Alright already!!!

[Cadfan]

If someone things that 4e doesn't give fighters enough options, saying "3e didn't, either!" isn't going to tell them why they should play 4e.

But if they say,

1) I don't like the 4e fighter because it doesn't have enough options, and they also say, in this or in another thread or during another month,
2) I love the 3e fighter, and if
3) The 3e fighter has fewer options, then either
4) There's some other set of qualities that are more important to a fighter than options, or
5) They're being a prat.

And if they don't actually like 3e fighters at all, I'm sure they can speak up without the Discourse Police trying to run 3e comparisons off of a forum in which probably the vast majority of threads contain some degree of 3e/4e comparison, happily engaged in by both sides of the debate.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1) I don't like the 4e fighter because it doesn't have enough options, and they also say, in this or in another thread or during another month,
2) I love the 3e fighter, and if
3) The 3e fighter has fewer options, then either
4) There's some other set of qualities that are more important to a fighter than options, or
5) They're being a prat.

Actually, they probably sincerely believe that the 3e fighter has more options than the 4e fighter.

Find out why, rather than just dismissing their opinion, and maybe your view on what a fighter can do will be enlightened.

For instance, earlier in the thread I gave a reason why someone could think that a 3e fighter has more options than a 4e fighter. The 3e fighter always has the option to try and trip someone. The 4e fighter might only have this option once in an encounter if they choose the power. This is a limitation. If you think this is a good limitation, you've effectively bought his argument: he's right, the 4e fither is more limited, but it's a good thing. If you speculate that 4e might have different tripping rules for when you don't have the power, you've given some interesting thought on the next edition.

That's a pretty useful conversation. We've either discovered something about 4e fighters (they're more limited) or speculated about something 4e might contain (some sort of stunt system).

Versus just debating about whether or not 3e fighters were "really" limited. Which doesn't tell us anything about 4e, and is, thus, pretty useless in discussing 4e.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm mostly a lurker, but I'll add my toss of the copper.

<SNIP Bulk of Excellent Post>

My suggestion is look beyond all of this. If you enjoy 3.5's way of combat, fantastic! You've found something that works! If (like myself, admittedly) you can see some insane potential for 4e's rules then.. Well, I'm going with it. Fiddly points like 'realistic HP's' or 'At-will' powers don't mean a damnable thing to me to be quite honest. The biggest selling point for me will be the fact that they don't have to worry about powers but can resort to them if they need to. (Plus anything that lessens book keeping and DM-prep time is a godsend to me).

I've already run two sessions with the 4e preview materials, and am already making more encounters up in my head knowing that I won't have to worry about the 'oh.. I just cast magic missile again' trap with this lot.

I agree, and I haven't even tried running any 4e sessions yet. However, I did read the review posted by Massawyrm over on Ain't It Cool News, and one thing stood out.

He was running an encounter for his group, and his game designer buddy (or GDB for short) - incidentally the person who got them into the 4e playtest - pulled out something...unexpected. A couple of toughs were standing on top of a table, and GDB goes: "I'm going to slide under the table and overturn it. How do you plan to handle THAT, DM?" In his review, Massawyrm comments that he stopped and thought, and then said "Strength Check vs. their Reflex Defense," causing GDB to smirk...because that, of course, is how the game is apparently intended to work. And the game moved on from there.

My guess is that's part of the "open-ended" rules Mike Mearls alluded to. And if they're spelled out, even partially, that opens up a wide variety of on-the-fly stunts for players. For example, if you read the quick-start rules that (I believe) Keterys posted, "grappling" is now as simple as any other attack check - you just make a Strength Check vs. your opponent's Reflex defense. If you succeed, he's grappled, and certain conditional effects come into play. Bull rush? Strength Check vs. Fortitude. And so on. To address Kamikaze Midget's point above, I imagine a very basic "trip" works the same way. It's just some kind of check vs. Reflex to knock the guy prone...probably without all the benefits in damage and what-not from your per-encounter power...but it's there nonetheless.

With rules like that, I doubt we'll see any serious problem of the characters spamming their at-will powers A, B, A, B... ad nauseum, with the occasional encounter or daily thrown in for variety. No. I predict combat will instead be a smorgasbord of delicious variety...

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, they probably sincerely believe that the 3e fighter has more options than the 4e fighter.

Then discussing that would no doubt be productive.

That's a pretty useful conversation. We've either discovered something about 4e fighters (they're more limited) or speculated about something 4e might contain (some sort of stunt system).

And you agree.

Versus just debating about whether or not 3e fighters were "really" limited. Which doesn't tell us anything about 4e, and is, thus, pretty useless in discussing 4e.

Apparently, I do not understand the difference between Kamikaze Midget approved discourse, and the verboten.

 

[Zimri]

With rules like that, I doubt we'll see any serious problem of the characters spamming their at-will powers A, B, A, B... ad nauseum, with the occasional encounter or daily thrown in for variety. No. I predict combat will instead be a smorgasbord of delicious variety...

Would the encounter and daily be considered up, down, select, start ?

 

[JohnSnow]

Would the encounter and daily be considered up, down, select, start ?

I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand the reference.

If, as I surmise, it's a video-game analogy, then yes, I think that's an appropriate way to put it.

Or, put another way, at-will, per-encounter, and daily powers are a way of modelling what, in a video game, one would call "combinations" or "combos." Sure, you can try to master all of them but, in practice, most people have a couple or a few they can do "reliably," 1 they can do "most of the time," and one that they can only pull off when they hit the right sequence in the right order.

In a videogame, the computer tracks all the complex set-up. To follow that method in a PnP RPG, the DM would have to track that stuff. Since the DM isn't a computer, they decided to model the result (some abilities you can use reliably, some you can use infrequently, and some you can use rarely) rather than the method.

In concept, it's cool. In execution, I think the 4E system works better than trying to turn every DM into a computer. Or requiring a computer to play the game.

 

[Zimri]

I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand the reference.

Sorry John, I saw the "abab" in your post and had a flashback of a video game cheat code on the original NES. Can't quite remember what game the code was for or what it did (though I suspect it was contra and unlimited lives) I was just being flippant and light not actually trying to contribute 8)

 

[Surgoshan]

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right A B Select Start

That, and similar variations, were The Konami Cheat Code. That one gives 99 lives in Contra.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Apparently, I do not understand the difference between Kamikaze Midget approved discourse, and the verboten.

It's uesless to discuss point 3 on your list in the 4e forum.

To do the goofus and gallant thing with a little more detail:

USELESS

POSTER A: "4e fighters are so much more limited than 3e fighters! I can trip every round in 3e, but in 4e, I can only trip if I use a power, and even then only once per encounter!"
POSTER B: "3e fighters are horribly limited! I do the same thing every round!"
POSTER A: <series of counterpoints about 3e fighter's variety>
POSTER B: <series of counter-counterpoints about 3e fighter's lack of variety>
<snip the rest of the conversation about 3e fighters>

AWESOME

POSTER A: "4e fighters are so much more limited than 3e fighters! I can trip every round in 3e, but in 4e, I can only trip if I use a power, and even then only once per encounter!"
POSTER B: "Well, what about Ain't It Cool News's post referencing kicking tables out from people? Sounds like there might be a cool stunt-like system that lets you do trip. The power probably does it better. Iron Heroes also had a stunt system, so we know Mearls, at least, has been thinking in this direction for a while."
POSTER A: <series of counterpoints about how the stunt system isn't good enough/is dumb/whatever, or agreement that a stunt system would be cool>
POSTER B: <series of counter-counter points about how it really is/it's too early to tell/whatever, or some cliche "welcome to the dark side hur hur" remark>

This thread's OP is leans pretty hard in the Goofus direction.

More properly, talking about 3e's merits and shortfalls is obscuring the point: it isn't about the problems people had/have/will have with 3e. It's about what problems exist/will exist in 4e. 3e, any other edition, any other game, or counting the jellybeans in a jar, have nothing to do with whether or not 4e fighters have a lot of options.

 

[bramadan]

The question in both cases is "Should I Play 4e?"

What 3e does or doesn't do isn't going to answer that question for anyone...

Here is where we disagree. DnD4 is a 4th edition of DnD. Chances are that people interested in it are people interested in playing DnD and not Warhammer or Vampire or Burning Wheel or whatever. This is not to say that the comparison with those games is useless but I would argue that the most relevant comparison is with the previous incarnation of DnD.

To go back to my car analogy, if I am wondering whether or not I should by a new sedan it is much more useful to me to hear how it compares with its closest competitor/previous model then how it compares with a pickup truck or a sports car.

For me personally, DnD4 became interesting option when I realized that it addresses certain important issues I had with DnD3 - that information was easier to obtain given the discussion in terms of DnD3 then it would have been if we have been discussing DnD4 in vacuum.