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

[Doug McCrae]

Certainly not Faerun, where the average stable boy knows more about magic than he knows about horseshoes.

Because he's a 15th level wizard. The innkeeper is 20th level.

 

[Derro]

In 3e that's pretty much how all the melee classes advance. Only the primary casters get to do dramatically new stuff, like fly or turn invisible.

I see where you are coming from but I can't totally agree as far as the melee fighter is concerned. I saw an awful lot of melee types that branched out into maneuvers instead of just pure damage. I mean sure it's all about killing stuff for fighter types but you can do it with some real panache after a while. The spring attack-cleave chain-fighter is cheesy if it's all you do but it's up to the GM to construct challenges that negate the particular advantages of that combo.

We've seen from the wizard paragon spell list that wizards still get to do those things, albeit at later level. So all we can say with certainty is that 4e has at *least* as much variety as 3e. I suspect it will have more though as we haven't seen the cool mid-high level powers for the martial classes yet.

Oddly enough wizards at a higher level don't concern me in the slightest. The brokenist (hahahahaha) spell in the game, Wish, is gone. Presumably so are it's ante-cedents (ante-cedents?). I haven't read the latest ritual thread but I think I get the picture.

I really don't like lower level wizards having at will blasts. With the warlock it feels okay but something about immature spell-casters just blithely blasting away doesn't sit well with me.

I'm sorry.

I appear to be rambling. It's been a long day.

 

[Wolfspider]

As you wish, Oh great one.

I tried PM'ing you but I guess I can't because I'm not a donater, or something. Anyway, I think you jumped the gun and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. But if you don't like the word sheeple I will no longer use it. It was meant as a "People who follow the book the way sheep follow the herd." Wrong word choice, perhaps. But certainly not the **** you posted.

Wow, you actually edited your post to make it even more insulting.

Just so you know, Umbran is a moderator. He was giving you a friendly warning that you had crossed the line and were breaking the rules of this forum with your comment. I have a feeling his next communication with you will not be as friendly....

 

[Derro]

Don't worry. Fly and invisibility are still around.

I'm not sure what that means in reference to the quote. Or at all, really.

I jest.

Flying invisibility as a 1st string tactic is pretty puerile. That's hardly in the spirit of dungeoneering. There are plenty of counters to it but the easiest ones aren't always what a GM wants to use.

I'm so sick of killing trumped up wizards with mind-flayers.

I respect your gear-head. I used your early martial artist to great effect. As such I can see why you like this version so much. It is very smooth and consistent. Like all us gearheads want. I just lament the death of narrativism in D&D. 3e was definitely the first nail in the coffin with it's unified skill system and it's +2/-2 consistent ability score scale. Back in my day we had a system shock check... AND We LIked IT!

Something I have found in all my years of gaming and all the different systems I've played is this:

The tighter the rules, the faster the game. And when somebody finds an exploit it 's hard to correct without a cascade effect.

I am NOT doom-saying 4e. That is preposterous without all of the data (core books at least, it's all off when splats hit the shelves). And why would I want to? But be aware of the the patterns in the games that came before. All games, not just D&D.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Wow, you actually edited your post to make it even more insulting.

Just so you know, Umbran is a moderator. He was giving you a friendly warning that you had crossed the line and were breaking the rules of this forum with your comment. I have a feeling his next communication with you will not be as friendly....

Yeesh. How about we all just stand over here... Behind cover.

 

[Derro]

[whine]You guys, we're gonna get the lock![/whine]

Play nice, dudes. It's just a game.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Though I do not like it, I understand the game being shaped to the market it is competing against. It is competing against the video game market, so it must be designed around principle important to video games like class balance and tangible increases in power for every class.

I don't know how old you are, but when DnD first game out it was designed for readers. People who enjoyed reading fantasy books and medieval history and wanted to play a game that allowed them to participate in a story. The game has evolved into a game that more designed for video game players and TV watchers of anime/fantasy series. Thus you can see the mechanics are more in line with what a video game player or anime watcher would envision for a character.

So different game designed for a different generation. I prefer the reader style of game design, I understand and accept the need to make a game that can compete against video games and seem cool to kids that are growing up watching cool fantasy cartoons, movies, and TV shows rather than we old fogies that grew up reading fantasy books.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I guess I am in the middle-ground...

I am a avid fantasy/sci-fi reader but also a pretty regular videogamer.

I personally find 4E can achieve both groups with in D&D. The balance mechanics and such yes are more placed towards the videogamer side, but I believe things like the skill challenges/social encounter system truly are there to create a narrative and at the heart very reminiscent of a fantasy book.

 

[smathis]

I think my point is more in the range of

Party A: Fighter, does 10 dps in melee as a 3e style tank. Rogue, does 10 dps by spring attacking. Wizard, shoots 10 dps at range.

Not wanting to derail or anything. But I think what the designers have in mind is...

Round 1: Fighter does 10 dps in melee. Rogue does 20 dps by sneak attack. Wizard does 4 dps at range.

Round 2: Fighter does 10 dps in melee. Rogue does 5 dps in melee. Wizard does 4 dps at range.

Round 3: Fighter does 10 dps in melee. Rogue does 5 dps in melee. Wizard does 12 dps to every opponent in a 15' area at range.

At least that's what I've taken out of the roles as they've been described.

Personally, I just threw up my hands and gave per-session flat XP and used CR simply to avoid TPKs.

I thought I was the only one. And, to be honest, I thought I was just too dumb to figure out the XP thing. I seriously gave up after about the first month of DMing.

It's good to hear someone else solved this issue by similar means.

And, in my opinion, the only thing CRs were good for was avoiding TPKs.

In the end, I'm sure 4e will support role-playing. If I could RP with legos when I was 10, I can RP with 4e now...

Amen to that!

 

[Kishin]

Though I do not like it, I understand the game being shaped to the market it is competing against. It is competing against the video game market, so it must be designed around principle important to video games like class balance and tangible increases in power for every class.

I don't know how old you are, but when DnD first game out it was designed for readers. People who enjoyed reading fantasy books and medieval history and wanted to play a game that allowed them to participate in a story. The game has evolved into a game that more designed for video game players and TV watchers of anime/fantasy series. Thus you can see the mechanics are more in line with what a video game player or anime watcher would envision for a character.

So different game designed for a different generation. I prefer the reader style of game design, I understand and accept the need to make a game that can compete against video games and seem cool to kids that are growing up watching cool fantasy cartoons, movies, and TV shows rather than we old fogies that grew up reading fantasy books.

This comes off rather condescending, just so you know. You also used the typical 'D&D is too video game-y/anime-y' argument, which tends to take a lot of weight from what you're saying.

I'm 24. I grew up reading fantasy books and medieval history books. I learned about D&D from watching my brother game in our attic with his friends, and learned about play it when I snuck up into his room and flipped through the Red Box. I was around 6 or 7. I consider myself well familiar with what every edition of D&D was 'about', for clarification.

Balance is not solely important to video games. Its important to all games. Who wants to play a game where you don't get to have as much fun as the next guy?

Casters should be powerful and interesting without completely trivializing their companion's existences and marginalizing the roles they play in the party. I don't think its fair to punish players by not allowing them to play what they want to play and still have an effect in the mechanical aspect of the game.

You're basically saying you'd prefer an unbalanced game to one designed for the mutual enjoyment of everyone. I can't really see the reasoning behind that. Its not about being hip; Its about everyone's actions mattering.