Another Grognard Reviews 4e based on KotS

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

OK.. you are reviewing an 600+ pages game ruleset on an 16 page quick guide?

And only you dont like changes.. or dont think dragonborn are d&d... thats youre opinion..

When i get the new books, ill make an fresh start, ill play 4th edition, and not 3.X, thats an other game..

I wouldn't qualify this really as a rant. The review is relatively balanced, and shows good and bad points. I think haakoon1 has slightly different priorities then I do, but I wouldn't object to saying it might be 60 % Gygaxian and 40 % something else. There can be no doubt that Tiefling or Dragonborn are not a critical part of earlier editions. I happen to like the "new" 40 %, but not everybody sees it the same way. Converting an existing campaign to 4E is definitely not easy. The cosmology and assumptions on core races are different from what went before. Again, that's something I don't mind, in fact I like it even. I like new stuff, and I was probably never entirely content with 3E here. (Astral Plane, Shadow Plane, Ethreal Plane, they all were pretty... bland.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Im seeing hitpoints as an combination.. At first you lose hit points, becoming more fatigued and the likes.. When you pass the half way limit, becoming bloodied, you actually are getting cut, no deep gutting wounds, but just cuts and bruises..

I see it this way: A hit that makes you "Bloodied" might be the first hit that actually hurts you in some way - not significantly, but enough to make it noticeable. The next time you're actualy hit is when you go down to 0 or less.

 

[AllisterH]

I do wonder about why people think previous editions healing rules were more in tune with novels.

Seriously, I've read Conan and Elric and both do the healing surge/second wind statues. Similarly, I've seen something similar in action movies et al. The idea that in combat, a character can regain some health and out of combat, there's a limit to how much healing a body can be subjected to are all elements that I associate with novels.

The "toss me a potion from the portable hole/just let the rogue UMD the CLW wand" healing schtick though? Not even D&D novels use that paradigm because quite rightly it is hooky. I've alyways thought this was one of the reasons magic was not seen as magical but as a necessary tool since EVERYONE was lining up to get their "shot of healing" like it was candy.

 

[Khairn]

-- No longer a simulation of anything but itself.

-- Perhaps there is fluff to explain it in the PHB, but the key thing is that these powers are not attempting to replicate a real life situation or even something typically seen in Tolkienesque or Conanesque fantasy literature. Instead, they are game rules made because WOTC thinks they make the game work well, no OUTSIDE the game reason. That's a huge shift of logic, at least for me.

--- If D&D 4e is simulating anything, it's simulating computer gaming. Perhaps necessary, but to me, sad.

--- No more resource management needed for the basics.

--- Before Gary Gygax died, one of his complaints about 3e was that it was just too darn complicated and therefore not as open to new players. It looks, so far, as if WOTC has taken that criticism to heart and tried to make a 3e Basic.

-- Valliant effort by WOTC to improve the game by looking at the key issues of correcting the power curve (starting and keeping things in the 2nd-8th level range longer), game play where resource management is no longer key

-- I'm sure it will be fun to play.

-- To me, I'm seeing a game that's something like 60% D&D and 40% new content

-- But in my own campaign, I'm sticking with 3.5e for now.

-- We'll see what's in 4e PHB, but I'm thinking converting is not a real option. I've got 27 years of AD&D and 3.5e content running around in my Greyhawk world, and I don't feel like retconning in total different variants of all the old retired guy and NPC's and semi-dormant campaigns, not to mention adding Dragonborn and whatever lameness awaits in the full books, so I think I'm on my own, just as if D&D had gone belly up and out of business. In a real sense, for old school gamers, I think it has. Good thing I've got like 5 PHB's . . . and I guess if my DMG gets lost or something, use ones will abound for years, as most people will go with the flow and switch over.

-- The only downside to playing 4e and running 3.5e is the brain space and confusion that can result.

Solid review haakon. The parts I've quoted above are those area's where you and I have very similar opinions of the game so far. My honest opinion about 4E is that WotC has done a good job of making an enjoyable combat or miniatures game.

 

[Lizard]

This is the only part I really disagree with. I look at marking simply as a simplified way to handle facing--if I'm pressing at you with my sword, you're less able to focus on other opponents.

And when Fighter 2 does the same thing, you suddenly become less pressed by fighter 1? And you can't decide which foe is more dangerous and focus on them?

"Mark erasing", while perhaps vital from a game balance perspective, really strains any attempt to narrate what's happening in combat. If a target of multiple marks could choose to allow a new mark to take effect or remain with the original mark, maybe, but as it reads now, anyone marked is basically a puppet of multiple markers, and there's no way to "sustain" a mark against someone else's attempts to override it with their own.

 

[JeffB]

I think the big difference in 4E is the media it's based on- D&D is no longer really influenced by classic fantasy literature- like Conan, John Carter, and the Dying Earth.

4E is clearly built around the influence of cinematic action/adventure movies - Indiana Jones, Star Wars, The Mummy, LOTR movies, etc.

Things like healing are not the medicinal herbs Aragorn applies, or the green martian draughts that restore one's health nearly instantaneously. In 4E, its the inspiration your character gets from the Cleric as he throttles the evil cultist with a Holy smite- You were faltering but upons experiencing this divine wrath you are re-energized and your confidence builds and you leap back into the fray. The kinds of things you see in a movie.

Thats the way I see the new game- it IS a major shift from all previous editions. It will be somewhat difficult to get used to for me, but I like the idea, and I'd rather get used to the new mentality than going back and dealing with 3.x's rules out the ying yang.

 

[jdrakeh]

I love the "Past editions of D&D are a silmulation of reality!" argument. it comes up frequently. Here's the deal -- D&D hasn't faithfully simulated anything resembling real life history or physics ever. All editions of D&D include rules for things like Tolkien's demi-humans and Vance's magic while lacking rules for things like non-magical clergymen, medicinal healing, and an actual medieval economy (3x arguably introduced more realistic -- yet still fantastic -- variants on these last three concepts).

The next time that I see somebody make the fallacious argument that D&D 4e sucks because it isn't the super accurate, unparalleled, simulation of history that past editions of D&D are/were, I'm going to pull out what little hair I have left. Seriously. If somebody hates D&D 4e, I wish that they would just say so instead of trying to foist preposterous justifications for those feelings upon the masses.

 

[Thasmodious]

-- No longer a simulation of anything but itself. D&D started out from Chainmail, which was meant to be a realistic simulation of medieval warfare. Fighters did what fighters did in medieval times -- wear armor, swing weapons, fire bows, kill and be killed. The fighter class, for the first time since Chainmail, has been deleted in all but name. The fighter has now has magical power of healing and of mind controling enemies into attacking them. But wait, it doesn't mention magic or psionics to explain what a Healing Surge is or what it means to Mark an Opponent. Perhaps there is fluff to explain it in the PHB, but the key thing is that these powers are not attempting to replicate a real life situation or even something typically seen in Tolkienesque or Conanesque fantasy literature. Instead, they are game rules made because WOTC thinks they make the game work well, no OUTSIDE the game reason. That's a huge shift of logic, at least for me.

Counter quote (Gygax, 1979, DMG):

In all cases, however, AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realms of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere.

D&D has never, and hopefully never will, attempt simulationism.

 

[Oompa]

I think the big difference in 4E is the media it's based on- D&D is no longer really influenced by classic fantasy literature- like Conan, John Carter, and the Dying Earth.

4E is clearly built around the influence of cinematic action/adventure movies - Indiana Jones, Star Wars, The Mummy, LOTR movies, etc.

Things like healing are not the medicinal herbs Aragorn applies, or the green martian draughts that restore one's health nearly instantaneously. In 4E, its the inspiration your character gets from the Cleric as he throttles the evil cultist with a Holy smite- You were faltering but upons experiencing this divine wrath you are re-energized and your confidence builds and you leap back into the fray. The kinds of things you see in a movie.

Thats the way I see the new game- it IS a major shift from all previous editions. It will be somewhat difficult to get used to for me, but I like the idea, and I'd rather get used to the new mentality than going back and dealing with 3.x's rules out the ying yang.

True, saying you can do stuff as in movies is more attractive then stuff in novels and books, the new public wizard wants likes the movie stuff more..

My honest opinion about 4E is that WotC has done a good job of making an enjoyable combat or miniatures game.

I never understanded this.. The rulebooks are mostly for mechanics (combat and stuff), roleplay is something you must do yourself, right..? Or do you mean the lack of fluff text?

 

[jdrakeh]

Counter quote (Gygax, 1979, DMG):


D&D has never, and hopefully never will, attempt simulationism.

Thank you! I was looking for that quote, though I no longer have my AD&D 1e books, which is where I now realize that the quoted passage comes from.