Critiques of 4e: about style not substance?

[Lord Zardoz]

I don't feel I should have to supply the awesome. If I have to redesign and "skin" D&D just to play it, there are a ton of games out there that offer more for less effort.

In that case, I would say the question that you should try to answer first is this: What is it about previous editions of D&D that 'supplied the awesome' for you? I would have to say that there are plenty of things in the new edition that could bring a few different kinds of awesome.

* Low level characters can be used in knock down drag out fights, taking and giving several hard hits to their opponents.
* Characters are durable enough that a balanced party does not necessarily require a Cleric for a party to survive.
* When you create Maldok the Master of the Arcane, you do not have to spend most of a fight early on hiding and using a crossbow. You get to kill stuff with magic from day 1.
* When you have run Edward the Great through a year long campaign, you do not have to spend fights basking in Maldoks shadow when his spells allow him to dominate every combat without much help from you.

Are there things that older editions managed to do better? It could very well be the case. The way powers and classes work, there is a very real risk that playing Maldok wont feel much different than playing Edward. If you always played the Gnome Bard, not having that in the core rules to start will hurt a great deal. The blatantly mechanical nature that keeps the races and classes balanced may very well harm your suspension of disbelief. But based on what I have seen so far, there are no features about 2nd or 3rd edition that I liked that are lacking in 4th Edition. I was never a fan of classes that sucked at low levels or that started to suck at higher levels.

I really am curious to know what it is that 3rd Edition manages to accomplish that 4th Edition cannot?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[hexgrid]

If I want fast combat and "rules light" game where I make up my own actual role playing rules, I'd play an MMO.

Do you understand what an MMO is?

 

[pawsplay]

In that case, I would say the question that you should try to answer first is this: What is it about previous editions of D&D that 'supplied the awesome' for you?

Here's an example.

This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength.

That's awesome.

I'll be the first to say the actual mechanics could use some massaging, but the spell itself is awesome. That spell in any edition would be awesome. I can use the same awesome spell in Hero or GURPS. So there you go.

Beats the hell out of sliding 3 squares and getting a +1 to hit the farthest away prone opponent.

 

[MerricB]

Here's an example.

This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength.

That's awesome.

I'll be the first to say the actual mechanics could use some massaging, but the spell itself is awesome. That spell in any edition would be awesome. I can use the same awesome spell in Hero or GURPS. So there you go.

4e version: (PHB page 166)
Wriggling, ebon tentacles of necrotic energy erupt from the ground, grasping towards every creature within reach.

Spell's in there, and the mechanics have seen some work.

... affects a 9x9 area
... the area becomes difficult terrain
... each creature in the area is attacked. On a hit, is immobilized and takes damage.
... on your turn, you may sustain the power (a minor action). All non-immobilized creatures in the area are attacked, all immobilized creatures take damage.
... after a creature's turn, it can make a saving throw to escape the tentacles. Creatures may also teleport away; they can also attack (without moving).

Cheers!

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Here's an example.

This spell conjures a field of rubbery black tentacles, each 10 feet long. These waving members seem to spring forth from the earth, floor, or whatever surface is underfoot—including water. They grasp and entwine around creatures that enter the area, holding them fast and crushing them with great strength.

That's awesome.

Ok, so the chief complaint is that various spells / powers are described purely in mechanical terms, and that in turn damages the sense of immersion. That is a very fair criticism of 4th edition, and one that is warranted with the currently published books.

I do think that this is something that I suppose could be corrected in subsequently released books describing new classes in powers, but it is not something that is likely to be corrected in reprintings of these three books.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[pawsplay]

Ok, so the chief complaint is that various spells / powers are described purely in mechanical terms, and that in turn damages the sense of immersion. That is a very fair criticism of 4th edition, and one that is warranted with the currently published books.

I do think that this is something that I suppose could be corrected in subsequently released books describing new classes in powers, but it is not something that is likely to be corrected in reprintings of these three books.

END COMMUNICATION

I wouldn't even gripe that much, but I can't even tell from looking what Yeeonoghu's attacks are supposed to do. In many ways, trying to invent something is harder than just coming up with something cool in the first place. An accursed triple flail could do a lot of things. But immobilize? Tell me how.

 

[MerricB]

I wouldn't even gripe that much, but I can't even tell from looking what Yeeonoghu's attacks are supposed to do. In many ways, trying to invent something is harder than just coming up with something cool in the first place. An accursed triple flail could do a lot of things. But immobilize? Tell me how.

"He delights in the mayhem he creates as his weapon flays not only the flesh but also the mind, since the weapon’s touch rends their courage and resolve."

From the text of the article in the section describing how Y. works in combat. I'd read it as sapping their will and making their legs not quite follow their brains' commands to RUN!

Cheers!

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Using the "He delights in the mayhem he creates" quote to try to explain an immobilization effect can work, but quite frankly, it is very generic, and could also be used to explain plenty of other things.

Personally, I do not see it as a big deal, but that does not make Pawsplays concerns about it an invalid criticism. The monsters attacks are all very condensed, and when an effect is attached to an attack, and that effect is not intuitive to the name of the attack, it can show.

(from the pdf)
Triple Flail (standard; at-will) ✦ Weapon
Reach 2; +32 vs. AC; 2d8 + 10 damage, and the target is immobilized (save ends). Aftereffect: 15 damage.

In play and at the table, when the players are in a life and death fight with a Demon lord, that really is all you need to know. But where does this brevity come back to bite you? After the fight when one of your players loots the demon lord, the next fight may have the player wanting to use the Demon lords triple flail. Now as DM, you have several things to figure out. Is the immobilization power a result of the demon lord being a demon lord, or is it a property of the weapon? And if one of your players asks why his character is immobilized, telling him it is what the stat block says is not a satisfying answer.

Now, while I concede that kind of thing places a greater burden on the Dm in play, it is a trade off I am willing to make. Third Edition has stat blocks that were cluttered with extraneous information, and has combat that took increasing amounts of effort to manage as you went up in level. It has low level combat that was too hard to make interesting and keep your players alive. It has high level combat that is hard to keep interesting without all your monsters being blasted to paste without having an affect on the players. It has subsystems that were outright broken like grapple for large creatures which would also always have high strength putting their grapple checks well beyond what level appropriate opponents could handle.

For me, if one of the few things I have to worry about is coming up with fitting flavor descriptors for some in game powers, I think I can make that trade off. Does that make the lack of adequate flavor descriptions not a problem? No, not for my games.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Ydars]

Lord Zardoz,

I am a fan of 4E and, like some of the design directions it has taken; indeed I applaud the design goals.

Having said this, I don't believe that the skills challenge system has ever been playtested. It is badly explained, and makes no mathematical sense (see Stalker0s thread for further details). So whilst 4E combat may well be well constructed, I suspect that nothing else about this game is that well designed.

It really does feel to me like a rushed work and I suspect WoTC have pushed it out a year before it was really ready.

 

[pawsplay]

D&d 4.5