D&D 4E 4e is boring?

[Bodhiwolff]

I think that we're finding that 4E is suffering a little bit from a presentation style choice, as well as its young age, and as a community in general we're seeing the consequences manifest themselves in combat-heavy, non-unique campaigns.

I am absoluely certain that this will change as soon as we get a few more months under our belts, and a few more examples of how things can run when we're not tapping power cards. Mostly, though, we need reminding that just because the Player's Handbook explains in great detail all of our cool combat-related moves doesn't mean that the DMG doesn't give great advice as to how to adjudicate lots of non-combat, highly-improvised, on-the-fly player-initiated coolness.

I am reminded of the Neverwinter Nights toolset, when it first came out. The first few months had scads of simple, straightforward adventures being posted. Then, the mode was finally broken by a few enterprising and creative individuals who truly raised the bar, showing us that the game could be used to replicate a *much* wider range of adventure types, including quite intricate puzzles, quest-heavy adventures, RP-heavy and decision-heavy storylines, and so forth. From then on, people began to see the toolset in a new light.

We just need to get there, as a community.

It doesn't help that the Dragon magazine examples tend towards the "hack 'em hard" adventures. They're easier to write, easier to explain, and easier to sell in a short space of text.

But for home campaigns, I don't see any reason -- any reason whatsoever -- why a 2E vs. a 3.XE vs. a 4E campaign should be functionally all that different, at least from a player-character option perspective.

So if you're getting that feeling of "I don't feel like I can *do* anything" ... I'd say that you and your DM have some chatting to do, and some pages in the DMG to re-read, and some social contracts to re-visit. Get that bridge between the DM and player built up again, and figure out how, as a team, you two can get the game you both want.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There was a Converting Your Character article on the D&D site in June (here) that gave rules for playing a (re-skinned) monk. The link doesn't seem to be working, so it works as follows:

-Start with a two-weapon ranger.
-You only get armor proficiency Cloth, but get a +3 AC bonus when wearing cloth or no armor.
-Hunter's Quarry becomes Monastic Battle Focus and you lose Prime Shot. In exchange, you gain +2 Will defense (in addition to the Ranger's defense bonuses).
-Add Arcana, Diplomacy, Insight and Religion to your class skills list, and remove Dungeoneering and Nature. You pick 5 class skills.
-Lose proficiency with martial weapons. Gain +3 proficiency bonus when attacking unarmed, and your unarmed attacks increase to 1d8 damage and gain the off-hand property (you're effectively dual-wielding fists).
-Choose/re-flavor powers and feats to reflect your "monkliness".

Alternatively, Ari Marmell recently put out the Advanced Players Guide with a pretty good Martial Artist class.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It was boring....all the other players laying a swath of destruction and doing video-gamey stunts and junk....meanwhile, my socially-inclined rogue just tried to keep up in battle (with minor success) and stole the good treasure.

Beat stuff up, take it's loot. Rinse & repeat. It felt like I was playing a game of Diablo II with my buddies, using pen & paper. I like chillin' with my homies, but sheesh.

This is pretty much a DM issue - and the DMG addresses it, telling the DM to make sure everyone is familiar with the kind of campaign they have in mind so that you don't get someone creating a socially focussed rogue in what is going to be a dungeon crawl!

 

[Tony Vargas]

The game doesn't have the feel of 3.5 at all, where you can pretty much 'do anything', which was always one of the biggest things for me.

The customizeability of PCs is undeniably lessened in 4e. Even if you compare 4e PH to 3e or 3.5 PH-only, there are just fewer options. Multiclassing accounts for a lot of that, of course, but the relationship between pre-packaged 'builds' and attack-stats is also very limitting. And, the identical progression for all classes also reduces the decision points substantially.

The upside is that powergaming is less critical to creating a viable character, so, while you can't build to concept as tightly, to the extent that you can build to a concept at all, it's /easy/ and somewhat forgiving.

We are starting a brand new campaign tonight, and well... I just don't know what I want to be. I don't see myself having fun as any of the classes really. I made this thread hoping for advice from some of you, to tell me what classes and races you had the most fun with, so I can get an idea of what I want to be.

If this were Hero, or, sure, 3.x, I'd say "what do you want to play?" But, that's probably not the best aproach to 4e. A better question if you're unsure would be "what does the party need?" Each role is important, so, if you're not sure what you want to play, pick last - take up the role that still needs to be covered. If they're all covered, pick a class that no one's else playing, instead of a specific role. Striker is a good option, since there's 3 striker classes. Warlords and Clerics can be pretty different from eachother, too, so leader can be a good option. And a second defender is never bad, just choose the other class and opposite build (avenging paladin v defending fighter; protecting paladin v greatweapon fighter).

Once you've picked a class/build that will help the party, try to come up with a good RP concept. Look at the races that work for that build, and see if you get any ideas.

 

[James McMurray]

Do you have access to the FRPG? A Genasi Swordmage can be a great defender, a unique roleplaying experience (compared to what 4e has seen so far), and a very different character from what the PHB had to offer.

 

[habaal]

I feel your pain. Not to start a 4th Ed-bash, but I also played a rogue. I came up with a concept LONG before I rolled dice, and there were many parts of it (*coughmulticlassingcough*) that were lackluster in 4th ed.

It was boring....all the other players laying a swath of destruction and doing video-gamey stunts and junk....meanwhile, my socially-inclined rogue just tried to keep up in battle (with minor success) and stole the good treasure.

Beat stuff up, take it's loot. Rinse & repeat. It felt like I was playing a game of Diablo II with my buddies, using pen & paper. I like chillin' with my homies, but sheesh.

I'm trying a uber-muchkin'ed cheesed-out swordmage next, so I can lay my own *yawn* swath of destruction upon my enemies.

Well, I've played a 3.5 game for a couple of years that sounded much like your description- because poor adventure design on the part of the DM is edition proof...
If my DM (and I guess Yours should listen too) were running a fun game that involved more than mere Hack N' Slash, well, it would be a bit more engaging.

On the surface, it looks like 4e rules cover only combat, but that isn't the case. Beside Skills and combat, maybe the the occasional ritual to spice things up and enhance the variety of options players have, there isn't much more the rules need to cover. This is What ANY rules need to cover. The rest, the really fun part of interesting plots and encounters, memorable NPCs and fun puzzles, the mix of world exploration and heroic fantasy- the hard part to come up with- is not in the Player's Handbook, nor should it be or ever was in previous editions.

Are you catching my drift? if your DM treats his table as a battle platform instead of a fun and complete social activity that stimulates the players into imaginning a full story and world, if he lets you feel you have nothing to offer the game table but a set of combat abilities, than he is distorting what DND is all about: fun, story-reliable play.

Your problem is boring advanturs, not a bad system design.

And by the way, even a socialy- oriented PC can and should find his place in the battlefield- it's DND after all and action is to be expected- but the fault is with advanture design not letting your PC's good roleplaying and social prowess shine. There is a reason why about half of the wizard and rogue utility powers (and to a lesser extent everyone else's) are not combat oriented and enhance mostly skills or preform other cool effects- for the game designers believed it's an essential part of the DND experience.

Shabat Shalom

 

[darkadelphia]

I loved being able to take any character and have that uniqueness to myself. I had TONS of races and classes to choose from, so I could RP as I saw fit.

I've never understood the assertion that 4e limits roleplaying because there aren't enough race/class choices. In most of the best theater, everyone's a human playing one of the lame NPC classes from 3.x--somehow, they're able to have a diverse and interesting selection of characters ;-)

I suppose you've never played a mortal in World of Darkness.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've never understood the assertion that 4e limits roleplaying because there aren't enough race/class choices. In most of the best theater, everyone's a human playing one of the lame NPC classes from 3.x--somehow, they're able to have a diverse and interesting selection of characters ;-)

I suppose you've never played a mortal in World of Darkness.

Hahah!! Oh yes, so very true. Modern game systems have gotten so bloated with zillions of race and class choices that its easy to forget that those things are entirely independent of creating an independent unique character. [Takes out cane] Back in my day, we just had the fighter as a fighter type and we got one ability called " swing sword" and we liked it!

Seriously though, we didn't let mechanical options spoil making fun and interesting characters. The mechanics just spell out what you are capable of doing ( which sadly is the heightened focus by many these days) The character idea you had was interesting, and as someone else pointed out, workable with a number of classes and races. Concentrate on making your character fun to play and then play it.