D&D 4E Disillusionment from 4E


log in or register to remove this ad

Mr. Patient

Adventurer
I am beginning to see that more clearly, it seems to be quite the subjective topic. More a matter of feel for each individual than objective facts.

I don't think it's wholly illusion, though. I would argue that 4e powers are objectively more similar, at least to some degree, than previous editions' attacks/spells. There are no insta-kills, there's no ability damage, there's no subdual/nonlethal damage per se, there's no disarming or sundering or tripping (not much, at least), and there are fewer conditions that you can impose on enemies. 4e -- at least the books I'm familiar with, I don't have DDI -- has fewer oddball powers which are not clearly geared toward combat but might be made useful in combat by a clever player. (Disguise Self being one of the real oddball powers out there).

Not that this a bad thing, necessarily, but the range of things you can accomplish with your standard action is narrowed. And with everyone following the same basic mechanics in their attacks, and doing roughly similar amounts of damage, things are more homogeneous. Again, whether this is a bug or a feature is going to depend on how you feel about balance vs. distinctiveness.
 

There's a metric manure-load of tripping. You can build for a LOT of prone.

As for disarming and sundering.... good riddance. More headaches than fun, for all of me. And you have multiple ways to reduce someone's defenses or damage that are for all intents and purposes the same effect, but easier to adjudicate and with lesser chances of completely trivializing an encounter or destroying a PC's effectiveness for an entire adventure (i.e. sundering the weapon specialist's weapon).

Subdual damage, too, is just unnecessary bookkeeping, since zero hit points is really just unconscious if the DM or players want it to be.

I can see how people who wanted very specific niches served might be irked. As you say, bug or feature depends greatly on where you sit. Clearly I sit on the side of a small number of relatively generic conditions with liberal refluffing to explain them if you like such.
 

herrozerro

First Post
I have to agree with Canis, tripping is pretty well covered, and I also share his opinions of sundering and disarming. Both of those actions are unbalancing and have longer term repercussions on PC moreso than monsters.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
Disarming could be interesting in a game with inherent bonuses, but it doesn't work with the +X weapons. Losing +6 to hit is NASTY.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Disarming could be interesting in a game with inherent bonuses, but it doesn't work with the +X weapons. Losing +6 to hit is NASTY.

That's what makes it interesting. If the bonuses are all inherent, meh, you draw another weapon and continue on as if virtually nothing had happened. Be foolish enough to invest too much of your build in a super-weapon and lose it, now you've got a dilemma to solve.
 

mudlock

First Post
That's what makes it interesting. If the bonuses are all inherent, meh, you draw another weapon and continue on as if virtually nothing had happened. Be foolish enough to invest too much of your build in a super-weapon and lose it, now you've got a dilemma to solve.

4e doesn't HAVE super weapons. The math expects a +6 weapon (or implement) by high-epic, and you don't ever even have the ability to get more than +/- 1 away from the expectations; you certainly can't BUY them now.

And that's what people asked for after complaining about magic items and the gold economy in 3e. People didn't want to play "Merchants o' Magics", they wanted to play Dungeons & Dragons.

(And thanks to expertise, you won't lose 6, you'll lose 9; but we've had a good two or three weeks without an expertise thread, let's try to keep that record running.)
 

Incenjucar

Legend
That's what makes it interesting. If the bonuses are all inherent, meh, you draw another weapon and continue on as if virtually nothing had happened. Be foolish enough to invest too much of your build in a super-weapon and lose it, now you've got a dilemma to solve.

Being completely unable to hit anything at all unless you roll a 20 is a very unpleasant form of "interesting."

All it actually does is make everyone carry spares.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Being completely unable to hit anything at all unless you roll a 20 is a very unpleasant form of "interesting."

All it actually does is make everyone carry spares.

And the character disarmed in 4e isn't carrying a spare as well?
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
4e doesn't HAVE super weapons. The math expects a +6 weapon (or implement) by high-epic, and you don't ever even have the ability to get more than +/- 1 away from the expectations; you certainly can't BUY them now.

If you're not playing by the inherent bonus variant, it certainly does (and with a significant impact on damage potential on crits too). And given the knife's edge balancing 4e incorporates, if you aren't aggressively keeping up, you're definitely falling behind, moreso than in 3e.

And that's what people asked for after complaining about magic items and the gold economy in 3e. People didn't want to play "Merchants o' Magics", they wanted to play Dungeons & Dragons.

Unless, of course, obtaining interesting gear is part of what you consider the D&D experience, in which case 4e moved away from it...
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top