An Essay to Wizards of the Coast

[herrozerro]

You honestly think that what I said is that the character concept, the driving force of my character idea and background, is for him to be useless in combat? You think that is the goal?

The issue seems to stem from the preconception that 4e is 90% combat and there is not enough support for non-combat situations. So if you are building a character not geared towards combat you are cheating yourself.

I personally think this is a group/dm problem rather then a system problem. Anecdotally my 4e games have almost no combat, in the last 3 months we might have had 3 combats out of about 10 sessions.

the rest of the game is non-combat situations where people use their skills, rituals, utility powers AND combat powers in non-combat situations. we have fun and dont feel like we are only using 10% of out characters.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I honestly dont get where the "I want to play the guy who doesnt do anything useful at all in combat" comes from. I must not be reading the right books, or watching the right movies. Or what ever kind of media you get these kind of things from.

...

Though like i said in the beginning, im confused where this mentality comes from. it's certantly not heroic adventure.

Fine, playing combat-weak characters is not for you! It's not for me, most of the time, I enjoy playing tough, combat capable characters as well! But it's nice to have the option, when I do feel like it, and having the option encourages a good mix of characters with varying degrees of ability in combat. Rather than everyone being essentially comparable in combat ability.

Note, I totally agree with you that weak characters are still able to make useful contributions in battle! A big part of the enjoyment I've had out of playing some weak characters is finding a way to contribute without having it handed to me on a silver platter - it can be a lot of fun! But it doesn't need combat powers or other gimmicks to make it work.

If, as part of the 4E system, it is essentially enfored that everyone is able to contribute to battle to the same degree as everyone else (with very detailed rules and abilities for doing so), the assumption made by many will be that combat is therefore the central focus of the game.

All well and good, if you enjoy that, but if you don't, it's not the game for you. Enjoy 4E, and I'll enjoy my game, and when 5E comes out, hopefully we can enjoy that together!

 

[Number48]

The issue seems to stem from the preconception that 4e is 90% combat and there is not enough support for non-combat situations. So if you are building a character not geared towards combat you are cheating yourself.

I personally think this is a group/dm problem rather then a system problem. Anecdotally my 4e games have almost no combat, in the last 3 months we might have had 3 combats out of about 10 sessions.

the rest of the game is non-combat situations where people use their skills, rituals, utility powers AND combat powers in non-combat situations. we have fun and dont feel like we are only using 10% of out characters.

I've already said this two or three times, but hang me I'll say it again. It isn't a question of if you CAN do something in 4E. You can do something in pretty much any game system. It's a question of how much the game works with you to accomplish the game you want to have.

I feel, and I am certainly not alone, that Pathfinder offers something which 4E is not the best-suited, or even well-suited, game to provide. Conversely, I also feel that 4E offers something that Pathfinder is not the best-suited game to provide.

You know, I think that WotC would agree with me in that analysis, too, seeing as how they are going ahead and making 5E and not just as the continuation of 4E.

What I have seemed to run up against in this thread is a vocal minority whose opinion, it would seem, is that 4E is the best system for running any possible game and there is not a single way it could be improved. Well, tough luck. 4E is going away and 5E is coming.

 

[herrozerro]

What I have seemed to run up against in this thread is a vocal minority whose opinion, it would seem, is that 4E is the best system for running any possible game and there is not a single way it could be improved.

I dont see this at all, I see a vocal opposition to the accusations that 4e cannot be used to run a game in a way presented.

I believe 4e can be improved upon big time, skill challenges are moving in the right direction and can be improved upon. There is also alot of core math fixes that can be improved upon.

I also dont like the half level mechanic it feels to tredmilly.

Well, tough luck. 4E is going away and 5E is coming.

I find this comment the most telling, its like anti-4e people think that once 5e releases that 4e will be played no more. much like 3e right? Oh wait. no its still being played.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I dont see this at all, I see a vocal opposition to the accusations that 4e cannot be used to run a game in a way presented.

I think there might be some talking at cross-purposes here; I'm not saying 4E cannot run that kind of game and I don't think that's what Number48 is saying either. I'm suggesting it's not the kind of game that 4E encourages or is best for, and if it's that kind of D&D game you're after, there are others that might better suit you.

I don't think anyone's a fanatic, I just think there's an unfortunate tendency to read too much into other people's posts!

 

[Number48]

I find this comment the most telling, its like anti-4e people think that once 5e releases that 4e will be played no more. much like 3e right? Oh wait. no its still being played.

Anyways, it's been nice talking to you, but it seems like im also talking to a fanatic.

First, I hope you aren't lumping me in with "anti-4E people". This will now be the FIFTH TIME that I state that 4E is great, really great, at some things I want out of an RPG.

The 3rd edition players are mainly playing on Pathfinder, which is not a dead game and is continued along by the Open Game License. 4E doesn't have that. 3rd party vendors will not be able to make the Pathfinder-equivalent of 4E. When Wizards closes the door, it will be as dead a game as 2E is now. That doesn't mean unplayable anymore but it will no longer be a living, growing, evolving game.

 

[herrozerro]

I think there might be some talking at cross-purposes here; that's not what I'm saying and I don't think that's what Number48 is saying either. I'm suggesting it's not the kind of game that 4E encourages or is best for, and if it's that kind of D&D game you're after, there are others that might better suit you.

I don't think anyone's a fanatic, I just think there's an unfortunate tendency to read too much into other people's posts!

That could be. I will admit that 3.x and PF and to a degree, that those games provide a strong simullationist perspective. In that kind of game where you can create a diplomat by taking an amalgamation of classes and skills all supported by a view that the world also plays by mostly the same rules.

I can see the advantages of it if thats what you are looking for.

Personally Im more of the "less rules for RP" is best. If someone wants to play a diplomat, they can be a diplomat without having to make it the focus of the game. They can be an "assassin" classwise but narratively they are a diplomat or a theif or a clown or any occupation they wish.

At the end of the day it takes all kinds to play our hobby, perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to judge either.

 

[herrozerro]

First, I hope you aren't lumping me in with "anti-4E people". This will now be the FIFTH TIME that I state that 4E is great, really great, at some things I want out of an RPG.

The 3rd edition players are mainly playing on Pathfinder, which is not a dead game and is continued along by the Open Game License. 4E doesn't have that. 3rd party vendors will not be able to make the Pathfinder-equivalent of 4E. When Wizards closes the door, it will be as dead a game as 2E is now. That doesn't mean unplayable anymore but it will no longer be a living, growing, evolving game.

I had a big response but i decided to just go with:

I think you are wrong, 2e isnt a dead game, neither will 4e become. especially in this internet age i don't think that any game will truely die.

 

[Number48]

I had a big response but i decided to just go with:

I think you are wrong, 2e isnt a dead game, neither will 4e become. especially in this internet age i don't think that any game will truely die.

I don't mean a dead game is one that isn't played or can't be played or enjoyed. I mean 4E becomes dead becomes nothing new comes out for it. Copyright law prohibits it. Just like Latin is a dead language, people still speak it but it is called dead because it is unchanging.

I think we can definitely classify 2E as a dead game from that perspective. I certainly don't see new 2E books in the stores. I strongly believe that 4E is going that way, too, within a couple years of 5E's release.

 

[keterys]

Anecdotally, I have a 4E character who is a noble diplomat. He is extraordinarily skilled in most skill situations (he's not so great at Athletics) and makes attacks very rarely - when he does, he does so by ordering his enemies around or insulting them.

In combat, I _mostly_ help my allies to do their fighting, by moving them around, giving them bonuses, attacks, and healing. It works out pretty well, and I've never felt I couldn't be a noble diplomat while RPing the hell out of this character.

I have an older character who is a butler and largely sees to the needs of the other adventurers when not talking, but he was designed with a more Alfred & Hudson Hawk butler bent, so does make a lot more attacks.

I actually would have had a _harder_ time playing these characters in an older edition, in my personal experience. I probably would have instead played an illusionist or cleric - I _could_ choose to play an Expert, but the table would have given me a quite the look.

I say this not to point out a strength in 4e, or flaw in any other edition, but rather to point out a flaw in the arguments being made. Every edition of D&D has its proponents for a reason.

OD&D folks like that they can declare their RP any way they want, unhindered by the system.
3e folks like that they can adjust their skill points, feats, spells, item, and class to exactly laser in on the RP they want

4e is more in between those two ends. You have tools to support your RP (lacking from OD&D) but less hinderance to RPing however you want (all of the requirements in 3e)

The great part about 5e, in theory, is that you'll get to choose where on that spectrum you fall.