Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Lacyon]

Actually, it's nothing like saying any of that gobbledegook.

It's exactly like saying that in further reinforcing the idea that every 1st level PC is unique in actual capability, they're diminishing the ability for DMs to make PC's not unique in actual capability, which is going to annoy some players who like PC's who aren't obviously superhuman.

In other words, obviously true. PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1. A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.

I don't even really know what your post means, man, so I'll just stick with re-iterating my position.

Fundamentally, whether or not you're a "turd-farmer" in the sense that people are talking about here is relative to the world around you. If you start with exactly the same stats as a 4th-level NPC, but damage is boosted such that you're now somewhat likely to be dropped or killed in one hit, you're back to being a "turd-farmer" in at least some sense of the word (and, in fact, due to the scaling of 4E hp, you'll stay a turd-farmer for much longer).

You're right that it becomes a bit more difficult to do so, in the sense that you can't just roll up a first-level character, fight some first level monsters, and watch characters get killed in one hit, but nonzero work isn't the same as making it all that hard.

 

[GnomeWorks]

No offense, but then you should probably writing novels, not running an RPG. I'm trying not to invoke wrongbadfun in saying this, but this seems contrary to the whole point of RPGs, which are designed for playing, and not as a worldbuilding exercise.

The general idea is that the world is not made specifically for the players, while the game is.

There's a distinction there, and I think it's an important one. The world isn't made specifically for them, and it's not their playground. The game is a window into the setting, and arguably should focus almost solely on the players, but that doesn't mean that the world is static around them, nor does it mean that everything that happens revolves around the players.

The world isn't the game, and the game isn't the world. The game is meant to be an entertaining abstraction of the world's physics, and is meant to be a vehicle for immersion in the setting.

Take SWSE as an example. That is an adequate mechanical representation of the setting in which it is being played - the game adequately abstracts and represents the physics of the setting. The setting is a cinematic one, and the cinematic nature of the game captures that feeling.

My argument is that 4e is made for a similarly cinematic-style setting. My setting is not such a setting, therefore 4e makes for a poor tool for immersion in my setting. It doesn't make 4e a bad game, but it does mean that I'm not interested in using the system.

 

[The Little Raven]

Actually, it's nothing like saying any of that gobbledegook.

"They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that."

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).

Sounds like another "3e is the holy grail" argument, since the exact same thing applies (one version supports one play style far better than the other).

It's exactly like saying that in further reinforcing the idea that every 1st level PC is unique in actual capability, they're diminishing the ability for DMs to make PC's not unique in actual capability, which is going to annoy some players who like PC's who aren't obviously superhuman.

Nothing's stopping you from making a crappy character. You can ignore your per-day and per-encounters. You can lower your hit point total. Reduce your attack roll. Hell, not even roll an attack roll.

PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1.

Sure they can. I make Gilgamesh, and you make the kid that fell of the turnip truck. I'll get all my class powers, and you'll ignore them. Problem solved. You've got your doorstop character and I've got my hero, and everyone should be happy.

Just don't complain that I can do more with Gilgamesh, since you intentionally decided to play a substandard character.

A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.

D&D has chosen Gilgamesh after like 30 years of favoring the turd farmer, because playing a turd farmer isn't exactly a match for a "heroic fantasy" game.

And nothing makes it harder to play 1st-level turd farmers. It's simple: intentionally shaft your character.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm thinking we're talking about something different here.

Yes, the 1st level pre-gen fighter has more options (making her more versatile = more power) but she isn't dropping even a guard with her daily on average. Hell, she most likely won't even kill a kobold skirmisher with her daily.

1st level heroes in 4E ARE better than the non-PC classed opponents, but this has been true since forever.

What has changed is that at 1st level, a 1st level monster can't drop a PC in one hit (which I think people are focusing on) but also, a 1st level PC can't kill a monster in one hit either (which I think people are ignoring).

So wouldn't this be seen as a power-down of the PCs when compared to the previous situation where a 1st level PC could kill a kobold with one swing of his sword?

 

[Lizard]

"
D&D has chosen Gilgamesh after like 30 years of favoring the turd farmer, because playing a turd farmer isn't exactly a match for a "heroic fantasy" game.

Then how has the game survived 30 years, since the paradigm it has always used evidently has always sucked, and we just didn't know it until now?

 

[Ximenes088]

Then how has the game survived 30 years, since the paradigm it has always used evidently has always sucked, and we just didn't know it until now?

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.

Yes, it's going to come out of the fun for those who like playing dirt farmers, or who feel that dirt farmer PCs are vital to their game world. I can't say I've got a lot of sympathy for those people. I suspect that almost all of them are experienced enough to house-rule their own limits in, whereas some new player picking up the game for the first time is much less likely to take up the hobby if his first combat round results in a greataxe death.

 

[AllisterH]

Then how has the game survived 30 years, since the paradigm it has always used evidently has always sucked, and we just didn't know it until now?

I'm pro 4E and I disagree with those that think 1st level PCs are gilgamesh. I'm not sure how a PC can be classified as uber when their best shot probably won't take down even a 1st level guard/skirmisher in one shot.

How's that uber in any way? I repeat again, it doesn't look like the relative difference of power between a PC and a NPC is any greater than previous editions. The only difference is that neither PC or NPC has any chance of one shotting the opponent whereas before this was possible

It seems like people are focusing on what a PC can do at 1st level and compare it to a 1st level 3E PC but forget to look at the actualy opponents. For example, suppose I place a 4E human guard/kobold skirmisher in a 3E game. Does this mean that kobolds/guards have become Gilgamesh since barring criticals, a single 4E kobold/guard looks like it has the "oomph" to decimate an entire 1st level 3E party

 

[Henry]

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).

I really don't consider 1st level 3E characters as "non-heroes", because they've always been head and shoulders above the average joes. Even as far as 1st edition AD&D, they have been better than commoners.

OD&D -- common NPCs have 1 hit dice, and no more. on par with PCs at first level, PCs quickly leave them behind.

AD&D1 -- 0-level commoners, at most 5 to 7 hit points, usually 1 hit point, and no special powers. 1st levels have the power, but not the hit points, but again quickly changes after level 2.

AD&D2 -- same thing.

D&D 3 -- the NPC classes are still head and shoulders worse off than any equivalent level PC, even at first level, where PCs have max hit points.

But the main difference is that 4E PCs seem to be immediately more proficient than the common man, or at least we're told so in the previews. However, even though PCs are heroic, they aren't ridiculously so, since they can still die in one level 1 monster's sword stroke. In 4E, they're not outclassed, admittedly, but the fight is guaranteed to go on for multiple rounds, unless you're using minions. Therefore, where people used to gloss over the "heroic traits" of 1st level if not wanted, just like people used to gloss over the 1st level's non-heroic traits by auto-starting at 3rd level or so, now the tables are turned. Just like you might have glossed over it by being forced to start at higher level, now the game forces someone else to willingly ignore or handicap their characters to make the "zero to hero" they want to make.

 

[Stogoe]

whereas some new player picking up the game for the first time is much less likely to take up the hobby if his first combat round results in a greataxe death.

"We played Dungeons and Dragons for three hours. Then I was slain by an elf."

 

[Vempyre]

How's that uber in any way? I repeat again, it doesn't look like the relative difference of power between a PC and a NPC is any greater than previous editions. The only difference is that neither PC or NPC has any chance of one shotting the opponent whereas before this was possible

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.