Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[AllisterH]

The problem is that ppl thinking the Gilgamesh rote unconsciously stage fights in their mind where there is a 1st lvl 3e wizard vs a 1st lvl 4e wizard and it colors their thinking process.

How come nobody stages in their mind, "Oh, what would happen if I put a 1st level 4E monster in a 3E game" to see how it goes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, you're saying that 4e's choice of beginning play (hero) is telling you that you're doing it wrong because you have a different desire for beginning play (non-hero). Then, you're turning around and saying that 3e's choice of beginning play (non-hero) isn't telling me that I'm doing it wrong because I have a different desire for beginning play (hero).

Actually, I've said, over and over and over again, that all editions of D&D have preferred the uber-heroic character over the "mundane heroic" character.

Over. And over. And Over again.

If you can't be bothered to read my posts, I really don't need to bother with this convo, cap'n.

 

[KidSnide]

That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.

Of course a PC of level X is stronger than a standard monster/NPC of level X. The PCs are supposed to win that fight most of the time. PCs are like *elite* monsters and I strongly suspect that an elite monster of level X is comperable in power to a PC of the same level.

 

[Immolate]

What makes Player characters special in a way that is unmatched by any but classed NPCs? That's really the sell they're trying to make, isn't it? Why is a level 1 PC more capable than a level 1 guard or a level 1 bandit? Mechanically, it is obvious. If the characters aren't a bit more powerful than their opponents, they will die 50% of the time. That isn't a playable system in D&D. But what if there were a logical reason for these people to be special?

I think there is. Let's set aside level one for the moment and consider levels two through thirty. What do PCs do that no other profession does? They kill for a living. I'm not talking about Sam and Merry and Pippin. I'm talking about the characters we play in D&D. We kill things and take their valuables. We do it over and over again, in circumstances where the stakes are kill or die for both sides. Who else does that?

Guards don't kill for a living. They guard for a living. Soldiers? They train and march for a living. Assassins don't even kill for a living. They stalk and stalk and stalk, and then kill their target in a purposefully staged setting that gives them every advantage and eliminates every possible opportunity for their victim to survive. Gladiators may fight to live, but they're arguably closer to soldiers in their day-to-day lives than PCs, and have a short life expectancy.

Nobody else gets up in the morning and thinks "what should we go kill and loot today". They are special because they live the most voluntarily brutal lives possible. Samwise wouldn't last a month tagging along with a party of D&D PCs, unless he started to level.

That doesn't make hobbits from LotR invalid or stupid or uninteresting. They are none of those things because they are small and weak and relatively defenseless except in their spirit and character. But in spite of its origins, D&D has never been a game envisioned to get a couple of 0-level hobbits to Mordor alive and intact. Our mechanics have never been particularly good at safeguarding perpetually low-level companions over time. Put them on their own and they die every time. That isn't the model this game is supposed to follow.

I also understand that 4E is a change from 3.5, and that it favors gamism more than its predecessor did. I appreciate that this displeases some, and also appreciate that it pleases others. WotC did it intentionally because they think a simpler, less-wonky, more playable game will have greater appeal. They are in a fight for viability in a changing world, and they have to find a way to reverse the trends of recent years and start growing the game again. I don't blame them.

I started playing at the start and have lived through every change. We'll survive this one too, and if we're lucky, there'll be a lot more of us a few years from now.

 

[Immolate]

Almost forgot. What makes a level 1 PC somewhat better than a level one anything else? Because they are the type of person who has the unmitigated gall to set off on a live of violence and mayhem. It is who they are that makes them special, and makes it possible for them to be PCs in the first place.

 

[KingCrab]

Thats because NPCs do not have Healing Surges and the clerics Healing Word uses the targets surges. That means the only thing the cleric can do is to temporary heal a NPC by smiting someone with holy fire

Cleric blasts party member with holy fire to heal NPC then uses healing word on party member?

Just a thought.

 

[Lizard]

We used scrolls and clay tablets for quite a while, too. They served their purpose. Bound codices just serve it better. I'm sure a lot of people dealt with dirt farmer PCs, though anecdotal evidence shows a lot of campaigns starting at 3rd level. It's just that starting at effectively 3rd level is a more fun option for more players- hence, serving the game's market in a better way.

This argument would make sense if there were no games but D&D. However, there are LOTS of game, many of which follow the 'PCs are t3h 133t' paradigm, many of which disdain the 'peasant to lord' model of D&D. None of them -- with the exception of Vampire, for one month -- outsold D&D.

This tells me that the D&D paradigm is popular. People like to grow and magnify in power. 4e starts you tougher...but you increase in power at a slower, more steady, rate, and from what I've seen, the high end game looks an awful lot like the low end game. You have bigger numbers but the general probabilities seem to remain at the same point. It doesn't look like it will *feel* different, especially since class differences, overall, have been flattened. The fighter will still be a bit better in melee than the wizard, but not overwhelmingly so. They'll both have the same number of powers, more or less. WOTC, and many posters, seem to feel this is a feature...I have a feeling that, for many D&D players, it's a bug. It changes the nature of the game more than any mechanical changes do, because it changes the core model of play. And if it's not the model of play which draws people to D&D, what is it? Is it just the brand name?

(Artificial distinctions between tiers like 'at 11th level you get to wear rings!' make it seem even more likely that actual play doesn't feel any different at level 30 than at level 1.)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

This argument would make sense if there were no games but D&D. However, there are LOTS of game, many of which follow the 'PCs are t3h 133t' paradigm, many of which disdain the 'peasant to lord' model of D&D. None of them -- with the exception of Vampire, for one month -- outsold D&D.

This tells me that the D&D paradigm is popular. People like to grow and magnify in power. 4e starts you tougher...but you increase in power at a slower, more steady, rate, and from what I've seen, the high end game looks an awful lot like the low end game. You have bigger numbers but the general probabilities seem to remain at the same point. It doesn't look like it will *feel* different, especially since class differences, overall, have been flattened. The fighter will still be a bit better in melee than the wizard, but not overwhelmingly so. They'll both have the same number of powers, more or less. WOTC, and many posters, seem to feel this is a feature...I have a feeling that, for many D&D players, it's a bug. It changes the nature of the game more than any mechanical changes do, because it changes the core model of play. And if it's not the model of play which draws people to D&D, what is it? Is it just the brand name?

(Artificial distinctions between tiers like 'at 11th level you get to wear rings!' make it seem even more likely that actual play doesn't feel any different at level 30 than at level 1.)

QFT

I like D&D for the model of play it uses, the changes in model of play are what has driven me away from 4e. If I wanted to play a game with that sort of play model I would have gone to another system by now. Instead the new edition is bringing an unwanted play model that could be had in any number of systems and removing my preferred play model and unique quirks from the game to make it feel more like other systems I don't like.

 

[hbarsquared]

KamikazeMidget -

First, I wanted to let you know that I, for one, appreciate your participation in this thread. Your posts and arguments are well-constructed, and I thank you for persevering despite your frustration.

Just in case you missed my last post -

I completely agree with your issue regarding the power level of even 1st-level characters. Not only are they above-and-beyond average, but they seem to be even more so than previous additions. As you say, 4E does not seem to encourage the "average joe" type of character.

However,

• I don't see an issue with having a character and selecting to not use your abilities. Yes, the system won't cater to the "average joe" style of play, but it can be done.
• Customizability seems to be built into 4E. I can easily see guidelines in the PHB for creating classes and races, as well as guidelines in the DMG to build your own setting, that will fit your style. Speculation, of course, but at first blush it should be easier to pull off than previous editions.
• Finally, most of us don't know how the characters will be in actual play. I've played one quick demo, and that's it. None of us have touched anything above that, let alone the final ruleset. In play you might be able to pull off the "average joe" character via roleplaying while still leeping your suite of abilities. Not only that, but the cinematic feel and ease of play just might trump your wish to play an "average joe."

I will say, with my extremely limited experience, that 1) 4E is more fun to play, more cinematic, and far more smooth.

And 2) despite the seemingly high power level, I didn't notice it. Yes, we had more powers, and more choices, as well as the monsters we fought, but it did not feel epic or overly heroic. I did not feel like Gilgamesh or Beowulf: I felt like a lowly 1st-level adventurer fighting for my life.

 

[Fiendish Dire Weasel]

I'm looking forward to 4E being "heroic" focused. Because D&D always has been that way to once you made it past the first few levels, starting at level 1 just makes it less of a wierd transition. I find GURPS to be superior to all D&D for "low fantasy" more "realistic" games, and wouldn't bother with D&D if thats what I was shooting for. D&D just fails in this area once you pass level 3 or so anyways.