6 months later: impressions of 4e

[Theron]

Generally, my impressions jibe pretty closely with the OP, except that artifacts haven't appeared in any of our games. To be honest, our 4e experience is still pretty sparse, as we alternate with a long running 3.5 campaign we want to see through to the end, and playtest sessions (some 4e, some other games) for an upcoming convention. Not to mention a hurricane and the holidays getting in the way.

The biggest issue I've got with the game at this point is Hit Point inflation on elite and solo critters. The grind factor is probably the one thing really getting in the way of my really loving the system rather than it just be the flavor of the evening with my group. Granted, 3.5 was the king of the two round combat, when a high-level, prepared group of PCs was involved, but 4e has just gone too far in the opposite direction.

(IMO, YMMV, ONVISOD, etc.)

 

[Jack99]

Shrug.

All I know is this: In the two different 4e games I've been in, the wizard has been the least effective member of the party in terms of Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff. From what I can tell, the wizard needs more optimization than any other class to be really effective, and has gone from being the most flexible class in 3.x to the least flexible -- even with the Spellbook feature.

My experience. YMMV. Looking forward to Arcane Power and the PHB2.

I will say this. The wizard seems to benefit a lot from a few levels. While our wizards definitely weren't bad at low levels, they really seem to pick up the slack as we level. The wizard in my campaign is level 10, and he is a very effective member. And he spends a lot of residuum on rituals, making him even more useful out of combat.

Anyway, here's to hoping Arcane Power will make it possible to make a more wizardly wizard

 

[Obryn]

Tons of stuff.

I have to spread XP around before giving you more, but this was a very insightful post. I agree and disagree (fwiw, I agree that wizards are a bit underwhelming), but it's well-thought-out. Kudos.

-O

 

[Greg K]

Things I Was Right About:
a)The game feels much more...gamey...than 3e. I'm totally disconnected from any sense my character is "there". .

b)Constant battles between logic and rules: .

These are two of the main reason that I do not like 4e from a DM or player perspective and, imo, why it fails as an rpg, but makes a good tactical minis game (I'm just not in to tactical minis games).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have to spread XP around before giving you more, but this was a very insightful post. I agree and disagree (fwiw, I agree that wizards are a bit underwhelming), but it's well-thought-out. Kudos.

-O

Covered.


RC

 

[jgbrowning]

c)Monsters. It took me a while to get used to the "Monsters aren't PCS!" design model, but once I internalized it, I have found that creating monsters in 4e is a lot of fun, and the fact I can 'hand carve' NPCs means my fears of a lack of detail for them were unwarrented -- an NPC can have as much, or as little, detail as I wish. (I've been working on a "Civilian" monster type for non-combatant NPCs who still need more definition than a name and a trained skill.)

This is something I've heard a lot and I completely understand as a publisher (when you have to follow the "rules"), but something I find somewhat mystifying as a DM/Gamer.

When I DM I just make stuff up. I decide what attack bonuses, damage, special attacks, skills etc that I want the creature to have and voila, done. I may write them down, I may not. I never care if it "breaks" the rules because I'm not playing the game published by WotC, I'm playing the game that my group's got going on. As long as I'm internally consistent (and I seem to be), there's no reason to go through the effort to make a "legal" monster or NPC unless I'm publishing it.

Just found the comment odd, and wanted to put in my $0.02.

joe b.

 

[Lizard]

This is something I've heard a lot and I completely understand as a publisher (when you have to follow the "rules"), but something I find somewhat mystifying as a DM/Gamer.

When I DM I just make stuff up. I decide what attack bonuses, damage, special attacks, skills etc that I want the creature to have and voila, done. I may write them down, I may not. I never care if it "breaks" the rules because I'm not playing the game published by WotC, I'm playing the game that my group's got going on. As long as I'm internally consistent (and I seem to be), there's no reason to go through the effort to make a "legal" monster or NPC unless I'm publishing it.

Just found the comment odd, and wanted to put in my $0.02.

joe b.

Part of it is that I *enjoy* playing the "minigame" of making things -- whether it is worlds for Traveller, vehicles for GURPS, heroes for Champions, or NPCs for D&D. "Just make some up" isn't fun for me, precisely because there isn't a "Game" for it -- no rules==no fun!

4e is middle-of-the-road. There's rules, but they provide a fairly mundane average which even the designers ignored. And, of course, there's no formal or official means of selecting powers. So there's one "game" in setting the basics, and a second in "tweaking" the numbers and coming up with one or two Cool Abilities which are of the appropriate power level.

(One such experiment is at Goblin Knifethrower (4e and 3.5) )

 

[jgbrowning]

Part of it is that I *enjoy* playing the "minigame" of making things -- whether it is worlds for Traveller, vehicles for GURPS, heroes for Champions, or NPCs for D&D. "Just make some up" isn't fun for me, precisely because there isn't a "Game" for it -- no rules==no fun!

Ah, ok, that makes more sense to me. I enjoy the "minigame" of world/campaign building in much a similar manner I suspect.

joe b.

 

[Arnwyn]

This is something I've heard a lot and I completely understand as a publisher (when you have to follow the "rules"), but something I find somewhat mystifying as a DM/Gamer.

When I DM I just make stuff up. I decide what attack bonuses, damage, special attacks, skills etc that I want the creature to have and voila, done. I may write them down, I may not. I never care if it "breaks" the rules because I'm not playing the game published by WotC, I'm playing the game that my group's got going on. As long as I'm internally consistent (and I seem to be), there's no reason to go through the effort to make a "legal" monster or NPC unless I'm publishing it.

Just found the comment odd,

How do you determine if it's a reasonable challenge, as well as providing the proper amount of XP? (Keeping in mind that this is coming from a DM who finds that 3e's CR system works like a charm for him and his group.)

I've never been impressed with the "2e school of monster design", for my uses.

 

[Lacyon]

How do you determine if it's a reasonable challenge, as well as providing the proper amount of XP? (Keeping in mind that this is coming from a DM who finds that 3e's CR system works like a charm for him and his group.)

I believe the technical term for the process is "Scientific Wild-Ass Guess".

I don't think it's that hard to gauge the CR of a monster whose numbers are generated from whole cloth against one advanced with class levels, and if you're off by a point or two, it's unlikely the players will complain too much (if they even notice).