Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[catsclaw]

Why won't people use their best ability - whatever it is - as often as they can?

Two reasons. First, because abilities in 4e are more varied than 3.5, and the tactical situations which call for them are more likely to come up. For example, I'm playing a Warmage with a bonus to fire spells in a campaign right now. My third level spell list, for all intents and purposes, might as well just be Fireball. My second level spell list, likewise, could be Scorching Ray. 90% of the time, that's all I'm using--and 90% of the time all I'm interested in is doing the maximum damage as quickly as possible. One of the design goals of 4e was to balance out the spells so they can achieve tactical objectives, and there's going to be more choosing between Fireball and Blink, and less choosing between Fireball and Flame Arrow.

Second, because your best ability is only usable once a day. Your second best ability is only usable once an encounter. Sure, you might open the first battle with your best attack, but then you've got to hope the thing you killed didn't have a mother waiting right around the corner. The per day and per encounter abilities impose an opportunity cost--per encounter a small one, per day a large one--and that's going to force players to make a decision about to use them.

 

[Fifth Element]

No 1e & 2e out of the box never felt right for me.

Here's the issue. You use the term "feels like D&D" but you really only mean "feels like 3E". If you're arguing that 1E and 2E don't "feel like D&D" then you're going to get very little support.

The statement "4E doesn't feel like D&D" means (to someone reading it) that D&D as a whole, throughout its previous editions, has a certain feel and that 4E is not maintaining that feel. You actually appear to be saying that D&D does not have a consistent feel throughout its editions, which is the opposite of how your statement will be read.

So ultimately you're arguing that 4E doesn't feel like 3E. Which is fine, but so what? Some people appear to feel that 3E doesn't "feel like D&D", and that 4E may actually get back closer to what D&D is "supposed" to feel like.

Edit: And my point about the "feel" changing between editions stands. You clearly believe the feel of D&D changed between 2E and 3E. And you prefer 3E's feel. There is therefore nothing inherently wrong with an edition not "feeling" the same as a previous edition.

 

[Wolfspider]

Why should a monk only be able to use Stunning Fist once a day? Or a fighter that wastes the feats to use it?

Well, I always considered that it was because the monk (or fighter) didn't have enough chi to do it more than X times a day. As a fan of Iron Fist, the Marvel comic martial artist whose powers work in a similar way, I never had a problem with this kind of limitation.

Why don't higher-level spell slots break down so you can prepare more lower-level spells if you want?

Well, you do always have the option of using a higher level spell slot to prepare a lower level spell....

 

[hong]

Well, I always considered that it was because the monk (or fighter) didn't have enough chi to do it more than X times a day.

Exactly.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Yes, there is.

For such "stunting" I use the rules from the Book of Iron Might in my D&D 3.5 games.

This book offers a wonderful system for judging a lot of combat maneuvers, like flinging sand and hamstringing, without artificial restrictions like "once a day" powers.

Y'know, I love that book, but it has its own artificial restrictions.

Personally I think the 4E approaches dovetails nicely with it.

BoIM - Blinding Strike comes with penalties to success

4E - But Once a Day or so Random the Rogue can pull it off without any penalties whatsoever.

As long as you make certain BoIM is balanced against the basic math of the system it should be a perfectly all right combination.

 

[Paradox]

I also recall a lot of arguing over the rules in 1st edition.

Looks to me there's a LOT of fighting over the 4e rules, and it isn't even out yet!

So, yep. Feels like D&D to me.

 

[AllisterH]

I know I've said this before and I guess I'll say it again since everyone ignores it

How can you determine the "feel" of D&D from 1st level pre-generated characters.

Hell, in many editions, 1st level characters give such a BAD feel for what D&D is that I'm somewhat surprised that anyone would use that as a basis (the "one hit and you're dead" effect)

Honestly, after reading many posts on people's experience with 4E, I just wish people would say "Ok, if I did the same scenario in 1E/2E/3E, how would it play? Would I have more options/choices?"

 

[bramadan]

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/J.D._Wiker

His main claim to fame at WotC was his work on the Star Wars RPG, but he's done some 3rd party work under his Game Mechanics imprint. (I've used his Swords of the Fathers material before there ever was a Weapons of Legacy, and I still use their freebie initiative cards to this day.)

Thanks Henry - I did find him later. Seems an OK designer. Still not what I would call a gaming celebrity though

 

[hong]

Hm. Does this mean J.D. Wiker is the one responsible for VP/WP?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Agreed. I think professionals in the RPG industry (or ex-professionals; whatever) should hold themselves to a higher standard when blogging about games. If they haven't seen the full, complete rules, they should refrain from making sensationalized statements like "Why 4E Doesn't Feel Like D&D". To be frank, it's simply foolish to post "It appears to be following a trend that favors the rules over empowering the DM to actually run the game" based only on excavated rules from a combat playtest, having never seen the DMG.

And yet, people don't have a problem when you praise a game before it comes out. Why is the same not true? Hypocracy I tell you! Hypocracy!