A "naysayer's" review of 4E

[AllisterH]

For some reason when I think of the idea that anyone can potentially do Rituals, I am reminded of Angel, Wesley, or Giles from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series -- they performed magical rituals quite frequently, despite not being mages themselves. They broke out the components, candles, books, etc. and read out of a book, which fits the flavor of Rituals perfectly. I'm sure there are other book and movie examples of non-mages doing magic in a similar fashion, but I'm blanking right now.

Conan. (Yes Virginia, Conan does use magic) and yes, it does resemble the ritual system we see here. Basically follow the instructions, get the result.

re: Dogpiling on Primal
I don't think I was dogpiling on Primal as I don't believe my comments were adversial I hope. If they were, I apologize.

 

[Echoes]

As someone who was largely at the opposite end of the spectrum -- a 4e 'yeasayer' if you will -- I think some of the negatives expressed here have definite merit.

Having now been able to read the books as well, I like what I see overall. My main sticking point is that, even in one readthrough of the rules, I can see a lot of stuff I want to houserule right off the bat, and that wasn't necessarily something that I saw right away with 3.x. Of course, by the end of the 3.x what I was playing was hardly recognizeable to the original rules because of all the tacked on house rules...so maybe it's a good thing?

As for magic, I like the idea of rituals but I don't like the way they've been done. Some things should just not be rituals. Tenser's Floating Disk is the most glaring example. If a wizard can conjure rams of force energy at first level I don't think it's a stretch to think he might be able to make a floating disk of force. I understand that wizards did have to be taken down a notch in terms of power to balance things a bit more appropriately (this has been the case since 2nd edition or earlier - I mean, there was a reason wizards progressed more slowly than any other class in that edition).

I like the general streamlining of the skill system, but I think that some skills, like Alchemy, are sorely missing and I will have to bring back in. Or use the 2e secondary skill system merged with 3e's professions. Or something. Skill challenges are a great idea and I will make a lot of use of those, but I'm disappointed that theren't aren't more skill options out of the gate.

I'm also disappointed about equipment and magic items. I'm going to use the 3.x phb for adventuring equipment, because my group has always been one that loves to make clever use of mirrors, spyglasses, and caltrops, and I think that's fun. There's very little in the way of that type of equipment listed. As for magic items, the naming conventions are terrible, as has been touched on, but beyond that I think a lot of the items are just too generic. And the list of wondrous items and potions is, all things considered, a joke. It's like this little teaser they threw in so that you would go out and buy the arms and equipment guide, and in every other edition that kind of book was strictly optional - here's its required.

I have many other small and large qualms about 4e having read the books -- extended rest recovery of all hitpoints and surges, the fact that so many powers are just differing amounts of "push x, number[w] damage, +1 to y," etc. -- but I still think the system is intriguing, and I can't make a true judgement call until I run a game next week. But in summary, I'd say that my first readthrough of the books was a disappointing one (the DMG in particular, though I recognize its value to those with little experience DMing), and made me less excited about the long-term value and excitement of this edition.

I still want to play it, and I think it will be fun, and I think it will "feel" like D&D (claims to the contrary on that are pretty absurd in my opinion) -- but I think I'm going to have to spend a lot of time adjusting things to suit my taste, which falls under some mix of 2e and 3e and all kinds of things in between.

 

[Jack99]

First of all, thanks Primal for a very honest review.

I agree with you regarding the feats. Those are weak (and bland for the most part), and there are far fewer than we were led to believe.

I especially disagree with you on your assumption regarding simulation vs gaming. I do think this has more with "getting" 4e, than anything else, and since you do admit that there are certain other facets of 4e that you don't get, well, maybe it is a possibility.

Either way, I find it a pity that you won't be switching, because I think you make some really smart posts (at least when you aren't talking about the lack of merits of 4e ), and I will be missing those.

Cheers

 

[Devlin Rainguard]

has anyone missed how the Skill Training feat is redundant to multi-classing feats. For a single feat I get a trained skill form the class, and a power/feature usable once an encounter.

Skill Training is worthless on pure mechanics, however if your going for fluff I suppose it can do its job.

The difference b/w Skill Training and the multiclassing feats is accessibility and versitility. Skill Training has no prereqs, while each of the multiclass feats has at least 1 ability requirement. Also, the multiclass feats limit the skills you can train in to either a specific skill, or one of the available skills on that classes list, while you can chose any skill you want with Skill Training.

 

[Kesh]

The "crit math" is a fallacy now. Just add it up ahead of time and write it out from the power on your sheet. Bam. You roll a 20, state the pre-calculated damage and move on. All you have to remember is if you get special circumstance bonuses to damage.

 

[Primal]

I think this is an entirely fair point. If you don't get your kicks from interesting tactics, then 4e probably isn't going to float your boat. Personally, I find it great, but I can understand your POV.



This, though I'm struggling with. Did you ever try and construct a monster in 3e? This is way, way easier than that. I've already constructed more monsters in 4e than I did in 8 years with 3e.

I pretty much didn't have to, because there are so many monsters in 3E. In any case, I could build "variations" pretty easily -- the only thing was that it would have been quite hard to build a "unique" monster from scratch and come up with logical Special Qualities and abilities. So in that sense you're correct.

 

[Lizard]

For some reason when I think of the idea that anyone can potentially do Rituals, I am reminded of Angel, Wesley, or Giles from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series -- they performed magical rituals quite frequently, despite not being mages themselves. They broke out the components, candles, books, etc. and read out of a book, which fits the flavor of Rituals perfectly. I'm sure there are other book and movie examples of non-mages doing magic in a similar fashion, but I'm blanking right now.

Sure, but all of them had arcane training of one sort of another.

Which is pre-req for rituals in 4e, so it still fits.

Joe the fighter has rituals? Make it part of his backstory! He was trained as a guardian for an order of mages, and learned some magical basics -- enough so that, with a book in front of him, he can do the magic. Fred the fighter was just a mercenary grunt, so he has Weapon Focus instead of Arcane Training.

It works both dramatically AND mechanically.

Fantasy fiction is full of non-casters doing magic -- often poorly, but hey, that's reflected in the rules, too -- you need high skills to get the best results. Me, I'd add more blowback to rituals. I read somewhere that Cure Disease can kill you if you flub the skill roll...more like that?

 

[Primal]

For some reason when I think of the idea that anyone can potentially do Rituals, I am reminded of Angel, Wesley, or Giles from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series -- they performed magical rituals quite frequently, despite not being mages themselves. They broke out the components, candles, books, etc. and read out of a book, which fits the flavor of Rituals perfectly. I'm sure there are other book and movie examples of non-mages doing magic in a similar fashion, but I'm blanking right now.

Wesley and Giles were, to some extent, "wizardly" or "scholarly" types in Buffy ("White Hats", IIRC). This was also reflected on their Buffy RPG stat blocks... in fact, IIRC magical abilities were their "strongest" suit. As for Angel, he was a supernatural creature (i.e. a demon).

 

[Spenser]

And to actually use Rituals in 4e, you need to be trained in Arcana (or Religion, or Nature, or ...). But you don't necessarily need to be someone who walks around hurling eldritch bolts. Sounds pretty close to the Buffy Universe to me.

 

[Primal]

First of all, thanks Primal for a very honest review.

I agree with you regarding the feats. Those are weak (and bland for the most part), and there are far fewer than we were led to believe.

I especially disagree with you on your assumption regarding simulation vs gaming. I do think this has more with "getting" 4e, than anything else, and since you do admit that there are certain other facets of 4e that you don't get, well, maybe it is a possibility.

Either way, I find it a pity that you won't be switching, because I think you make some really smart posts (at least when you aren't talking about the lack of merits of 4e ), and I will be missing those.

Cheers

Oh, I might try 4E at some point of time, but not initially and definitely I wouldn't be DMing at first. I would be lying, though, if I didn't admit that I like 3E and Pathfinder RPG better (at least the way it is shaping up) for my own taste, but I have to say that 4E is still D&D -- it might not be the "best" edition of D&D for me and my friends, but it's still D&D and many groups will surely disagree with me and enjoy it more than 3E ever.

Yes, it's about "getting" 4E and how it works, but I still have to insist that tactically-minded gamers and/or story-focused DMs and players (i.e. 'gamists' and 'narrativists') surely enjoy it more than 'simulationists' (i.e. people who want the game to portray/model the setting and the characters in a consistent and realistic fashion). I hope that if I ever try 4E, I'll eventually "get" it, though! At least rules-wise...