6 months later: impressions of 4e

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 know my player's ACs, HP, damage potentials, magic items and spells. Creating challenges around that information as I wish isn't really any different than doing it "by the book" - except I get to ignore all the mathy-bits that have to be tweaked to make it work the way I want it to to begin with according to monster creation rules.

Are my player's having fun? Did something I just threw at them make them sweat, yet cheer? Did they have time to flee once they realized they were in over their heads (even if they chose to stay anyway)? That's how I judge a monster or encounter, personally.

joe b.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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).

Short and sweet. :)

The rules are just guesses to begin with and guesses that are made based upon an unknown "average" group. I know the group that's going to face on-the-fly monsters. That makes a HUGE difference in the ease in determining challenge, IMO.

joe b.
 

As I’ve mentioned in other posts I like the game, but at the same time I hate it. Some parts of it just don’t feel like D&D anymore. So I’ve recently decided that 4e is just not what I want. The downside to this decision has been the realization that I’m loosing interest in D&D period. I want something more freeform and flowing than what’s offered. I’ve always bought other games to serve as resource material, but lately I’ve actually started looking hard at them with the intention of replacing D&D after 25+ years of playing the game. It will be hard finding players as central Iowa tends to favor mainstream games more than less played products, namely D&D and WoD for RPGs and Magic for cards.

Thanks to the thread I started about Dragon Warriors (after stumbling across the mention of it in another post and deciding to buy it to see what it was about) I came across references to other games that led me to Hollow World Expedition. HEX is a pulp genre game that uses the Ubiquity engine and I liked the dice mechanics so ordered it. Then I found out that Desolation (post-apocalyptic fantasy) uses Ubiquity also. Ubiquity is very freeform and flows smoothly, offering almost exactly what I want and have been looking for.

I figured I’d get caught up in Desolation since it’s fantasy and I’ve traditionally as mentioned clung to D&D, but have found I really like HEX more. HEX has reawakened my imagination as well as hunger for everything that might inspire a game. I’ve gone out and bought tons of DVDs over the last couple of weeks related to Pulp fiction, including titles such as The Shadow, Big Trouble in Little China, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Journey to the Center of the Earth (1950’s version), and Lost World (1960) just to name a few. I’ve really gotten into the genre. I haven’t been that caught up in a game, looking for inspiration, in a very long time.

I was excited about 4e, as I was excited about all the other editions, but after playing the game the last few months it’s not keeping my interest. I agree with one of the above posts with the mention that part of the problem is that you really can’t get much out of reading the books anymore. I use to read the books repeatedly but with 4e it just seems pretty blah reading wise, especially the FR book. Too much fluff was cut from it in my opinion.

I’ve canceled all my preorders. I’m not saying I won’t buy any books, but won’t be buying every book that comes out. That’s one of the nice things about HEX and Desolation right now. HEX has two books with a third pending and Desolation is only at the core book with the next in development. I can handle those numbers and since both games are fairly new it’s like the first days of D&D again and once more the game is growing as I am. After 25+ years I’m also getting tired of seeing everything rewritten just because there’s a new edition out. I know people have their favorites, but it seems TSR and now WotC refuse to create something new out of fear it won’t work. Eberron was the first really exciting thing to happen to D&D in a long time and I really was hoping it was something WotC would do again with 4e, but they appear to have let the idea drop.

The GSL has also brought about a lack of interest thanks to WotC. Their fear of giving other companies access really put a damper on the market which during the 3.x era 3PPs really helped keep me interested in D&D. I would pick up other products and wonder how I could incorporate it into the game, if it wasn’t specifically designed as an add-on. The launch of 3e was accompanied by quite a few products if not at the release date then shortly after. Add to this WotC’s decision to just abandon all connections to 3.x and you have the big wedge that was driven into place. 4e has only managed to fracture the fan base worse than previous editions ever did beyond edition wars. I’ve never seen an edition comparison still being discussed for so long after the new release as I’ve seen with 4e.

What I like about 4e is that fighters have been given more options making them worth playing and interesting to say the least. However I miss the flexibility of certain classes and the necessity of others. There’s no reason to play a rogue anymore and a wizard is no different than playing a fighter. If someone told me at my table I was judging “we don’t have a rogue, priest, wizard, whatever” my answer was and still is, “play what you want, let me worry about that.” A good judge will make a module work without a given class. WotC decided that eliminating the necessity of a given class was the answer for everyone when the real answer was just give some options so the judge can fix it himself easier.

The best thing I can say about 4e is that it is a great pickup game when you don’t have a lot of time to invest into a game. Want to play with your friends but only have a couple of hours or meet once in a blue moon then 4e is great as you spend less time thinking about the game as you do playing it. Although you now spend more time working through a combat unless you modify the monsters which should have been balanced to begin with through playtesting. Oh wait, they didn’t playtest or at least playtest the way they said they were going too initially. Some times the game plays like a paper version of an Activision game; I’m waiting for the next patch, i.e. Arcane, Divine, Martial, and Primal books. I don’t want to wait to play a class the way I really want to. I should be able to play any class the way I want straight from the book it first appears in.

New books should only introduce variants or themes to a class like past books did. This leads me to the next thing I don’t like about the game – the use of iconic classes, class features, monsters, and what not as a marketing tool so I’ll buy the next book. A good core book should be like the One Ring of RPGs, “One book to rule them, one book to find them, one book to bring them all, and at the table bind them.”

I’ll play 4e if I have too, but for the most part I will just sit back and ride this edition out by playing something else for a change. Change is good. Then when 5e comes out or as some here in Iowa have speculated on “Advance D&D 4e” I’ll take a look and play it. Then again who knows, maybe WotC will come out with a class or setting that really catches my eye and I’ll get back into it. Just have to wait for the dice to fall.
 
Last edited:

A couple of points occur to me after reading this thread.

The first is the question "Why the need for a new edition?" I do accept that 3.5 has a number of serious mechanical problems but I would like to point out that the CORE 3.5 is almost as stable as CORE 4E (see my comments below); it was the later supplements/splatbooks that, for example, greatly enhanced the powers of spellcasters versus martial classes. This and the number of extra feats and spells, whilst making for a very interesting game, made for some serious issues of game balance. So in a real sense, WoTC (and some 3PPs) created the monster that 3.5E became, so they can hardly now call this out as the reason for a new edition.

From WoTCs point of view, there was obviously a financial incentive to create a new edition because, presumably, of falling sales. I don't accept that the imperative for 4E came from cruising messageboards and finding many complaints about 3.5Es mechanical problems. I think it came from falling sales of splat-books as the market became saturated.

Having decided on a new edition, the stated design goals were to make 4E;

1) attractive to gamers who had not played D&D before

2) easy to learn to play and DM.

3) mechanically much more stable and mathematically more sound than 3.5

4) easier to write/create new material for.

I think 4E succeeds on 1) because I do believe newcomers and those who left D&D for other games have been lured back, though I am not sure this has yet happened in the numbers WoTC wanted/expected.

4E succeeds less well on 2) for me, because now EVERY class has the same problems as the wizard used to have of complicated resource management etc. Is this anywhere near as bad as for high level 3.5 characters; not remotely! But it is FAR worse for a newbie player playing any 4E first level character than for a newbie player playing a 3.5E first level fighter. There is alot more to contend with with the powers and with complicated synergies resulting from movement and PC co-operation.

The characters are now FAR easier to roll up and there is less chance of a completely sub-optimal choice so that is a strong point in 4E's favour. Having said this, if power creep becomes the same problem as it was in 3.5E (and we are already seeing evidence of this e.g. the Druid v Wizard) then the risk is, that 4E will end up as bad as 3,5E.

As for DMing, part of the job (monster creation) has been made enormously easier, but actually running the game looks to have some new and annoying challenges e.g. bridging the gulf between the rules and the roleplaying aspect of the game because of the feeling that combat and skill challenges are sub-games within the main game. This results in a serious disconnect for me and I have't completely found a way around it yet. This was certainly a problem for me during as well 3.5E, but in 4E is it a whole order of magnitude worse.

So what about 3); is 4E inherently better than 3,5E in terms of stability of the mechanics? Well NOT in the case of the skill challenges, where the maths was WAY off from the beginning. This, for me, left all claims by the design team, of the inherent mathematical sophisitication of 4E, in complete tatters; it was picked up by fans within a few days of the release (by Stalker0 and others).

Combat appears to have been made more stable by the simple artifice of increasing the number of rolls that a typical combat relies upon, mainly by increasing monster and PC hitpoints. Mathematically, this greatly reduces the chance that random rolls will result in a variant result because the more times you roll a dice, the closer the result will be to a statistical average i.e. the bell-shaped probability curve. However, this, and the fact that PCs seem to hit only 50% of the time on average, has lead to the accusation of grind in combat.

Level progression and class balance have also been sorted out, but with the result that all classes now feel much more similar than they did in 3,5E. This is why I find the claim that "4E is taking us back to class based system" absurd. What 4E does is to make class LESS important because the mechanical differences between classes are essentially irrelevant, all that changes is the fluff.

The real triumph of 4E is in the design goal; it is SO much easier to create for than 3,5E ever was or could hope to be.
 


My big positive

1) As I was hoping, the splats are giving me the greater range of options and variety I was looking for. Once all the main class books are out, I think it will round out the edition nicely.

My big negative

1) I'm finding conditions a lot less satisfying than I once did. They take too much time to track on the mat, and its every round again and again. I really wish there were more big damage, no condition powers.
 


I’ll play 4e if I have too, but for the most part I will just sit back and ride this edition out by playing something else for a change. Change is good. Then when 5e comes out or as some here in Iowa have speculated on “Advance D&D 4e” I’ll take a look and play it. Then again who knows, maybe WotC will come out with a class or setting that really catches my eye and I’ll get back into it.

In many ways, i hope that 4e fails miserably and is sold off to a third party to develop 5e. I tremble to think what Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight or Paizo would do with the license.
 


I'd like to add a little to the "wizards suck" theme after arguing about sleep with a friend of mine a couple days ago.

Wizards have changed in one important way, in that they don't base everything off intelligence anymore. In prior editions you just had to have the amount of intelligence necessary to cast the spell (and have a good attack vs. saving throw in 3e) and you just had to pick the best spell.

I ran into problems with sleep because unlike Thunderwave, I didn't realize the importance of wisdom in sleep because it wasn't mentioned in the power. However, sleep is for those wizards who have a 20 Int and a 16-18 wisdom, and an "orb of imposition" class feature. The orb of imposition coupled with that wisdom score means it changes a 50% change of putting a foe to sleep to a 65-70% chance. You need the 20 Int to ensure you hit, because it is for dealing with actual creatures rather than minions. If you want to kill minions, you use freezing cloud.

I could see how sleep could be an effective spell now with those improved chances to hit. I'm still not entirely sure that sleeping minions shouldn't be a solution, but then I suppose then it would have the minion control aspects of freezing cloud and the monster neutralizing power of sleep, making it a no-brainer.

As for needing a 20 Int:

9) You need a 20 in your primary stat. While BAB is a deeply flawed system and I'm glad they dropped it, one of the things it did for you was lessen your dependence on your ability scores. When you had +15 BAB, +6 to your primary ability, and a +4 weapon, it is only a small percentage of difference between the starting stat of 16 vs. starting stat of 20.

However, I've got a 16 Int wizard, and I know that I am hitting 10% less often than the 20 Int wizard. What is more, there is nothing I can really do about to close the gap between me and the Eladrin. Anything I can get to improve my attack, so can he, and monster AC scales more accurately than in 3e as far as I can see.

There are however ability swapping items (like the bracers of mental might) which also favour the guy with 20 stat. So I don't see why it would be a big problem to have "ability topping up" items. Now maybe I'm thinking this way because I miss the 2e 18(00) gauntlets of ogre power, but I don't see why it would be outrageous to have an item that turns a lower ability score into a 20. For example:

Gauntlets of Ogre Might
Level 8

You are considered to have a strength score of 20 for all strength based skills and strength based checks, but not attacks.

Power (Encounter) You can make a strength based attack as if you had strength score of 20.


I simply don't see how it does anything to break the game. It's purpose would be to give the martial characters who have spread their scores for skill purposes (such as diplomacy etc.) a boost back up, and would serve the same benefit as bracers of mental might to help multiclassers be effective at their encounter powers.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top