4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[The Little Raven]

Combat 70% of play!?!?!

There's a reason that D&D is known as one of the most combat-heavy RPGs on the market.

 

[Gort]

Is it really D&D without combat? Roleplaying doesn't need any combat at all, and roleplaying doesn't really even need any rules. Are you even DMing a game of D&D if there's no use of the D&D rules in your game?

I've seen some (very unsatisfying) games in my time where players joined, made characters who were warriors or mages or so forth, and ended up just sitting around taverns or stumbling around cities aimlessly. Do players who make fighter characters in your game not feel a bit short-changed at such a small amount of combat?

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Is it really D&D without combat? Roleplaying doesn't need any combat at all, and roleplaying doesn't really even need any rules. Are you even DMing a game of D&D if there's no use of the D&D rules in your game?

I've seen some (very unsatisfying) games in my time where players joined, made characters who were warriors or mages or so forth, and ended up just sitting around taverns or stumbling around cities aimlessly. Do players who make fighter characters in your game not feel a bit short-changed at such a small amount of combat?

Well in a role-playing game, the rules are used to adjudicate situations that require rules. When no rule is needed, you are still playing the game. The rules, existing as a scaffold upon which you lay the the mechanical elements of the story, actions, events, etc. and are there for when you need them and because the ruleset used at that time is Dungeons and Dragons, I can say with great certainty that I am still playing Dungeons and Dragons.

The games where rules are always needed are games of pure mechanics ie. boardgames and the algorhythms of CRPGs. Role playing games have always been a mixture of the mechanical elements and the storytelling/imaginative elements and the ratio of this mixture is determined entirely by events in the campaign.

Short changed? Hardly. In fact my players love the opportunity to bring their characters to life through interaction with the setting in any variety of ways with combat being only one.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Trainz]

The good and the bad?

I'm pretty much fine with everything I've heard so far, even if some of it doesn't make 100% sense from my extremely subjective and uninformed point of view. I've enjoyed all iterations of the game so far, and have no rational reason to believe they'll screw the pooch this time around.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is it really D&D without combat?

Yep.

I've seen some (very unsatisfying) games in my time where players joined, made characters who were warriors or mages or so forth, and ended up just sitting around taverns or stumbling around cities aimlessly. Do players who make fighter characters in your game not feel a bit short-changed at such a small amount of combat?

Sometimes even the best warrior is completely ineffective in a given combat.

A while ago, at the Dallas Gameday, der_kluge ran a game in which I was a participant. I ran a multiclassed Monk/Kensai (w/the feats Monkey Grip & Pole Fighter, a way to Enlarge, and a polearm). The owner of the hosting venue- Generation X Games in Euless, TX- ran a single class Knight.

Essentially, the final combat was an exercise in roleplay for the knight PC- unlike almost every other PC in the party, he was unable to deal damage at more than arm's reach.

He sure did seem to have fun, though, smiling as his PC ran around, challenging the dragons to single combat and chasing them around the cave as the rest of the party actually had to fight them.

 

[EATherrian]

I think other posts above have really said what I've been feeling these last few weeks. I never play characters built with an eye toward combat, except for my fighters. Even then the last fighter I played had the main goal of getting as rich as possible to help save his hometown from poverty. He did as many non-combat things to achieve this goal than he did in combat. The other major thing is rogues in combat and their utility there-in. I've NEVER felt useless in combat so long as I can still hit. Heck, the rogue in D&D is not the DPS the one in WOW is. The rogue in D&D is the utility, or maybe that's just how I see it through my lens of playing experience. My last rogue character (I know, no one wants to hear about my characters lol) was based somewhat on Houdini. I made it so he was usually frightened or uncomfortable fighting, but when it came to traps or devices he was a master. I actually don't think I even did a sneak attack with him, I felt he had no reason to even no how until level 3-4. I thought he was a great character, and as time went on in the campaign I had him grow more comfortable with fighting, although he only would sneak attack if completely necessary. Sorry to use my characters as examples, but I really don't see all these glaring weaknesses so many others seem to see.

 

[Lanefan]

The unit of play is no longer "over the course of an adventure" but "over the course of an encounter". Hell, I don't even think back in the days of 1E, the unit of play for most people was "adventure" but was a "one night session".

I think this is a matter of perspective, on many fronts.

In a short campaign or one-off adventure, the unit of play for the DM is probably the entire campaign/adventure, but is much smaller - a session, an encounter, a day, or similar - for the players.

In a long campaign, the unit of play in my own experience as DM is the adventure, and as player it varies widely - anywhere from the individual encounter to the entire adventure, depending on the situation.

The bigger question is, whose unit of play matters more in design - the DM, or the players? As DM, I'll look at the game I run in terms of adventures; and if something's out of whack for a session or two I won't care, but if it stays out of whack for longer than an adventure then I'll look at it. But I'm not going to even try to micro-balance things down to the point where everyone is equally effective in almost every individual encounter - it's a hopeless goal and a colossal waste of time.

An earlier poster mentioned that in tabletop wargames, not all units are good for frontline combat but what is also true is that the units that ARE good for frontline combat tend also to be VERY poor support classes.

In a tabletop wargame, every unit has a role that it can call its own and some units can fill more than 1 role, but in a well-designed wargame, no unit of the same cost ("level") should fill multiple roles better than any other unit.

And the same should go for classes in D+D. Each class has its "thing" that it does well, and put 'em all together and you've got an adventuring party. However, it *has* to be made clear to all that not every class' "thing" is going to be in demand in every situation: it's a fact of life that sometimes you're the party's fifth wheel. As long as this isn't constantly happening to the same character, who cares?

Fighters generally can't sneak very well. Rogues generally can't fight very well. Seems fine to me.

That said, someone above has pointed out one larger problem that needs a very serious fix at the root design level: numbers creep. When a foe starts with 50 h.p., hitting it with a thrown dagger for 4 points now and then is a useful contribution. However, when same foe starts at 150 h.p., the dagger becomes nearly useless as everyone expects to be able to dish out loads more damage. *This* is where the problem stems from; giving Rogues an always-on sneak attack seems a very makeshift way of trying to fix it, as does giving Wizards some always-on magic to replace their dagger and staff attacks once they run out of spells.

Lane-"if the above doesn't make sense, tell me and I'll try again"-fan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Combat 70% of play!?!?!

Sometimes I wonder if I have been DMing D&D at all for all these years.

I suppose this is what I most dread about what I am inferring about 4e's design decisions. Combat is all and if that is the way the game is meant to be played I would argue in favor of making damn sure that all classes were combat optimized. To be honest I wouldn't want to ruin everyone's fun by denying them ultimate utility in nearly all combat situations if most people are actually playing D&D this way.

However, I have DM'd plenty of sessions where there was only 1 battle and a large number of sessions where no combats took place instead being replaced with social interactions and various other non-combat related activities. It isn't that combat optimization wasn't important, it was just that other things such as character development, investigation, attending to one's lands and castle, dealing with intrigues, etc. often meant more.

No one spoke of builds...and none of my players speak in those terms even now...but instead created a character concept and then chose the class, feats, background necessary to make said character concept come to life in all aspects of the game and not just in an infinite dungeon environment.

I could never DM a game that was that combat heavy because I would be bored to tears. That much dice rolling would make me feel as if I were playing monopoly or some board game as opposed to a role-playing game. My enjoyment comes from role-playing NPCs, telling stories, creating intrigues and plot hooks, and making the players feel like "hey that place seems real and my character does too."

I love D&D combats. They are fun, challenging, and let characters (often PCs, sometimes the NPCs ) show off.
I also like it if there is a story to participate in. But I don't want just to particpate in it - I want to particpiate by my character. Which for me means, that his stats (ability scores, skills and so on) come into play. Because otherwise, the game would seem "off-balance" - dozens of rules for resolving conflicts in combat, but none outside of it?

If that is how folks want to play, have at it. If for some reason the game funneled my DMing style into this mode when I was a younger, more impressionable DM who believed that "official" actually meant more than some other experienced DM's opinion I would have quit DMing or playing D&D long ago.

Hopefully 4e can, with some ease, support playstyles that are often 20%-35% combat.

Well, I share the hope, and if you're willing to use rules for non-combat situations, I guess D&D 4 will indeed be better (assuming that the social encounter rules don't suck )

To support a wide variety from play styles (some with 80 % combat, others with 20 %), each "subsystem" needs to be balanced within itself (unless you're willing to leave some character classes out in some play styles). All characters need to be effective in combat. All characters need to be effective in social situations. All characters need to be effective when handling traps. Not always this needs to be automatic, maybe some classes must expend a few precious resources to get there - learning the right spells, talents or feats...
(For the record, I haven't seen much to convince me that the Fighter will not be second-fiddle in most roleplaying scenarios, but we haven't heard enough about the skill system and the social encounter system for a final verdict.)

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm not sure why not? SR means you've wasted an entire round's worth of actions, if not more depending on if you don't have many conjuration spells prepped or known.

SR is similar to AC in that it's a defensive capability.

Immunity is completely different, which is the problem with most monsters and rogues.

 

[Hussar]

What archetypical situation are you talking about? The rogues ability to do an extra Xd6 damage isn't archetypical. It didn't even exist prior to 3E. Getting "back stab" damage multipliers took work in 1E and 2E. There is no "sneak attack" archetypical ability, at least insofar as it was represented in 3E.

Umm, dude, what? Reread what I wrote. The Archetypal situation was a "Tomb Raid". Not a sneak attack.

Agreed 100%.

My example of the acid flinging rogue was just an example of what a particular rogue could do at a particular point in time. As others point out, as he advances in levels, he becomes more able to UMD. His scouting ability gives the party the intelligence to optimize their choices for upcoming encounters.

He doesn't need to be able to drop the nastiest beast in EVERY encounter with a single blow- its enough that he's capable of doing that in most cases.

Woopee, I get to scout - the rest of the part stands around twiddling their thumbs while I play. Then, the fight starts and I get to twiddle my thumbs while everyone else does stuff. So, basically, I get to map, find out stuff, but, when the midden hits the windmill, I'm warming the pines.

Or, better yet, I get to be a second class wizard. Oooh, please, can I have some more?

Never mind that the wizard can scout 100 times more effectively than I can (arcane eye, invisiblity spell, whatever) and can blow up stuff much better than I can.

Somebody mentioned peppering arrows into the zombies. Well, first off, we know that 4e zombies are no longer the slow moving slabs of xp that 3e zombies were. Secondly, with a DR 5/slashing, my d6 or d8 arrows are pretty much pissing in the wind.

No one answered my original question though. Why is it ok that I can sneak attack a gibbering mouther, or a bone devil, but not an ooze or a skeleton?