core books. While the Druid class was a decent example, it wasn't a good enough example to explain how it worked and the scant information presented was easy to abuse. I think the simplicity of some elements of 2e made it more complicated than it needed. I also think that 1e was more complicated than you remember by the core rules. The initiative system was complex and magic was complicated as well (this extends to 2e as well) with segments etc. forcing the DM to remember when the wizard's spell will go off. Further the grappling system was barely workable because of its complexity (but a far cry better than 2e's simpler system... of random charts!). Psionics were also very complex in 1e and 2e. The randomness of the rules really overcomplicated the game in many ways.

I think calling 3e complex though is a misnomer. I'd say a more applicable word is intricate. 3e is a very intricate and detailed system (3.5 for some reason more so than 3e itself while also being the same system... ) and sometimes that intricacy is a detriment to the game.

I have 4e, haven't played it yet, but the game seems a lot less intricate, but more intricate than AD&D1 or 2 and Basic, what with the powers etc. and I think that 3e, when played with D&D in mind as opposed to the "gee whiz, kewl powerz, roxxors, monster character, powergamerz" mentality is the best edition of the game that I have played. I prefer to run old school games, if you want to multi-class you need to be trained by an NPC and/or have a 16+ in the prime attribute of the class in question (Sorceror's don't need to be trained, they just need to have a 16+ charisma plus MAYBE some other elements I decide upon). Even Prestige classes need to be trained so if you plan to take one, you need to be trained by one and need to find him via the Guild. I really dislike a LOT of 3e builds. LOL.

That said, I hope to try 4e when I can get a group together here locally. I just moved in the last few months and can't find anybody to play with yet.

 

[RFisher]

I've had enough verisimilitude. I wanna play a fantasy game.

Let me ’splain my own POV this way:

Not everyone at my table enjoys mastering a complex set of rules. The ones who do seem to have as much fun with a simpler set of rules. So, I prefer to have a simpler set of rules that are transparent and which everyone can master and fully engage.

When half the eyes at the table glaze over when combat starts, I don’t count that as fun. When a DM springs an unexpected twist of the rules on the players, I don’t count that as fun. When the players spring an unexpected twist of the rules on a DM, I don’t count that as fun.

Likewise, I’m not a huge fan of simple rules with surprise exceptions.

The upshot of this approach tends to be that a good knowledge of basic tactics trumps rules mastery.

 

[Treebore]

I can agree with you here except... the Priest class was, while flavourful, poorly represented in the core books. While the Druid class was a decent example, it wasn't a good enough example to explain how it worked and the scant information presented was easy to abuse. I think the simplicity of some elements of 2e made it more complicated than it needed. I also think that 1e was more complicated than you remember by the core rules. The initiative system was complex and magic was complicated as well (this extends to 2e as well) with segments etc. forcing the DM to remember when the wizard's spell will go off. Further the grappling system was barely workable because of its complexity (but a far cry better than 2e's simpler system... of random charts!). Psionics were also very complex in 1e and 2e. The randomness of the rules really overcomplicated the game in many ways.

I think calling 3e complex though is a misnomer. I'd say a more applicable word is intricate. 3e is a very intricate and detailed system (3.5 for some reason more so than 3e itself while also being the same system... ) and sometimes that intricacy is a detriment to the game.

I have 4e, haven't played it yet, but the game seems a lot less intricate, but more intricate than AD&D1 or 2 and Basic, what with the powers etc. and I think that 3e, when played with D&D in mind as opposed to the "gee whiz, kewl powerz, roxxors, monster character, powergamerz" mentality is the best edition of the game that I have played. I prefer to run old school games, if you want to multi-class you need to be trained by an NPC and/or have a 16+ in the prime attribute of the class in question (Sorceror's don't need to be trained, they just need to have a 16+ charisma plus MAYBE some other elements I decide upon). Even Prestige classes need to be trained so if you plan to take one, you need to be trained by one and need to find him via the Guild. I really dislike a LOT of 3e builds. LOL.

That said, I hope to try 4e when I can get a group together here locally. I just moved in the last few months and can't find anybody to play with yet.

Well, it is all opinion. Mine is based on playing 4E for a couple of months now, with only two cancelled game sessions, playing 3E for about 5 years, 2E for about 10 years, 1E for about 5 years, and OD&D off and on for 5 years. Plus I have been rereading all of those books over the last tow years, because I have been mining them for rules for my house rules document for my C&C game, so my memory is pretty fresh about the rules of every edition.

As for priests, the only time I liked playing them was when 2E created Specialty Priests.