Another Grognard Reviews 4e based on KotS

[haakon1]

Very cool haakon1...very cool.

I was a Navy brat and did my own time in the Army. I've settled down since, but a long-term campaign like this was not in the cards for me.

I think it goes without saying that the game needs to be fun, otherwise why play it. Even if 4E winds up being a blast, the continuity ramifications will impact long-term campaigns differently. These creations are labors of love and the amount of work to convert to a new ruleset will just be too daunting (or just plain distasteful) for some folks.

For you specifically haakon1, your campaign sounds very personal and too cool to worry about converting unless 4E suits you and your group. And so I say game on as you always have because fun is more important than whatever edition you're running.

Thanks, dude, I'm touched by your reply.

Since it's Memorial Day, thanks for your service and your family's service.

 

[haakon1]

And good riddance--doing nothing but swinging weapons and wearing armor is boring. The fighter class in every edition prior to 3.x was by a large margin the least interesting class to play. The fighter in 3.x was getting a bit better, but when there were alternatives that were more interesting and filled the same role, people frequently took them.

Interesting. Fighters have always been one of my favorite classes -- along with Paladins and to a lesser extent, Clerics. I think this comes from my being more interested in the Fluff than the Crunch. A Fighter with just a trusty blade and bow against all those magical creatures is fairly iconic stuff, and Fighter class works well for lost "cross-over" characters from other worlds, like the real-world Spartans, Boot Hill origin cowboys, Stargate Marines, etc.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

It's a six second round in which everyone simultaneously acts in turn and has their actions go off all at once.

The instant you begin looking at chronology in combat things start to get wobbly.

That said: since marks work based off of the Defender hitting you - either physically or with eerie divine compulsion- yes, I would say that the most recent hit is the one you are most threatened by and are therefore reacting to.

I don't understand why you think someone should get a choice? I don't really see marks as something people react to on a strategic level.

I am, however, really curious about where and why you anticipate a sitution involving mark contests. It makes me think there are dark and eldritch currents aswirl within your gaming group.

 

[hong]

Interesting. Fighters have always been one of my favorite classes -- along with Paladins and to a lesser extent, Clerics. I think this comes from my being more interested in the Fluff than the Crunch.

No, I think this comes from your having sufficiently internalised the gulf between spellcasters and mundanes in previous editions that it has become normal for you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Interesting. Fighters have always been one of my favorite classes -- along with Paladins and to a lesser extent, Clerics. I think this comes from my being more interested in the Fluff than the Crunch. A Fighter with just a trusty blade and bow against all those magical creatures is fairly iconic stuff, and Fighter class works well for lost "cross-over" characters from other worlds, like the real-world Spartans, Boot Hill origin cowboys, Stargate Marines, etc.

The interesting thing is - you're still "just" swinging your sword (or whatever weapon you like) and wearing your armor. But the rules allow you to give it more color or distinction.

On of the primary reasons why my last long-term Fighter PC was focusing on combat maneuvers was that it gave me some mechanical variety while swinging my sword. Unfortunately, in the end, the standard tactic was to trip some foe every round and then hammer him down that round or the next, or as an AoO. Still, I think it was more fun then simply playing a Weapon Focussed character that simply had better to-hit and damage values.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Interesting. Fighters have always been one of my favorite classes -- along with Paladins and to a lesser extent, Clerics. I think this comes from my being more interested in the Fluff than the Crunch. A Fighter with just a trusty blade and bow against all those magical creatures is fairly iconic stuff, and Fighter class works well for lost "cross-over" characters from other worlds, like the real-world Spartans, Boot Hill origin cowboys, Stargate Marines, etc.

Actually, I can't answer for Fluff qua Fluff but in terms of Crunch to Fluff 4E works pretty well in the boothill terms you mentioned.

Afterall, a fighter who sets up his daily right stands a pretty good chance of one shotting an equivalent levelled PC let alone NPC.

The mortality is back it's just coming from a different direction.

I more Jon Carter of Mars direction I'd say.

Which was the first thing I thought of as I was sussing out the new rules.

 

[That One Guy]

Thanks for the review. It was well-written. I like the 40% new stuff, but you are correct in saying that the new fluff and crunch does not mesh well w/ previous editions. I hope you can find an effective mix of 3.x and 4e that has what you are looking for.

 

[Shazman]

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.

Previous editions of D&D didn't duplicate real warfare exactly , but there was a significant attempt to put as much reality into a system that uses fantastical elements as possible and still make it playable. 4e says, "Reality. What's that? Physics and physiology work differently for PC's and NPC's, and people can get healed because they see a comrade hit one of the bad guys for no other reason than we think it's fun and cool." Some people need a bit of reality in their RPG to justify playing it instead of a computer game or watching a movie.

 

[Scribble]

Previous editions of D&D didn't duplicate real warfare exactly , but there was a significant attempt to put as much reality into a system that uses fantastical elements as possible and still make it playable. 4e says, "Reality. What's that? Physics and physiology work differently for PC's and NPC's, and people can get healed because they see a comrade hit one of the bad guys for no other reason than we think it's fun and cool." Some people need a bit of reality in their RPG to justify playing it instead of a computer game or watching a movie.

I like these comments... They make me giggle...

Physics and physiology work differently for PC's and NPC's,

And this is different then any other edition of the game? I'm a monster so I get hit dice / BAB / Saves for being... monsterish? While you PCs get all that stuff from class?

The way I see it 4e seems to be a lot MORE consistent then previous editions. Now even monsters use a race/class structure so the way they generate their abilities is in line with the rest of the game.

The game has always treated the PCs as special. 4e is just doing it a bit more openly.

people can get healed because they see a comrade hit one of the bad guys for no other reason than we think it's fun and cool.

If you're playing the game for some reason other then fun...

What kind of reasoning are you looking for?

They heal because they see someone on their team doing well. Have you ever played a sport? I have. When it's late in the game and you're dead tired, and you see a team mate do something awesome... you get amped. Suddenly you're not so tired, not so worn down.

Some people need a bit of reality in their RPG to justify playing it instead of a computer game or watching a movie.

I've seen people get hit by cars, bounce a few feet, then get up and walk away with little to no injury... I've seen people break appendages, and still play out the rest of their game... I've seen people have to have joints replaced and then learn to walk and move again afterwards...

But i have NEVER once seen someone get hurt, walk up to the closest priest and have a working cure light wounds spell cast on them...

just sayin...

 

[haakon1]

The interesting thing is - you're still "just" swinging your sword (or whatever weapon you like) and wearing your armor. But the rules allow you to give it more color or distinction.

Right, in the end, a 3rd edition Fighter is not that different from earlier editions, but there is a little more specificity due to feat selection in 3rd edition.

And 3rd edition had more tactics to it than earlier editions. As we played AD&D, it was all about pick your opponent, roll a d20, add in mods for Str and magic, and roll damage. In 3e, it was that, plus 5 ft. steps and AOO's. We didn't use minis until 3e . . .

As for just swinging the sword, I still find combat exciting after all these years -- you never know what's going to happen, and the fighter gets to be the center of attention in the all the slaying and taking hits.

Wizard players think the Fighters are their meatshields, the Clerics are junior Wizard wannabes, the Rogues are largely irrelevant except to opening treasure chests and taking trap damage, and their character is the star with all the fancy spells.

Fighter players think the Wizards are artillery, the Clerics are their medics, the Rogues are their scouts and helpers, and they are the star at the heart of the action.