D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[Kwalish Kid]

It's great to see so many assumptions about role-playing and 4E in one place!

It's not just a perception. 3e says: "20 ranks in Climb lets you do all these things!". 4e says "If you want to try and escape the city by climbing the walls, that sounds good, do you want an easy, medium, or hard difficulty?"

There is little reason to think that the static difficulties for certain environments will not remain in 4E. The difference is that, if the DM wants players to have a chance to escape a certain situation, the obvious environmental difficulties are not the only challenges to overcome. For example, characters can climb something easier than a sheer, slick wall and then use other skills to continue to escape.

3e says "Tripping can't be 'used up,' so do it whenever you want." 4e says "Tripping can't be 'used up,' really, but you can only do it once per encounter, however you want to make sense of that."

4E does not limit actions like this to once per encounter, it limits special narrative effects surrounding tripping (supposedly) to once per encounter. Players can always continue to trip using STR/DEX vs. Reflex Defense.

I have ceased to be surprised at the failure of players on this board to apply a minimal amount of imagination to 4E.

I don't see how 4e is doing anything that any other class-based system hasn't already done, here.

3e's classes have unique options. 4e's classes will, too. 2e's classes did. 1e's classes did. And the unique options have nothing, AFAICT, to do with where each game's rules system focuses.

Having unique options is not the totality of 4E. It's the manner in which all PCs have these abilities that contribute more-or-less equally to the drama of the game.

I'm not sure how you can look at the RULES for Trip (for instance) that we know and tell me that 4e cares what your character is literally capable of as much as it cares about what your character functionally does.

I don't understand this sentence.

That's the heart of what I'm saying. 3e's rules revolved strongly around building a character. 4e's rules revolve more strongly around building a scene. You can't have a scene without some characters, and you can't have characters without some sort of scene for them to be in, but the focus is a bit different, in the rules.

4E rules seem to involve ensuring that the characters built by the system have an impact on scences that is based on their creation. That seems optimal.

 

[The_Gneech]

Seriously, though, if tactics like that were as easy to learn and do as you are suggesting(the Warlord used his power once, you now all have the equivalent of a feat's worth of power forever) then:
a) There would be no reason to have a leader class ever, since they might as well be fighters who know all sorts of abilities for free
b) You should give pretty much every feat to all fighters in 3.5 edition. After all, most of them are extremely easy to learn, like the one that lets you make a shield wall...once you've seen someone do it once, you should get them free.

You misunderstand me; I was probably not exactly clear there, so I've since edited it to try to clarify. I wasn't saying that the Warlord makes people able to freeze opponents forever. What I meant was, without the "Pin the Foe" ability, there is already a mechanic (in 3.x at least) that makes it hard for the foe to move, called "Attacks of Opportunity." In fact, that's what they're for.

If the Warlord's gimmick is "gives the party more tactical options," then I could see the "Pin the Foe" mechanic being additional AoO's, bonuses to AoO's, rerolling missed AoO's, or something similar -- instead of a force field that flatly prevents foes from moving (which, given the mechanic, is just a valid a description of what happens as "he maneuvers his allies into position").

-The Gneech

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Gneech actually "Pin the Foe" works quite well with Opportunity Attacks (AoO in 4E) since it doesn't create a "force field" as you put it. It simply makes it aslong as the needed-procedure is followed (two allies adjacent to the target) that target cannot shift.

A shift being, a 5 feet (one square) move that cannot be hit by a Opportunity Attack. The target can still move, but by getting rid of shift, when it moves it will be hit by a Opportunity Attack from those "pinning it".

So essentially it gives more options to OA, to those pinning the target.

It could also perhaps, hinder shift-enabled powers from working.

 

[hong]

You misunderstand me; I was probably not exactly clear there, so I've since edited it to try to clarify. I wasn't saying that the Warlord makes people able to freeze opponents forever. What I meant was, without the "Pin the Foe" ability, there is already a mechanic (in 3.x at least) that makes it hard for the foe to move, called "Attacks of Opportunity." In fact, that's what they're for.

Note that Pin the Foe would be useless without AoOs, so yes, it uses an existing mechanic.

 

[hong]

So far, I would guess:

Power gamers: meh on 4E, due to having to relearn the system, but intrigued by prospect of more broken stuff to find

Buttkickers: love 4E, due to polished combat rules, more and varied ways to kick butt

Tacticians: meh on 4E, lots more combat options, but fewer ways to avoid/short-circuit combat, inherent vagueness of conflict resolution system

Character actors: hate 4E, because of dumbing down of skill system, siloing of combat vs noncombat powers, more narrowly-focused classes

Storytellers: love 4E, due to n*rr*tivist elements like per-encounter and per-day powers, flexible definition of encounters/milestones, new conflict resolution mechanic

Specialists: meh on 4E, depends on whether chosen schtick is well-supported

Casual gamers: meh on 4E, depends on whether it's easy to use

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I actually just want to quickly pipe in with one-quick complaint I had with 3.5, when it comes to character classes that is addressed in 4e (or potentially addressed).

I disliked how broad the classes were sometimes. It meant to me if I wanted to play a specific kind of character I had to ignore half my powers, and essentially play weaker then everyone else.

In 4e, I imagine with tighter/more narrowly focused characters you will be able to pick a class very specific to your character concept and later on branch out if you wish with class-training.

I imagine future classes in 4e, instead of the do-everything supplement classes of 3e, they will be much more specific and narrow so you have a wide-range of different classes that you can fit your whole concept into.

 

[AllisterH]

And I really don't care for that at all. Mechanically bolted on flavor is not a substitute for a good DM. Flexibility is vastly better, IMO, than "these are the ones that mob you".

What makes a gnoll different than an orc different from a goblin if not mechanical differences?

 

[BryonD]

What makes a gnoll different than an orc different from a goblin if not mechanical differences?

mechanical differences > bolted mechanical flavor. And I think the distinction should be very clear from the context of this thread.

 

[hong]

mechanical differences > bolted mechanical flavor.

Well, I'm glad that's cleared things up.

 

[BryonD]

Storytellers: love 4E, due to n*rr*tivist elements like per-encounter and per-day powers, flexible definition of encounters/milestones, new conflict resolution mechanic

A lot of storytellers, such as myself, are very meh, because gamism over simulation can mess up the feel of the story.