6 months later: impressions of 4e

[Herremann the Wise]

So, what do you feel is missing? How would you add the awesome? I'm assuming by your comment that you think the PC vs PC balance is correct, but the PC vs challenge balance is somewhat off?

Actually, I kind of feel the same as Ahglock on this one. All characters are adventurers in that they use the powers system. The balance is hard-wired in. However, imagine that wizards used the "arcane" system, priests used the "divine" system and fighter-style characters used the "martial" system, and spiritual characters used the "primal" system where each of these systems was different to each other, but still balanced. Your character could do things other characters couldn't rather than the majority of effects being ones that only affect hit points. I think that is what Ahglock may have been thinking of - it is certainly how I feel.

However, maybe WotC found that doing that was too difficult or impossible. Perhaps it is easier and more important to achieving what they want over the 8 year or so lifespan of 4E to have the consistent base of a universal system?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

4e is like a Mac so 4e is streamlined, easier to use, but not compatible with most games.

Y'know, I know you meant this tongue in cheek, but, I really think you do have a pretty good point here. 4e isn't compatible with some game styles. I wouldn't say most, but certainly some. And that's a pretty fair assessment IMO. Yes, if you want to do heavily sim games, 4e is not going to work terribly well. Likewise, if exploration games where resource tracking is a major issue are your thing, 4e probably is not the go to game either. I'm sure there are more.

I suppose it really comes to the front if you expect your game world to inform your rules. The whole rules=physics thing that's been beaten to death, then 4e is not likely to float your boat.

So, yeah, I think the Mac comparison isn't terribly far off. For what it does, it does amazingly well. When you get outside of what it does though, it does poorly. I think it's fair to say that 3e did reasonably well at everything. If you're in a position where 3e did what you liked pretty well and 4e doesn't, then sure, you're not likely going to like 4e. However, if your 3e game looked a lot like 4e, then you're likely going to really like 4e.

 

[Ahglock]

So, what do you feel is missing? How would you add the awesome? I'm assuming by your comment that you think the PC vs PC balance is correct, but the PC vs challenge balance is somewhat off?

I think everything is too constrained. Its HP damage and some small effect. And the HP damage does not scale up very impressively.

If you want to follow the HP damage and some effect model it should be.
Heroic tier HP damage and a small effect is fine.
Paragon tier it should be HP damage and a big effect
Epic it should be HP damage and a holy crap effect.

There are no big effects, there isn't anything close to a holy crap effect.

Your list a moves is small, powers don't really improve on there own(small improvement for at wills) you have to retrain out to get a somewhat level appropriate one. People were making WOW comparisons when it was coming out and in some respects they were being generous, I have more moves with any class in WOW than I do in 4e.

Rituals, well I love the concept of rituals, it is one of the few wow cool ideas of 4e. But then they went and made them so expensive, you are basically shooting yourself in the foot for casting any level appropriate ritual. Now can they still see use, sure. Low level rituals when you are a higher level are stupid cheap due to the wealth scaling in the game. But high level rituals are almost always more expensive then they are worth. They frequently cost 1-2% of a levels expected wealth. That is a whole freakin giant wholloping sum of money for what works out to be one nerfed 1-3e spell.

Want to make skills more useful hey that is great, but if rituals become so expensive people go absurdley out of there way to avoid casting them taking up large amounts of game time on a small task, its not so great.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

7 months out, my impressions are somewhat worse than they were when Chris and Bill made the 4e announcement at Gen Con 07. At that point, I turned to my friends and said, "I bet it will be some steps forward, some steps backward, but on the whole a slight but significant improvement."

Now, I would amend that to read, "It's some steps forward, some steps backward, and on the whole no better or worse for most people, just different." For me, personally, it's a step backwards. But I recognize that my judgment is colored by personal preferences. For example, I teach physics, and the fact that the world described by the 4e rules makes no physical sense does not sit well with me.

Another problem for me is that I just don't respect the lack of rigor in the writing. Again and again, the writers use words without regard to meaning. The Pathfinder has no powers that help him find paths. Demons aren't afraid of death but they obey balors out of fear of being killed. Oozes can be tripped. This Orwellian obfuscation of the language is maddening. It makes me wonder that they haven't changed the alignment system to Lawful Good, Good, Double Plus Super Null, Mini-good, and Giant Extra Mega Ungood. But, alas, that is only me, and many people don't care about that stuff.

Overall, I can still have fun playing 4e. It just takes a little work and a lot of teeth gritting.

 

[Ahglock]

Y'know, I know you meant this tongue in cheek, but, I really think you do have a pretty good point here. 4e isn't compatible with some game styles. I wouldn't say most, but certainly some. And that's a pretty fair assessment IMO. Yes, if you want to do heavily sim games, 4e is not going to work terribly well. Likewise, if exploration games where resource tracking is a major issue are your thing, 4e probably is not the go to game either. I'm sure there are more.

I suppose it really comes to the front if you expect your game world to inform your rules. The whole rules=physics thing that's been beaten to death, then 4e is not likely to float your boat.

So, yeah, I think the Mac comparison isn't terribly far off. For what it does, it does amazingly well. When you get outside of what it does though, it does poorly. I think it's fair to say that 3e did reasonably well at everything. If you're in a position where 3e did what you liked pretty well and 4e doesn't, then sure, you're not likely going to like 4e. However, if your 3e game looked a lot like 4e, then you're likely going to really like 4e.

Yeah I was mainly making a funny on macs, but I see your point. 4e suits us fairly well so far so its working out.

 

[Gothmog]

In factors in nicely when you consider that I don't accept that it is an apples to apples comparison.

He may be able to get what 4E offers easier than he was able to get what 3E offers, that in no way implies that the full value each offers is equivalent. To the contrary, his own post rather implies the opposite to be true.

You might not consider it to be an apples to apples comparison, but thats your opinion, and I'll respect that. However, you also need to respect the opinions of others, and accept that for many folks, 4e DOES have equal or greater value to 3e. Thats the funny thing about opinions and beliefs- they're subjective, NOT objective reality.

Gothmog, and by implication of your analogy, you as well, are claiming that 3E doesn't provide the right tool for the job. But unlike the back of a screwdriver for nails, vast numbers of people find 3E to be greatly superior to 4E for story. So, I'm forced to conclude that rather than an issue with the tool, the problem is more a matter of user error.

And if someone doesn't know how to use one tool and settles for the result an easier tool provides, then they have no basis for offering a judgment on which of the two tools offers the best overall final result when used correctly.

I didn't say 3e doesn't provide the right tools for the job, I said it doesn't supply the right tools for the job I want to do. That's a big distinction. 3e is a good rules system, and a lot of people like it because it fits their playstyle and preferences- more power to them. 4e is also a good system, and a lot of people like it because it fits their playstyle and preferences- and thats cool too. Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses- no system is perfect or is objectively superior to the other. I tried making 3e fit my style, and it just didn't work- and I tried for FIVE YEARS and have a very good understanding of the rules, mathematics, and underlying assumptions of the system. This isn't "user error", its a preference for certain things- you have them, as do I. So the BS about me (or others) not being fit to compare or criticize systems based on our system of preferece is completely bogus and highly insulting.

I find 4e unfetters my creativity and fuels my imagination that was stifled during the 3e era by rules mastery and system complexity- I can only split my attentional resources so many ways, and I'd prefer to work on plots, encounters, and interesting characters over system mastery. 3e tries to define a rule for every situation, wheras I prefer DM judgement- again, neither way is "the one true way", its just a personal preference. Obviously, my preferences are different than yours, and thats fine- we're both right. What I don't understand is the vitriol and condescending comments you make at 4e supporters. Someone saying they prefer 4e over 3e isn't a personal attack on you, so I'm confused.

 

[Gothmog]

Now, I would amend that to read, "It's some steps forward, some steps backward, and on the whole no better or worse for most people, just different." For me, personally, it's a step backwards. But I recognize that my judgment is colored by personal preferences. For example, I teach physics, and the fact that the world described by the 4e rules makes no physical sense does not sit well with me.

You know, I'm with you there to some degree. I'm a neuroscientist by training (with a lot of MD training as well), and 4e definitely does have some gaps between its reality and real-world physics, biology, and chemistry. For example, I understand the reasoning behind healing surges, and appreciate it makes gameplay faster (and probably more fun for many), but the yo-yo hit points and lack of long-term injury bugged me- so my group and I added houserules for slower healing and injuries. Problem solved!

However, this isn't new to 4th edition. D&D has never done a good job modeling real-world science, and many would argue it shouldn't. The multiclassing system in 3rd edition is a good example of something that is completely ridiculous considering the way the human brain and psychology works- most people cannot/don't dramatically switch careers several times in their lives. (And by dramatically, I mean someone who used to be a physics professor suddenly also becoming a navy SEAL, then becoming an MD- our brains and neuronal pathways just aren't structured that way). Falling damage in every edition is wonky, as are the concept of hit points and their ablation leading to death. Armor class takes into account many variables that simply cannot be lumped into one catch-all factor in reality. Likewise, humanoid creatures the size of giants couldn't exist- they would pulverize their own bones by bipedal locomotion and be unable to sustain upright posture, not to mention the physics involved with getting something the size of a dragon flying with any sort of wing. I guess the take-home message here is if you want to play D&D, you have to already be willing to make some leaps in logic, but its still fun.

 

[nightwyrm]

Wow, so many science professionals here. I study evolutionary ecology and when I read through the monster manual and see some of the monsters or the ecological fluff that the writers come up with, I often feel an urge to scream "biology doesn't work that way!"

I find it best to just leave my scientist hat at the door when I play D&D. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I kind of feel the same as Ahglock on this one. All characters are adventurers in that they use the powers system. The balance is hard-wired in. However, imagine that wizards used the "arcane" system, priests used the "divine" system and fighter-style characters used the "martial" system, and spiritual characters used the "primal" system where each of these systems was different to each other, but still balanced. Your character could do things other characters couldn't rather than the majority of effects being ones that only affect hit points. I think that is what Ahglock may have been thinking of - it is certainly how I feel.

Actually, I think the powers system makes for a pretty good starting baseline, which allows for some tinkering and experimentation with sub-systems while maintaining a reasonable level of balance overall. Let's say I wanted each power source to have a stronger identity. Perhaps I want the Arcane power source to be about infrequent spectacular effects. I could just give Arcane characters the ability to use an extra daily attack or utility power. Perhaps I want the Martial power source to be about constant minor benefits. I could then give Martial characters an extra feat and an extra at-will attack. If I want to have a power point system for Psionic characters, I can tack a PP subsystem on to the basic powers system, too. In all these cases, the balance problems would be less than if Arcane characters had only daily powers, Martial characters had only at-will powers, and only Psionic characters used a power point system.

 

[Dragon Snack]

...I often feel an urge to scream "biology doesn't work that way!"

Don't ever read the ecology of the Beholder then. I bet your head would explode, I laughed my tokus off when I read that section of Lords Of Madness.

I know I'll never look at a drooling Beholder the same way again...