4E with 1E Feel: Does that appeal to you?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

All those shifts, pushes, pulls, etc. are a quickfix way of giving monsters powers that do something without adding math to the game. 3E had ability damage, which was a neat idea but caused a nightmare of refiguring at the table. 4E is aiming for "fire and forget" type powers which can be resolved quickly.

That's an interesting way to "explain" it, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

I am not a real fan of this game relying heavily on the board, though we do it and enjoy it. I don't like it because I see it as a barrier to entry. But on the other hand, we want some complexity in combats, with different options and special conditions. The only alternative is by doing more "math". And that's another kind of barrier to entry - and sometimes it is even a hindrance way after your entry is over, since math is just that - math. There is not much visualization going on there. While viewing the character as a "chess piece" might be awkward sometimes, viewing the character as a set of numbers affected by other numbers doesn't really look better to me. And I think there is something inherently more "real" about positioning then about some ability modifiers changing.

 

[mmadsen]

All those shifts, pushes, pulls, etc. are a quickfix way of giving monsters powers that do something without adding math to the game.

Excellent insight, Gneech.

I think the problem with all those shifts, pushes, pulls, etc. is that they're poorly linked to what's happening in the game world. Physically pushing someone around should rely on being bigger and stronger, threatening someone so that they move out of the way should rely on being a real threat, etc. Also, so many of the powers have very, very narrowly defined effects, when whole clusters of effects would naturally flow from the same basic ability.

 

[Filcher]

YES. ABSOLUTELY. It's part of why you see in the 'grognard' style threads the idea 'challenge the players, not just the characters'. If the wood the party is passing by is the lair of a dragon or some creature, the players should have the sense (once they read the signs the DM provides) to skirt the woods, hide, sneak, whatever. They should have the sense to realize that nearby lair is unwinnable for them.

The other side of it is that the DM needs to be fair enough to provide the players enough information to make decisions and evaluate the threat. Dumping a high level fight right on the players with no chance to avoid it whatsoever is fairly churlish, right?

Agreed. In fairness, though, this arose out of 3E and its emphasis on CR/EL. If anything, it is where 4E feels the most like 3E.

 

[Nebulous]

The only major thing that irks me is the enormous emphasis on pushes, pulls, slides and shifts in the combat rules and powers. I loved this month's Dragon article on artifacts, but the blessing/curse granted by the chess game was a huge letdown.

Oy. I'm afraid 4e might have backed itself into a corner in regards to these mechanics. They work great, they're tactically interesting...but powers and magic items just seem to replicate the same thing over and over. I cringe every time i read "knocked prone", and i've only been playing the game for two months!

Last adventure i added back a wand of magic missiles with 30 charges, does 1d4+1 damage and can't miss. I don't give a damn what the 4e design philosophy was. I had to have some of the old school flavor back. I'll probably keep on adding items like that too. Including cursed stuff too.

 

[justanobody]

4E is aiming for "fire and forget" type powers which can be resolved quickly.

Until you get into the status effects and saves for them. Sustained abilities, etc.

I would not suggest to just "fire and forget" when you can sustain something for little to no cost of using other powers.

 

[Tewligan]

Field plate + shield gave an AC of 1 while an orc only had a THACO of 19. Being able to hit only on a 18+ means that yeah, a 2nd level fighter could kill orcs pretty much whole day and not worry. Keep in mind as well, that the PHB itself even mentions that field plate + shield is an acceptable amount of gear for a 1st level fighter (check what the elite units a fighter got when he reached "name" level).

1) Most of the party won't be wearing field plate, though. The squishier types are going to be drawing a lot of orc attacks.
2)I don't think the PHB says that, since field plate wasn't introduced until UA.

 

[AllisterH]

1) Most of the party won't be wearing field plate, though. The squishier types are going to be drawing a lot of orc attacks.
2)I don't think the PHB says that, since field plate wasn't introduced until UA.

Heh...Using the closest PHB which was the 2E one. That's one of the disadvantages of only DMing 2E and only playing 1E (didn't need a PHB, just borrowed my friend's....)

Actually, half of the party should be wearing armour if you go by the old classic cleric, wizard, thief and fighter party (at least in 2E ). Hell, if you had an elven player, that wizard would be a f/m looking for elven chainmail...

Notice also I didn't even include an elven fighter/mage that got lucky and rolled 16s for both STR, INT and DEX (not exactly an unheard of occurance would you say?)

At first level, his AC was 0!!.