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

[jensun]

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)

I believe he is correct. The Istari were Maiar (I'm not certain of the spelling), effectively demigods who lived in the West in the light of the Valar. I believe it is addressed in the Silmarillion.

 

[FireLance]

As for the OP:

Every class shares essentially identical abilities.

Differences in class abilities do not make a role-playing game. You could have a game in which everyone essentially has the same abilities and it would still be a role-playing game. In fact, you might even get more role-playing as the only way to distinguish characters from each other would be their personalities.

Say you want to be a Shifter. You want to be a druid who's never in his natural form, but always flying as a bird, sneaking as a goblin, fighting as a griffin. How's he going to fit into 4E?

The inability to create PCs with certain abilities or characteristics may be a valid criticism of the flexibility of character creation, but that does not stop it from becoming a role-playing game, either.

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.

See above, and you might be better off trying to find flavor that fits the mechanics of your character instead of coming up with flavor and then finding that the available mechanics are a poor fit.

 

[WhatGravitas]

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...

Maia (Middle-earth).

Maia were basically angelic beings in middle-earth, and the Istari were five of them, sent to middle-earth in the guise of humans, where they called themselves the Istari, because they tried to keep a low profile concerning their angelic origin. Though Gandalf basically blew that, when he was sent back.

Cheers, LT.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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)

heh,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiar
or look up Maia on wikipedia, then search for "middle earth"

 

[VannATLC]

I've been ratified already.

Sif call me precious. >.>

See above, and you might be better off trying to find flavor that fits the mechanics of your character instead of coming up with flavor and then finding that the available mechanics are a poor fit.

Eminently sensible advice, but I do take some issue with the fact that large portions of the game have changed, and while there is still much of a DND feel, for me, I can understand the people who are calling it a different game, in concept and in character.

Having said that, it was a high level druid who could shapechange to a Bird.

Also, An encounter is roughly 5 minutes.. so I don't think a per encounter ability is fair to drag on. Its pretty serious.

A daily ability is *powerful* Its not something you'd lightly toss around, or command on a whim.

Even a prince or a king has to take care what he orders done.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Every class shares essentially identical abilities. They all have their at-will foozle, their per-encounter foozle, and per-day foozle

But what these "foozles" do is pretty class specific. They don't look or feel the same to me, as far as I have seen from the DDXP samples. Even classes with the same combat role - Paladin and Fighter - have very different looking and feeling abilities.

It's like saying:
"D&D 3rd edition classes come only in two types - spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Spellcasters have per day powers, non-spellcasters don't. Everyone of them has the same 6 ability scores, the same saves, and they all have skills".
Clerics and Druids - despite sharing the same HD, BAB and type of spellcasting (divine) play very differently.

 

[WhatGravitas]

But what these "foozles" do is pretty class specific. They don't look or feel the same to me, as far as I have seen from the DDXP samples. Even classes with the same combat role - Paladin and Fighter - have very different looking and feeling abilities.

Or just look at the wizard and warlock. The wizard prepares spells from a spellbook, choosing every time. The warlock selects his foes and gets special boons when killing them.

Feels and plays very different - and that's more difference in two core arcane spellcasters than we had before (wizard/sorcerer).

Cheers, LT.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

Yup, let me just pull out my copy of "Mort de Arthur" here... "And lo, Merlin did call down a mighty swarm of meteors, dealing 50d6 damage unto the Briton hordes, for verily was his caster level beyond mortal ken..."

Um. Kay. But where's the flying as a bird, sneaking as a goblin, or fighting as a griffin? Those things don't really fit into a per-encounter setup, they're nebulous things that last for hours (traveling as a bird), take place outside of fights (sneaking as a goblin), or just aren't included in the designer's list of what the class should have in its abilities (griffins). If you don't feel that your Shifter wants to have bear claws, or run faster, or boost its strength, tough. In order to fit into the 'game first, roleplaying last' model, each class needs to have clearly-defined abilities that are carefully balanced so as not to make the other players unhappy, so you can't have anything so freeform as a blank check to turn into random monsters. Now your character concept sucks, shut up and reroll a wizard and cast Magic Missile every round for your 2d4 damage.

Might be worth waiting to see the druid class before you complain about the implementation. But in general, if you're looking for carte blanche to shapeshift into anything you want regardless of game-balance repercussions, you're playing the wrong game. (3e too.)

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.

"Leafildor, quickly, use your connection to the trees to make that oak there attack!"
"Um, I can't. That's a once per day thing."
"But you said you were the fallen prince of trees!"
"Well, I am! Once a day until the start of my next round."

Um... huh?

 

[Derro]

I got an image in my mind's eye, a video game first-person shooter with a 4E wizard pew-pewing out Magic Missiles as fast as the player could click, with the number of health surges remaining to him listed in the upper corner of the screen like health packs. Eventually a bar at the bottom of the screen will fill and he can do a fireball.

I can't help but agree with this. I have the lingering dread that there are a lot of video-gamisms in my D&D and I don't like it. It is just the nagging feeling that video games should do what they do and RPGs should do what they do. Maybe I'm just getting old but this has been my single biggest problem with 4e.

To some this is no doubt ridiculous but I can see it being an issue when it comes to the principle of immersion. When combat becomes formulaic it really detracts from the game. Obviously I can't make any real judgement but I've played enough RPGs and CRPGs to know what are conventions of both.

I'm uncomfortable with some of the admixture of the two I'm seeing.

 

[The Little Raven]

"Leafildor, quickly, use your connection to the trees to make that oak there attack!"
"Um, I can't. That's a once per day thing."
"But you said you were the fallen prince of trees!"
"Well, I am! Once a day until the start of my next round."

"I, Krunk, barbarian of the Frozen Wastes, smash the traitor's jaw with a vicious kick from my boot."
"Actually, Dave, you have to roll on a random unarmed attack table. You might not be able to do that."

"Galstaff, gather your arcane might and drive back this darkness with your Magic Missile!"
"Um, I can't. I only had one memorized, and we'll have to rest for me to get it back. In 14 hours, since it has to be 24 between spell memorizations. Sorry, chief, but them's the rules."

"With Sneaky Willy in need of a resurrection spell, we need someone to find that trap and disarm it so we can escape."
"Sorry, illustrious leader, but none of us are capable of searching because we don't have the Thief class written on our character sheet."
"As an elf, I might randomly find a secret door, but I wouldn't know a trap if it jumped out and bit me."

Never stopped us before, and it won't stop us now. The more things change, the more they stay the same.