D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[robertliguori]

I like the two terms "Fortune in the Middle" and "Fortune at the End" that I have read somewhere else on this board.

For D&D 3 to D&D 4, we're going from
- Player decides what his characters wants to do given the circumstances as described, and then rolls the dice to see if it succeeds. The decision the player makes is usually also a decision made by the player.
- Player decides that the circumstances allow the character (party/enemy) to do something, and then rolls the dice to see if he succeeds. In the game world, the character sure didn't decide the circumstances, he just decided to try it, and it was the players influence to change the circumstances so that the character could try what he tried.

Until you understand (probably easy) and accept (not so easy, since it's also a question of preferences) this shift, 4E will be hard to swallow. These two approaches / paradigms are different, and what makes sense under the first might not make sense under the second, or vice versa.

You can discuss whether this shift is good or bad, but one shouldn't try to use the "old" paradigm to understand or explain game effects that are created under the second paradigm. (But one surely can discuss them using the second paradigm...)

So, under fortune at the end, do characters know what they can and cannot do? Should a character be able to recognize that he's used a daily ability and that it won't work again, and make in-world choices based on this?

Can characters observe the world and notice that no matter how hard they try, the universe contrives to allow certain effects and maneuvers only in accordance to a strict schedule, and not any theoretically-applicable external factors? How many times can a fighter in-character try an expended daily before noting that stance, positioning, quality, armament, or even not being helpless of their enemies have absolutely no effect on whether the specific effect triggers?

 

[AllisterH]

I still don't see the connection. I could grok a vampiric warlock who gets extra HP or an overall power boost from his kill (i've seen this in movies). Why the dark masters would specifically allow him to move 3 squares every time he does someone in is beyond me (and wow, them fairies got really nasty)

Same for the cleric. Unless he worships some twisted war god, i don't see how "I smite yon foul creature" specifically induces "wish y'all a speedy recovery"

Even if it worked, that is what I call afterthought explanation.
Rather than "how could we translate this cool concept into balanced game rules?" it feels like it was the other way around. That approach is bound to break my suspension of disbelief at some point.

They just make the list longer. I felt that each previous edition at least tried to make it shorter.

Which is why the non-spellcasters have always been limited compared to the spellcasters.

I'll give an example. Compare the Weapon Focus - Weapon Supremacy (PHB II) path for the fighter. Weapon Supremacy at the end basically doesn't do anything differently. It is a natural outgrowth for the Weapon Focus tree The fighter has the same options but he gets a little better at doing what he has done at 1st level.

Contrast this with the Alter Self-Shapechange path for wizards. Not only is it way more flexible (spells versus feats) but it also as a path highlight the entire fundamental difference between spellcasting and melee.

You can see this in how you say "how can we translate this cool concept into balanced rules". Here's the thing, IT IS BALANCED but it can't be limited to reality.

 

[am181d]

D&D has never been a simulationist game. Remember, in 1st and 2nd Edition, combat rounds were one minute long. The attack roll represented the cumulative effect of 1 minute of parries and blows.

The tension really centers on to hit rolls, armor class, damage, and hit points. Armor makes you harder to hit? Taking damage doesn't impair you till you fall unconscious? The combat system in D&D from Basic through 3e has been an elaboration of a very simple system designed for miniatures wargaming.

In 4e, they could have moved to a simulationist system by changing armor to damage reduction, adding a condition track, etc. but they made a different choice: to embrace the historical paradigm of Dungeons & Dragons and make sure that rules support fun, exciting play first and describe a concrete reality second.

I'll admit that I was one of those folks who kept trying to jury-rig 3e with new rules for armor, dying, parrying, etc. but I have to say that I think 4e made the right decision in moving in the opposite direction with D&D.

One of the things that I'm interested in hearing more about is that the game designers have said they've come up with a number of rules concepts that they really liked that just didn't fit into their idea of D&D. They didn't want to talk about those rules because they may work their way into future (non-D&D) games.

This tells me that (a) they have a good idea of what D&D should and shouldn't be, and (b) we may be seeing some interesting non-D&D games over the next few years.

 

[MichaelK]

Personally, it ruins my experience more when people are falling asleep at the table since this round of combat will be exactly the same as the round before

This is a serious problem if it happens, I agree.

Which is what happens 90% of the time in 3.5e.

You must have been playing a different game to me. Or my entire game was that 10% and I left all the bad 3.x gaming to everyone else (sorry guys)... I never experienced that.

I've had a player happily play half-elf pure fighter to 12th level, finish off a 5 level paladin-type prestige class and go back to fighter until 22nd level. They never once fell asleep at the table and had just as much fun as the human Arcane Trickster (Rogue/Sorceror) or the Elan Egoist.

"Oh, you mean you are readying an action to attack the next enemy that becomes prone? Then you are waiting for an enemy to provoke an AOO from you with your spiked chain and then tripping them, getting a free attack due to Improved Trip and then hitting them again with your ready action? I didn't see that coming. Wait, I did...you've been doing it every round of combat for 5 levels now."

Okay, I'm years too late, but here's some advice on running 3.x combat. Try to make fights set in unique memorable locations or against unique memorable creatures.

For example a duel underwater for a peace treaty, where tradition and honour prohibits magic, meaning the fighter was holding his breath and trying to win as quickly as possible... against a regenerating sea-troll.

Or a battle against an extraplanar creature who can't be harmed twice by the same weapon or spell.

Or even just flying creatures, or a rogue with mobility and evasion.

These 'insta-win' combos look great in the shop window, but when put through their paces in an actual campaign with creative environments (which aren't even specifically designed to violate their abilities, just to be interesting) they are a lot less useful than people think.

My goal isn't to simulate anything at all. It is to play a fun game. A game which has fun rules.

Some people just don't find simulation fun... and fair enough. There's no reason you necessarily should, and if you find 4e fun then great.

But you seem to be thinking that everyone is suffering terribly under the cruel yoke of D&D 3.x's simulationism, cursed to play chain-wielding tripping fighters. That hasn't been my experience for the last 8 years and it won't be for however long I continue to play 3.x.

 

[AllisterH]

I've had a player happily play half-elf pure fighter to 12th level, finish off a 5 level paladin-type prestige class and go back to fighter until 22nd level. They never once fell asleep at the table and had just as much fun as the human Arcane Trickster (Rogue/Sorceror) or the Elan Egoist.


.

Er, you don't help your argument when you use Arcane Trickster (one of the weakest prestige classes/combos around) and the Egoist (arguably the weakest of the psionic discipline).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, under fortune at the end, do characters know what they can and cannot do? Should a character be able to recognize that he's used a daily ability and that it won't work again, and make in-world choices based on this?

(As I understand, the new paradigmn is fortune in the middle* - the fortune is also represented by the players ability to "manipulate" the game world to give the character an opening.)
He can, if you find some fitting narrative to it.
He won't try to use a martial encounter or daily power again if as already used it, since he never sees the opening. or he sees it, but notices he always misses his opportunity and has to try something else. Which will make him understand that he probably need some rest to regain the ability.
A character having no more healing surges might feel particularly exhausted. Or he just finds out that - despite the Warlords best effort or the Divine Inspiration offered by the Cleric, he just doesn't feel better. "You know, maybe you're right. We can win this. But I don't believe we can win today. Tommorrow, after a good night sleep, sure..."

Can characters observe the world and notice that no matter how hard they try, the universe contrives to allow certain effects and maneuvers only in accordance to a strict schedule, and not any theoretically-applicable external factors? How many times can a fighter in-character try an expended daily before noting that stance, positioning, quality, armament, or even not being helpless of their enemies have absolutely no effect on whether the specific effect triggers?

He might notice that he always reacts to slow (as described above). Maybe he will actually understand that he can't really pull off some stunts multiple times in a row. Though sometimes, the indirection might be even higher. It also depends on how concious the use of a power is. Sometimes, it might be very reactive, and sometimes he might use a power "by accident" - in case of a per encounter trip power, he might have aimed for a strong strike, but it also happens that this blow knocks the opponen off-balance. The decision of the character to actually use a certain technique or trick described by the power might also only be made when the use is really successful. So, while the player tried to use the power, the character might not see it this way - he didn't try to trip the opponent, since there was no way that he would have tried giving the bad situation (low roll in game-mechanics). This would make it actually impossible for the character to notice the game mechanics at work, since for him, there is no way of distinguishing "out of per encounter uses" and "rolling low".


*) Maybe the terms aren't so good after all, at least if you always see "fortune" = dice roll - which we tend to do. The difference might be better described as "dice equals fortune" and "dice plus player decision equals fortune". But in any even, they served as a good starting point for describing it. And with the foregoing, one might also say "character decision = player decision" is changing to "character decision <= player decision".

 

[KarinsDad]

Er, you don't help your argument when you use Arcane Trickster (one of the weakest prestige classes/combos around) and the Egoist (arguably the weakest of the psionic discipline).

I've played the Egoist and it is one of the strongest of the psionic disciplines. My PC was near unstoppable compared to the other same level PCs.

 

[MichaelK]

Er, you don't help your argument when you use Arcane Trickster (one of the weakest prestige classes/combos around) and the Egoist (arguably the weakest of the psionic discipline).

Damnit... I didn't mean Egoist, I meant... base class from XPH, not psion, not soulknife, sounds similar to Egoist. Damn, can't remember. They get wild surges for their powers. (Psionics is not my best field of Knowledge: D&D).

And we used the magic rating rules from unearthed arcana so the AT wasn't quite so bad as in conventional 3.5 (though agreed that it is a very weak prestige class).

But yes, it does make it rather clear that there wasn't much powergaming in that game. People played the character they wanted to play and didn't care too much about their power level.

I'm not sure how that invalidates my argument though.

(Which let me just sum up for the record is: A fighter isn't boring).

 

[hong]

(Which let me just sum up for the record is: A fighter isn't boring).

I agree with you. Thousands wouldn't.

Hm. Actually, I wouldn't agree with you either. Oh well!

 

[AllisterH]

I've played the Egoist and it is one of the strongest of the psionic disciplines. My PC was near unstoppable compared to the other same level PCs.

???

I've always considered it the weakest of the psionic disciplines since it couldn't affect so many creatures due to so many creatures just being plain immune to mind-influencing effects.

Or am I totally messing up my disciplines?