D&D 4E 4E Liker - anything you worry about?

[DandD]

You can easily abstract the loot too, the same as you can abstract combat. Your characters may still loot, but if your gaming group has enough experience playing together, you won't even have to write down all your money down to the last copper piece.

 

[hong]

So, 4e is precisely tuned around "Kill things and take their stuff", and you want to cut out "take their stuff"? So, what, that's a double helping of "kill things"?

No, my dear Lizard, it means the prime motivating factor and contextual framework for killing things is something besides pure self-interest. Or even enlightened self-interest.

Back in my old gaming group, "adventurer" was a verb, meaning "to go over with a fine tooth comb, looking for anything of even theoretical value".

You say this like it's a positive thing.

With no XP costs, gold costs are pretty much the only obvious control[1] on rituals...

Ah, ye of little imagination.

 

[Lizard]

No, my dear Lizard, it means the prime motivating factor and contextual framework for killing things is something besides pure self-interest. Or even enlightened self-interest.

I dunno. Sounds like "thinking too much" to me. Give characters believable motivations, backgrounds, and a place in the world, and, sooner or later, they'll start wanting a world that makes sense. Can't be havin' with that, no sir.

Ah, ye of little imagination.

Well, either there's expenditures of something -- gold, XP, time -- or there's game-based limits (feats, stats, skills) -- or it's pure DM fiat. From what we've seen so far, the only limits will be:
a)A feat which at least two classes get for free is needed.
b)The DM controls the rate at which knowledge of rituals enter the campaign.
c)Rituals are all too long to be used in combat. In keeping with the 4e philosophy, though, I doubt they will consume days or more of game time. Ten minutes seems more likely. The DM can change this, of course.

It is probable there will be a gold cost, as well. There might also be a component cost -- blood of a unicorn, that sort of thing. (But then we're back to looting.)

 

[hong]

I dunno. Sounds like "thinking too much" to me. Give characters believable motivations, backgrounds, and a place in the world, and, sooner or later, they'll start wanting a world that makes sense. Can't be havin' with that, no sir.

Of course it makes sense. It just happens to make sense in the context of a given genre, where character motivations and backgrounds happen not to be driven by material concerns.

Well, either there's expenditures of something -- gold, XP, time -- or there's game-based limits (feats, stats, skills) -- or it's pure DM fiat. From what we've seen so far, the only limits will be:
a)A feat which at least two classes get for free is needed.
b)The DM controls the rate at which knowledge of rituals enter the campaign.
c)Rituals are all too long to be used in combat. In keeping with the 4e philosophy, though, I doubt they will consume days or more of game time. Ten minutes seems more likely. The DM can change this, of course.

It is probable there will be a gold cost, as well. There might also be a component cost -- blood of a unicorn, that sort of thing. (But then we're back to looting.)

Well, I guess it's not like I've been pimping my previous stuff much lately.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One new fear:
- Creating new classes will be too much work, since you have to create powers for all 30 levels of play (judging from the Druid Blog post, something around 80 powers per class!).
Maybe it will be easier to add new powers to existing classes, instead of creating a new class whole cloth.

 

[ShockMeSane]

One new fear:
- Creating new classes will be too much work, since you have to create powers for all 30 levels of play (judging from the Druid Blog post, something around 80 powers per class!).
Maybe it will be easier to add new powers to existing classes, instead of creating a new class whole cloth.

I think I scared you with my post in the other thread Don't worry.... I'm scared too. Although honestly I didn't design many original classes in all my years of 3.x, so it's kind of a moot point. However, I am a bit nervous that new classes will quickly become:

A) So similar to either another class (or combo of classes) in their Role Category that it ends up being a "step on the toes of your buddy" situation.

B) Power creep in new splatbooks. I mean, its bound to happen. Simply adding in more powers combined with multiclassing means that as more content is added, min-maxers will be able to create ever more evolved classes. I just hope that in 5 years time I don't have to ban 50% of the WotC-printed splatbooks lest my level 12 party invade Hell and slay Asmodeus.... which while probably a bit of an exaggeration even for 3.x..... wasn't too terribly far-fetched for my tastes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

After having added a new fear, I felt compelled to look bad at my original fears:
[sblock]

Often enough, we read criticism on 4E from people that mostly dislike it.
It often comes down to the same points repeated, and us 4E likers have to jump in and defend what we like (or so we believe ).

But this thread is a chance for those that like most aspects of 4E to describe the stuff they still worry about.
Changes going to far? Changes going not far enough? Weaknesses in the design assumptions? Drawbacks we'd prefer to avoid?

Here are my concerns:
- Fear: Ease of play:
I love the idea of every class getting powers and resources to manage. It was one of the strengths of Iron Heroes, in my opinion. But with that said:
What if it gets too difficult for beginners? It was said that the easiest class to play was usually something like the Fighter - no resources to manage besides hit points, and you only have to find a way to get close to your enemy and hit him hard. It's really simple. Yes, it can get boring over time, but we're talking about a D&D/RPG beginner here.

- Fear: Miniatures/Combat Grid focus:
I don't think 4E is worse then 3E in this regard. But that doesn't mean it would have been nice to get more options to ignore the grid. With area effects and flanking in the game, using a battle map makes things a lot easier. But, again from a beginners perspective, this forces one to use a visual representation. Maybe graph paper and improvised tokens are enough, but it still feels like a barrier to entry.

- Fear: Encounter power "spamming":
People will use their encounter powers as often and as much as possible. If the number of encounter powers are limited, this will lead to repetition. Or if they are not limited enough, every attack/action will use an per encounter power, and they lose their feel of "specialness".
Not that Charge/FullAttack/FullAttack wasn't repetitive or lacked specialness, either, but the improvement might not e as big as I could hope for.

- Fear: Daily powers to powerful/important:
Daily powers might be so powerful that, after some time of game experience, people will return to the 3E 15 minute adventuring day. It's an escalating effect: People learn that any hard encounter can be turned into a cakewalk by novaing. So adventure designers put even harder encounters in the game. Everyone novas all the time, and we're back to square 3.x.

- General: Hit Points as an encounter resource:
It was already true for the most part in 3.x, thanks to Wands of Cure Light Wounds. Healing Surges might actually get us back closer to HP being a per day resource, but still, the rules seem to assume that getting to 0 hp during a combat is a common occurrence. (and not just for the enemy)
But I wonder if the whole thing shouldn't be changed even more radically. Throw away scaling hit points / HD. Throw away escalating damage. Instead of ablative hit points, use a different resource for general "nastiness protection", like "Drama Points" or "Possibilities". Spend a drama point to reduce your damage, reroll your attack or saving throw and stuff like that. A more narrative approach to modeling damage...

- Fear: Irrational fear:
What if everything that looks like something I like doesn't work that great in actual play?!

There are counter points to most of these fears (except the last, because that one is irrational ). All of this stuff can be countered (or validated) by playing the actual game.

So, that are my points, as far as I can think them up.

[/sblock]
I think "Ease of Play" and "Hit Points as Encounter Resource" and "Encounter Power spamming" are all fears I have shaken off by now. Other people have posted their experience with gridless combat with the 4E PHB lite rules, and it appears to me that "Miniatures/Combat Grid focus" is resolved, too.
"Daily powers to powerful/important" doesn't look too bad. The low number of daily powers means they will be used sparingly (but still effectively most of the time), without dominating the game.
The "irrational fear" is in so far resolved as I have had a playtest game, and everyone in my group agreed that it was fun and they want to see more.

 

[Ricochet]

QFT
The battlegrid is easily what worries me most about 4E. A lot of why I skipped 3E was because I thought it was a little too mini-centered. Now 4E seems to be taking it a step further, which is a shame, because I like a lot of what it seems to offer.

I shared these concerns (even made a post about it), but having played it a few times now without grids (only once did we draw a rough sketch of a combat area), 4E can be played without a battlegrid/minis.

Many, many powers however are clearly wargame related, like the "teleport x squares" and all that, but it can pretty easily be dealt with through DM/player communication. Also, I can't know if the game stays as easy at higher levels, of course, but I would expect it too.

The greatest things in NOT using minis, is that players in my experience remember the battles and the encounters better (because they visualize it and its not just there to add tactical decisions), and that it saves a bunch of time when you don't have to set up a bunch of terrain/minis, move said minis and consider every move - players and the DM simply react to the action at hand and pay less heed to the wargamer aspect, which saves time overall. Again, all in my experience, of course.

Question for the mini/battlemap fans: What happens once you hit paragon/epic and get to deal with flying/swimming and time dimensions, adding to the easy-to-grid X/Y battlemaps? At least us non-battlegridders might have an easier time once we get to such encounters.

 

[Keenath]

What if it gets too difficult for beginners? It was said that the easiest class to play was usually something like the Fighter - no resources to manage besides hit points, and you only have to find a way to get close to your enemy and hit him hard. It's really simple. Yes, it can get boring over time, but we're talking about a D&D/RPG beginner here.

I actually disagree with that fear. That is to say -- assuming a new player starts out at level 1, you really have only five things to keep track of (two at-will powers, two encounter, and one daily), and a brand new fighter can easily have that many combat options -- it's just that they're spread across his feats, any non-feat class abilities, and the combat chapter, where most of them won't even show up in the game, rather than written up right there in one place.

I won't say 4e is simpler -- but I don't think selecting powers will be a barrier to entry the way a wizard's spellbook is. Picking five options out of a list of ten possibilities is pretty easy, and two of them (the at-wills) can't be replaced or added to for a long time, so I just don't see that being problematic. I mean, it's really a minor complication when compared to learning the system overall, and at least this offers you all your options on the page in front of you rather than page hundred-someodd of the PHB. (Huh? What's Bull Rush? Wait, I can DO that?!)

- Fear: Miniatures/Combat Grid focus:
I don't think 4E is worse then 3E in this regard. But that doesn't mean it would have been nice to get more options to ignore the grid.

I can't speak for anything but my group, but I've DMed with a mat and without one, often within the context of a single session (I often won't set up the mat for a minor battle), and in my experience the players won't use tactical positioning or even very basic movement unless I prompt it. With no play mat, I almost never hear, "Can I flank this guy?" or "Do I have a clear path to charge the shaman?" My players are pretty good at playing tactically with the mat, but without it they hardly do more than line up and roll attacks until the other guy is dead.

- Fear: Encounter power "spamming":
People will use their encounter powers as often and as much as possible. If the number of encounter powers are limited, this will lead to repetition. Or if they are not limited enough, every attack/action will use an per encounter power, and they lose their feel of "specialness".

I think you're intended to use them as much as you can. At the same time, it's my understanding that you'll never have more than a handful of encounter powers at a time, and some of them will be utility or reaction powers that are only useful under certain circumstances, so it'll still feel special when you get to pull off a counter-charge or perform a deadly riposte.

And really, are encounter powers supposed to feel "special"? Is Cleave "special" in 3e? Is Powerful Charge "special"? Is Fireball "special" (assumimg you're 10th level or so and a fireball isn't a significant resource)? My feeling would be that dailies are supposed to be really special, while encounter powers are more like your defining class abilities.

Daily powers might be so powerful that, after some time of game experience, people will return to the 3E 15 minute adventuring day. It's an escalating effect: People learn that any hard encounter can be turned into a cakewalk by novaing. So adventure designers put even harder encounters in the game. Everyone novas all the time, and we're back to square 3.x.

Oh, I don't see that being an issue. As far as the preview stuff we've seen daily powers aren't head-and-shoulders above encounter powers. They're better, but they're only somewhat better. They're not the difference between a 3rd level spell and a 5th level spell, in 3rd edition terms.

For example, look at Skamos, the pregen wizard. Compare his daily to his encounter powers -- The Acid Arrow daily deals almost the same damage as the Force Orb encounter, but adds in ongoing damage on all the hit targets and deals half on a miss. Yes, the arrow is strictly better than the orb -- but it's not so much better as to encourage you to take six hours out to recharge it. It's more complex to keep track of though, with all the saves and such to see who's still burning several turns later.

-Fear: Intelligence will not do anything.

If nothing else, it replaces dexterity in your reflex (and maybe AC) defense, if it's better than dex. I'm sure it comes in elsewhere too.

-Fear: That it will be difficult to design for because a) there's only so much you can do and with hundreds of powers in just the first book, a lot's been done, b) creating something like a class will need thousands of words worth of powers along with the class itself.

I'm kind of with you on this, but maybe not. I'll have to see the DMG's section on creating new monsters.

-Fear: Many powers will just be copy-pasted to create new classes because there exists no system for classes sharing powers.

IIRC they're going to try to avoid redoing the same power over and over -- partly by making a lot of what used to be "new classes" into paragon paths and keeping the base classes a little more generic. A ninja need not be a class, for example, if the rogue can fight pretty well, and you can make a Ninja paragon path that focuses on stealth and speed... or on mystical ki-magic, if you prefer (depending on which of the two ninja archetypes you pick).

-Fear: That combat will be just as slow as it is in 3.5 because people will still need to keep track of finicky bonuses/ongoing effects.

Just gonna tell you now -- based on my 4e preview game, not at all. We were going around the table in literally a third of the time it took in 3e, even with everyone still unsure and learning the system. (And just my opinion, I think that time was more evenly distributed among all the players, rather than having two players who take a long time to look over their spell list and two who just wave a hand and say, "I full attack again.")

We did have a few "marks" that got lost in the shuffle, but I'm planning to get some poker chips or those magnetic disc doohickeys from Paizo to stick under the minis so I won't forget that stuff. (It was my fault, that; the pally marked one guy and I thought later she'd marked a different guy, but she set me straight.)

Edit: I wanted to expand on this just a little, and more directly address what you mentioned. Yes, there were a number of "finicky little bonuses", but most of them were either encounter duration or one-turn duration, so they were a lot less of a problem to keep track of. Nobody had to have a counter and remember to count it down every round, or anything like that. I think token-based methods (like handing out index cards that say "+2 AC" or whatever) will work even better in 4e than they used to, where you pretty much hang on to the token until the fight's over or give it up as soon as your next turn is over.

-Fear: That the social combat system will kill role-playing.

At my table, social encounters are just the bane of my players' existence -- they always get very quiet and hesitant when they have to talk, with one exception. Anything that gets everyone involved will be awesome, because once they're throwing dice I can prod them into some RP with questions-- "What're you going to bluff?" "Okay, how are you going to try to convince him?" "What's your cover story, then?"

Fear: The GSL will be too limited and restrictive so innovation is stunted.

Not to get into a political discussion, but from what they said on the last "The Tome" podcast, WOTC got very upset that so many lousy products were being released with the D20 trademark symbol on them. It was supposed to be a mark of quality, but it turned into the opposite, a warning that this isn't offical so it might suck.

Paizo's comments seemed... more than a little whiny to me, since WOTC is trying to work out a license that'll be in force for the duration of 4e. That's not a simple matter you can toss together in a week; it requires a lot of give and take with the 3rd party designers who'll be operating under its auspices. And they've already got some bad blood over losing Dragon mag, so they aren't really impartial here.

-Fear: Powers are unnecessarily limited (e.g. rogue powers restricted to certain weapons), and the solution will be a deluge of third-party products removing these unnecessary distinctions.

Ah, I don't think that's really 'unnecessary'. It makes sense to make powers that reflect quick, accurate attacks require small, swift weapons like daggers, while powerful stunning attacks require big, heavy weapons like hammers. That doesn't seem unnecessary to me, any more than it's unnecessary distinction to say wizards shoot fireballs while fighters swing weapons.

-Fear: The quality companies that refuse to convert to 4E will die off.

If they decide to make the switch later, they can come under the GSL any time they want. If they stubbornly refuse to make the change even when they can see 3e material isn't selling, then that's a foolishly run company and probably deserves to die off. A lack of business sense has killed more than a few game companies (*coughTSRcough*) who had good writers and designers in their stable.

Getting under GSL just requires that they fulfill the requirements of doing so, such as stopping sale of their 3e products. And remember, they can always negotiate with WOTC to get waivers on some of that if it's a problem -- getting permission to continue warehouse sales of 3e stuff for a certain time period while also releasing 4e product, for example. Businesses make exceptions all the time. It's just like the rules of 4e -- the GSL is the "rules as written" that specific agreements can override on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Rex Blunder]

My worry: with the paired stats that do overlapping jobs and point buy as the default attribute generation method, there will be a lot of people with 3 8s. For instance: lots of unhealthy, stupid, unlikeable rangers.