4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Reynard]

In some ways I sympathise with your lack of sympathy. But not so much when it comes to D&D. In general, I prefer to blame the system, rather than the players, if the players of the system overwhelmingly refrain from "engaging the game" in a certain fashion. There are two main ways I know of for a player of an RPG to engage the game. In each case, D&D gives players reasons for focussing on the dealing of hit points to the exclusion of other in-game activity.

The first way to engage an RPG is via its action resolution mechanics. In D&D, these are (but in 4e perhaps may not be) overwhelmingly concerned with dealing hit points.

The other is via GM-moderated attempts at extra-mechanical "problem resolution". OD&D and 1st ed AD&D are the pre-eminent examples of games in which this sort of play dominates. 3E has expressly moved away from this style of play (which style of play is, in my view, principally responsible for D&D's reputation for producing adversarial GMing). Therefore it is no surprise that players of 3E do not attempt to engage the game in this fashion.

What other game systems do is open up mechanical space for engaging the game in a non-combat fashion, via all sorts of action resolution mechanics both simulationist and metagame. For various reason, D&D historically has not done so (one of those reasons might be the hostility of a vocal group of D&D players towards metagame action-resolution mechanics, and towards social interaction mechanics). If 4e changes this trend, then it may be that the player of the rogue will have a real (as in meangingful in the context of play) choice to trick the golem rather than sneak-attacking it. If that is so, then the changes to sneak attack rules will constitute an addition of an option rather than a concession to a lack of player imagination.

I'm not talking about non-combat action resolution, metagame mechanics or DM fiat. I am talking about the rogue player, in the fight with the golem, realizing that there's a massive ruleset at his disposal for doing something besides sulking because his highest damage attack doesn't work against the enemy. Aid Another. Combat Maneuvers. Providing flanking bonuses for the high damage fighters so they can power attack more. Protecting the casters.

One of the element of the 4E design philosophy that appears to be built in to the mechanics that irritates me the most is the idea of "roles" as they relate to combat. A robust combat system, like 3E's, presents a high number of tactical options to every character, which means that battles can be built on something more than hit point attrition.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Aid Another. Combat Maneuvers. Providing flanking bonuses for the high damage fighters so they can power attack more. Protecting the casters.

Aid another and flanking just aren't good enough. If the best a PC can do in a fight is aid another that, to me, is the definition of useless.

I remember a few years ago playing a wizard facing a golem and not being happy that, after casting haste, the best I could do was aid another. I want my every round actions to be more effective than that. Back then I didn't know about overpowered conjurations such as glitterdust, and the orb spells. It's even possible for a rogue to be useful vs a golem if the player has access to enough splats but it's a lot harder than it is for a wizard.

In answer to your other question about which customers WotC is listening to - customers like me. We must comprise the majority or they would be leaving things as they are.

 

[JoeGKushner]

WotC are listening to their customers. That's a good thing.

Except for where they're telling their customers what they'll be getting and that certain changes are coming regardless of what the fans want. (Dragon editorial 361 and the stance on the Forgotten Realms spring to mind.)

 

[Campbell]

Reynard,

I agree that all characters should occasionally face enemies that take them out of their element and force them to use unconvential tactics. However, 3rd Edition rogues didn't face creatures that were immune to sneak attack occasionally. It was a regular occurance.

 

[Lackhand]

Reynard,

I agree that all characters should occasionally face enemies that take them out of their element and force them to use unconvential tactics. However, 3rd Edition rogues didn't face creatures that were immune to sneak attack occasionally. It was a regular occurance.

My favorite was that in many dungeons, a base assumption is that the dungeon is sealed, full of ancient horrors. This means that the ecology is tricky at best, and thus monsters without biology -- elementals, constructs, undead, oozes, and fungi -- were easiest.

Well darn. Poor rogue!

This is made up for with traps. Traps which only the rogue can interact with -- well, enjoyably interact with )) -- and the class becomes a problem.

Especially when everything else it does is better done by magic.

 

[babomb]

For the most part, I agree with OP. Some specific points:

1. NO MORE LEVEL DRAIN
   I never liked permanent level drain except in very special circumstances. Temporary level drain is great. And yes, a vampire draining levels by TOUCHING is silly. By BITING, that I'm on board with.
2. NO MORE ABILITY DRAIN
   I like the idea of ability drain, but this is kind of a pain to recalculate mid-combat, especially at higher levels. I'd usually just slapped a flat penalty to things and did real calculations later. Ok, so some of the numbers were a little off. Big deal.
3. NO MORE ETHICAL ALIGNMENTS
   I had no real problems with alignments, but I can see the reasoning behind this, as a lot of people did (or had differing definitions).
4. SNEAK ATTACK ON ANYTHING
   Making all undead immune seemed pretty silly to me. But some specific monsters, like gelatinous cubes, probably should remain immune.
5. FASTER GAME MECHANICS & NPC CREATION
   Helpful, but I rarely bothered with accurate stats, since none of the players saw 'em anyway.
6. NO MORE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAGIC ITEMS
   Yeah.
7. NO MORE (or less) VANCIAN CASTING
   Hell yeah.
8. NO MORE SPELL SCHOOLS
   I've never really liked the way specialists worked, and some of the spells seemed oddly categorized, but spell schools are a cool concept, and I'm sad to see them go. I'll wait to see how 4e treats spells, but I'll definitely consider bringing schools back.
   FOCUS ITEMS
   I'm all for encouraging wizards to carry around staves. I'm intrigued by this idea, but I lack sufficient data even to say whether I like it so far.
9. SKILL SYSTEM REVAMP
   I'm 100% on board with everything I've heard about this so far.
10. BASIC RACES CHANGES
    I never really liked gnomes, at least not as presented. I've thought about making them Tiny and more naturey, like David the Gnome, but I never really bothered, and it looks like 4e elves will cover the nature niche. I'm not especially happy about the gnomes being gone, but I won't miss them either; I don't really care that much.
    Tieflings and dragonborn are more iffy to me. Certainly with tieflings in, I expected aasimar as well. Dragonborn just seem weird to me, especially with the women having boobs. I like boobs as much as the next guy, but on lizard-like creatures? Creepy. That aside, despite the game having dragons in the title, they seem to have come a bit out of left field. Perhaps with more information about them they'll seem more interesting, but right now they seem kind of...blah.
    And beardless dwarf women? SEXY beardless dwarf women? The mind boggles. I kind of liked the trope, but on the other hand, more sexy women...

 

[Dormammu]

Zombies have weak points! Iron golems have joints, animated furniture has joints, flesh golems have nerves or arteries or eyes, and so on.

Everything has joints. Sneak attacks are not hitting someone in the stinking knee! In fact, that is something a fighter could do without surprise. Sneak attacks are hitting vital organs which are normally kept protected by someone aware in combat. Limbs and joints are not hard to hit on an aware opponent. Kidneys, the base of the skull, etc are. Undead and golems do not have or do not live by means of organ function.

Any by the way, as I read it, all alignment is gone for most creatures (including players). As I read the comments so far, certain extra-planar or archetypal creatures will be GOOD or EVIL (hi, Solars and Devils) and everything else will be unaligned. It didn't sound as if players would even choose an alignment. Maybe Paladins will?

 

[Lanefan]

Any by the way, as I read it, all alignment is gone for most creatures (including players). ...

OK, but what about the characters they play?

Lane-"DM to non-aligned players since 1984"-fan

 

[Wyrmshadows]

"Yeaahhh!!! My rogue just sneak attacked the fire elemental and did triple damage. I swung my dagger so fast behind his back that I snuffed him out!! Huzzah!!"

"Wow! I just finished off the stone golem by striking its vitals. Fighter, I know that you were hitting it all over and made some great hits but you just didn't stick you sword between chunk of stone A and chunk of stone B. Right these is where is wee little golem heart was. What? You didn't know golems had hearts....well neither did I until 4e told me they do. Silly me, in 3e I thought the darn things were made of solid stone."

"Waahooo! I just killed that ooze with my shortsword with a quick thrust to its barely noticable neural ganglia located in this undefinable, shapeless glop of ooze right here. We rogues have studied the anatomies of every single creature you are ever going to encounter. This allows us to know where to srike every time."




This makes baby jeebus...who cares about versimilitude....cry.

If a PC can't hack every single creature up with his special powers...we'll the game just aint worth playing. Well I think that the game isn't fun unless my fighter can shoot fire from his fingertips as a class ability or unless my cleric can shapechange like a druid. Why should I be penalized for my character concept bah? blah, blah.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Everything has joints. Sneak attacks are not hitting someone in the stinking knee! In fact, that is something a fighter could do without surprise. Sneak attacks are hitting vital organs which are normally kept protected by someone aware in combat. Limbs and joints are not hard to hit on an aware opponent. Kidneys, the base of the skull, etc are. Undead and golems do not have or do not live by means of organ function.

The name "sneak attack" doesn't tell us where you hit. Just that it is a kind of attack that seams to be "sneaky". 3.x flavor text speaks of "vital organs". Maybe 4E flavor text speaks of something different, more related to "using the element of surprise to bring down the enemies defenses".

And it's not like a Fighter wouldn't try to strike vital organs either if the opportunity presents itself. But he doesn't get a special mechanic for it, just like the Rogue doesn't get the Weapon Specialisation feat.