D&D 4E 4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?

[Fallen Seraph]

Many of the things you talk about are already settled by the use of Rituals and Cantrips as well as Utility Powers.

Also, we don't know how the Druid works yet, so your example isn't quite valid.

A good amount of people have said, that despite the at-will, per-encounter, per-day abilities each class does feel unique.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, clearly because the wizard is a wizard, and that's what wizards do.

I think this is where your argument breaks down. What wizards do very much depends on your view of fantasy. I'll use the LOTR movies as an example (I would use the books, but its been a very very long time since I read any of them).

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, but he doesn't do a lot of raw damage. Often times he's just beating orcs down with his staff.

Further think of Conan vs those evil mages. They are powerful, but Conan still takes them down.

But even if we assume your argument is right, wizard should do what wizards do right? So what can they do in 4e.


I now point you to the pregen wizard from DDX, who has a largely overlooked ability:

MAGE HAND AT WILL!!!

If you read the power its actually quite powerful. Think of the roleplaying potential of being able to do lesser telekinesis whenever you want...at first level even!! In 3e, you throw a magic missile, maybe a color spray, and your spent. Now I can play a wizard that sits in a chair while my magic turns the pages for me. I can have a servant who I give a telekinetic smack if he messes up. My guests are served by floating dishes that arrive to the table.

So yes, while the basic mechanics of each class is the same (as far as how powers work), the powers have a huge impact on how your roleplay them.

 

[Darth Cyric]

blah

 

[Darth Cyric]

I think the poster made some excellent points, and they seem to have some measure of thought to them.

You must not have read many threads on the subject, nor seen the countless times such points have been thoroughly debunked as at best, personal taste, and at worst, faulty interpretation and hyperbolized contortions of fact.

Seriously, though, if I wanted to, and found others who were willing, I could roleplay while playing chess, Monopoly, or tiddly-winks.

 

[VannATLC]

I think this is where your argument breaks down. What wizards do very much depends on your view of fantasy. I'll use the LOTR movies as an example (I would use the books, but its been a very very long time since I read any of them).

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, freaking angel, but he doesn't do a lot of raw damage. Often times he's just beating orcs down with his staff.
.

Or at least, a Maia, which is an angelic equivelant.

You're point is a 100% correct though.

 

[WhatGravitas]

If you read the power its actually quite powerful. Think of the roleplaying potential of being able to do lesser telekinesis whenever you want...at first level even!! In 3e, you throw a magic missile, maybe a color spray, and your spent. Now I can play a wizard that sits in a chair while my magic turns the pages for me. I can have a servant who I give a telekinetic smack if he messes up. My guests are served by floating dishes that arrive to the table.

Yes. THAT'S a good comparison... because the mage can actually exude magic during the whole day right now. I daresay that this is more useful more roleplaying a wizard than a lot of things in 3E.

If I get stuff like that, I'm happy. And thanks to that nice idea of wizard-dailies as Vancian spells, the wizardly magic HAS a different feel - he still pours over spellbooks to gather his most important spells - it is even a bit more "Vancian", as Vancian mages only prepared a very low number of very powerful spells - this seems similar, just with some minor "all the day" powers.

And we get rituals. Which may mean that we get a bit more DM dependant for freeform stuff. Until a sourcebook comes along.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Derren]

Rituals?

Have you seen how rituals work? Has anyone?
That reminds me of the Dark & Light (PC game) hype. Most information which was released was negative but the fanboys always talked about a secret version of the game which fixes everything and is supercool. And when the game was released there was no secret version and it tanked.

 

[FireLance]

Most information which was released was negative

And the similarities between Dark & Light and 4e D&D end here.

 

[jensun]

But the previous versions of D&D were examples of a game being shaped around roleplaying. Why should a wizard be able to Meteor Swarm some guy for 50d8 damage while the warrior does 1d10+8? Well, clearly because the wizard is a wizard, and that's what wizards do.

What does this have to dp with creating interesting, complex characters with compelling motivations who generate conflict, drama and enjoyment in the context of a group game?

Really, no edition of D&D has "promoted" the roleplaying aspect as its mechanics tend to focus arbitrating the action leaving the "role" side to the players and GM.

Fine for a game, bad for a roleplaying game. Why? Shouldn't a real roleplayer be able to roleplay no matter what the game mechanics are? Yes, but if you go around telling people that you're the exiled son of a prince who had to live on the harsh back streets of a city of druids and assassinates people with secrets you learned from the trees themselves, you'll look a bit stupid in the first fight when your abilities are distinctly un-treeish.

I am curious about how you might have achieved this in any previous edition of D&D. Maybe you would be better off finding a game which supports your playstyle.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Or at least, a Maia, which is an angelic equivelant.

You're point is a 100% correct though.

Say what? I'm no LOTR historian, but Gandalf was an Istari ("Wise Ones" in Elvish).

Maia, I never heard of, so I wiki'd it... That relates to something in Greek Mythology. Me thinks you are mixing up your legends precious...

Istari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istari

Maia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(mythology)