D&D 4E Everyone's a swordsage; Thoughts on 4E after my first read-through.

[stonegod]

Hey, Mog.

Sorry you didn't care for it, though I hope you don't give on it completely (one-shots every once in a while or when 4Ebberron comes out). My best guess for the disconnect is that 4E is still too relatively new and thus does not have all the options that 3.5 currently has. I disagree with the some others that 4E doesn't promote mastery, its just the bar was designed lower to make mastery easier, and there are just not enough options compared to 3.5 yet for those that like to spend hours on character creation.

 

[timbannock]

Failed.

I wouldn't judge any game based on a half-hearted improv.

It sounds like your group had their hearts set on 3e all along.

It's amazing I still have players: half-hearted improv has been the basis of at least 3 long-running campaigns!

YMMV

 

[gamesmeister]

So while there was a little fun to be had, most of the players went home stressed because A) learning a new system rarely is fun. and B) there was some genuine dislike for the lack of things to do in combat. At will powers, aside, they missed the old power attack, trip, disarm, etc. and there was some confusion regarding damage expression and over sharing one book. C) none of us were really big fans of ToB and so this whole system feeling like that left us feeling like our game was a bit too goofy.

Surely you're not serious...lack of things to do???

Let me see, I'm a first level Fighter in 3.5, I'm facing a kobold, what shall I do. I know, I'll hit him with my sword. What's that, my turn again...ok, I'll hit him with sword...

We've played three sessions so far with KotS, and the fighter continually has different things to do, particularly using his powers to challenge different creatures thus controlling the dynamic of combat. He has four different powers to use in addition to hitting the kobold, plus feats, plus basic actions from the rulebook (e.g. push, grab etc), all of which add tactical options to the game. My Warlord continually has to balance how he should give tactical assistance to his fellow characters with how much he should heal them, as well as his desire to go smack the other kobold.

Personally I think your point C) above is influencing your approach to this system and to an extent you've made up your mind before you've even started. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it seems to me.

Personally I'm loving 4e - for the first time in 25+ years of gaming I'm itching to both play and GM D&D.

 

[Stomphoof]

I demand that you all stop discussing 4th Ed till I get my PHB tonight.

*harumphs*

Just kidding

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Character creation was a breeze, but also a bore. Some of us who are used to pouring through books and cobbling together roleplaying ideas based on how we planned on building and talking found ourselves cut short and with a lack of inspiration. So we borrowed old character personalities. and without stat quirks to back them up roleplaying overall ended up flat.

I'm a little confused by this, the bolded part in particular. I'm only singling you out Mogg because you stated it overtly. But I get the impression that other people feel this way about the game as well.

May I ask why you want or need "stat quirks" to roleplay your character? I agree that stats can be a solid guide, but I've never felt the need to adhere slavishly to them. In 3rd edition I had a Sorcerer character I played in a few one-shots. His Charisma was 19, and he was a complete ass to everyone outside the adventuring group (even those inside too). I never felt like I had to play a dashing, charming spellcaster. I wanted to play a prick, but I also wanted to play a sorcerer. So I did.

I guess I don't feel that being mechanically effective and playing an interesting character are mutually exclusive.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

3 Cantrips (4 if you specialize), one use

vs.

4 Cantrips, as many uses as you want.


1 Level 1 Spell. Two if you specialize. Maybe a bonus if you crank up Int.

Vs.

2 at-wills (3 if human) ; as many as you like

2 Encounter; recharge on their own

1 Daily

Not counting the free Rituals out of combat either.

Are you sure which one has the bigger and deeper arsenal?

Hundreds of choices on what spell to use

Vs

Ten

 

[apoptosis]

I'm not sure how anyone is defining what a cleric 'is' or a wizard 'is' or the game of D&D 'is.' Do you use obsolete definitions when looking at dictionary.com? Saying that this is not D&D anymore is like someone complaining that a walk means a stroll instead of a 'haunt or resort' like it meant in the good ol' days. Now, I'm not trying to say that editions 1-3 are obsolete, but I will say that 4th edition simply adds another definition of what D&D is. The point being, don't reject it simply because it is different. Try running your favorite home-brew campaign setting and go all out; I have faith that the input will be proportional to the output.

However, if things like Vancian magic are key to your enjoyment, and you're steadfast on saying nothing else will satisfy it, I'm not sure the point of any further discussion.

I think some disconnect, at least for me, is based on the huge number of fantasy RPGs I have played over the last 30 years. D&D has specific characteristics and enough of these are what constitutes a D&D play experience.

Many of the first fantasy RPGs were pretty much D&D clones so there was not a huge difference in play. Later on different games had much more discrimination in their feel of play and some of the present games like TSOY and Burning Wheel which have very different feel than classic D&D.

So having played so many fantasy RPGs, a game that is "D&D" has certain built-in expectations and these separate "D&D" from other fantasy games. Now what those criteria are and the line that is drawn is both completely arbitrary and frankly not very consistent even in my own mind.

People who are looking for certain D&Dism and want to play D&D vs another fantasy RPG, might not find them in 4E and shouldnt be a priori expecting 4E to fulfull these and really should know that 4E is very different than previous editions.

Conversely, many of the types of games that traditional D&D did well (killing things and taking their stuff and dungeoncrawls) seem like they can be done really well in 4E (and can be done well in other fantasy RPGs) but that they will be done without certain elements that D&D has traditionally used. So it becomes a question of are you wanting to play 4E to run a similar type of game (eg dungeoncrawl) or are you wanting to run a similar type of game but additionally with elements that are pretty unique to traditional D&D.

 

[Moggthegob]

I'm a little confused by this, the bolded part in particular. I'm only singling you out Mogg because you stated it overtly. But I get the impression that other people feel this way about the game as well.

May I ask why you want or need "stat quirks" to roleplay your character? I agree that stats can be a solid guide, but I've never felt the need to adhere slavishly to them. In 3rd edition I had a Sorcerer character I played in a few one-shots. His Charisma was 19, and he was a complete ass to everyone outside the adventuring group (even those inside too). I never felt like I had to play a dashing, charming spellcaster. I wanted to play a prick, but I also wanted to play a sorcerer. So I did.

I guess I don't feel that being mechanically effective and playing an interesting character are mutually exclusive.

Well for one thing, you are talking to a DM who actually came up with situations where it would have been useful to have certain professional skills on a regular basis, as a result, my players grew to pick professions as a part of their normal character creation process. Also, there are some things that on the page may not look like much, for instance, from 3e, Innuendo or Alchemy or in 3.5 ( I kid you not) forgery.

Sure many people were happy when those skills were folded into others, but while they were on the sheet, they inspired whole character concepts. Whether it is coincidence or not, I have not had a player have the urge to play an alchemist since alchemy, as a skill on its own, was taken off of the sheet. I know that easier character creation was a stated goal of the system, but what it also led to was a lesser attachment to the character. Its probably a necessary side-effect of the system,but it did leave me wanting. i also house-ruled that all characters got a "trait"( You know persuasive, athletic,etc.) feat for free after awhile to further encourage this kind of character development.

As for others who accuse me of being set on 3e from the get go, this is possibly true, i am awfully invested in it. But we gave it a shot. And we will be giving it a shot again as a side project once the guy who wants to DM it( I dont really want to.) feels he has a better handle on the system. And a year from now 4berron comes out we will definitely try again,if only because we are eberron nuts and any new fluff on eberron is manna from heaven( exaggerated.. perhaps a tad). And to be perfectly fair,taking a second shot at it is more justice than we ever did VtM or M&M. So at the very least the D&D name has had that effect, we are willing to try again.

 

[Moggthegob]

It's amazing I still have players: half-hearted improv has been the basis of at least 3 long-running campaigns!

YMMV

ROFL> This summarizes the last campaign I ran as well. Oddly enough, it was players favorite campaign I've run in years. Apparently, I actually DM better when thinking on my feet. Who knew.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think it is for my group it is the new system. When we first got into 3.5, we very quickly fell into what I described in my previous post. With 4e, it feels like we have more choices in combat and in character design (especially with less skills and no profession/craft/perform (these are now skill challenges for us, and I the DM will determine the difficulty for the skill challenge and DC based on if they have any expertise in their character background)).

So yeah, guess different strokes for different folk

But, it is good that your willing to give it another try,I hope come Eberron time, you will enjoy it more

 

[silentounce]

Also, when you get your hands on a Vorpal version would you rather roll two exploding D4's or one exploding D12?

Given all the 3,4,5+ [W] powers...the D4s. A lot more explosions.

Even 2[W] will, statistically, have one exploding dice.

Lemme see...
D12, Avg damge=6.5
D4, avg damage=2.5

So, 2[w]:
D12: 13
2D4:12

D 12 wins...but...statistically, one of the D4s will explode, so +2.5...
14.5 damage for the 2[W] falchion vs. the 2[W] greatsword. The greatsword will explode, statistically, once in six 2[W] attacks. The falchion...in EVERY 2[W] attack.

Falchions FTW!

Actually, if you do the math even further, yes the d4s do explode more often, but it's a d4 that is exploding.... If you work it all the way out, the d12 will do more damage even though it explodes less often. Granted the difference is only about .5 per attack on average.

 

[silentounce]

And a year from now 4berron comes out we will definitely try again,if only because we are eberron nuts and any new fluff on eberron is manna from heaven( exaggerated.. perhaps a tad). And to be perfectly fair,taking a second shot at it is more justice than we ever did VtM or M&M. So at the very least the D&D name has had that effect, we are willing to try again.

Sorry for the double post, but I thought you'd like to know that there is now Eberron content to convert KotS to that setting. It's probably a little late for you right now, though.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dufe/20080606a

 

[pemerton]

I think some disconnect, at least for me, is based on the huge number of fantasy RPGs I have played over the last 30 years. D&D has specific characteristics and enough of these are what constitutes a D&D play experience.

Many of the first fantasy RPGs were pretty much D&D clones so there was not a huge difference in play. Later on different games had much more discrimination in their feel of play and some of the present games like TSOY and Burning Wheel which have very different feel than classic D&D.

So having played so many fantasy RPGs, a game that is "D&D" has certain built-in expectations and these separate "D&D" from other fantasy games. Now what those criteria are and the line that is drawn is both completely arbitrary and frankly not very consistent even in my own mind.

People who are looking for certain D&Dism and want to play D&D vs another fantasy RPG, might not find them in 4E and shouldnt be a priori expecting 4E to fulfull these and really should know that 4E is very different than previous editions.

Conversely, many of the types of games that traditional D&D did well (killing things and taking their stuff and dungeoncrawls) seem like they can be done really well in 4E (and can be done well in other fantasy RPGs) but that they will be done without certain elements that D&D has traditionally used. So it becomes a question of are you wanting to play 4E to run a similar type of game (eg dungeoncrawl) or are you wanting to run a similar type of game but additionally with elements that are pretty unique to traditional D&D.

Apoptosis, I haven't played as wide a range of RPGs as you have but I've played a few. And I think you're right that "feeling like D&D" is about more than just dungeoncrawling.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

My own first read through has me pretty optimistic about the whole thing. One bit that jumped out was that there are much better tools for the DM to use as a jumping off point for winging things. In particular, the chart for improvising damage on page 42 of the DMG is something that should have existed in that or a similar form a long time ago.

Another interesting thing is that for generating a new character, you do not need to look up any numbers based on level progression. There is no Bab, no Saving throws. Anything that could possibly improve with level is always Level / 2. The only thing you really need to look up are the Race power / modifiers, the class powers you want, and your feats. Everything else can be generated more or less from memory.

Also of note is that the new PHB is much more 'newb' friendly. The introduction sequence is actually geared towards raw newbie players.

Finally, having all the info on critical hits does a great deal to ally one of my biggest concerns. The 3rd edition method had the confirm roll in order to prevent the 'only 20s would hit' problem. It turns out that 'All 20's are Criticals' was not entirely true. The actual rule is 'All 20's are criticals if the resulting attack roll would be enough to hit the target defense. Otherwise its just a guaranteed hit'.

I have not really delved too much into the individual classes, but based on what I have seen, I do not expect that the various class powers will seem too similar. While it may be balanced to swap out a Warlocks 1st level At Will power with a Cleric, it does not mean that a Clerics powers will feel too similar to the Warlocks.

The real test will be when you start playing it.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rashak Mani]

ROFL> This summarizes the last campaign I ran as well. Oddly enough, it was players favorite campaign I've run in years. Apparently, I actually DM better when thinking on my feet. Who knew.

So true. I fondly remember an Earthdawn campaign... I basically winged the whole thing. I even made up a monster race with 3 different castes.

Player's went wild and loved it. When one of them asked to see the monster stats, which I naturally didn't have, I said it was secret ... hehe

 

[woodelf]

I agree with you.

I am probably less liberal on what is D&D. Generally if I want to play D&D, i want to play the older versions of it (I prefer 1rst and 2nd the most actually). this is because I want the oddities in mechanics that are D&D (yes nostalgia kicks in definitely)

I have shelves full of other fantasy RPGs and some play similar to "D&D" while other play very differently (like TSOY)

For me 4E is less D&D and more "another fantasy RPG." This is not bad (frankly i think they did the right thing in really redeveloping the game) but for people who are wanting a D&D feel (inclusive of all the crazy and inconsistent mechanics of earlier versions) and not just a fantasy RPG, 4E i feel will fail to deliver.

Oddly, I think 4E is very well suited to one-shot dungeon crawls of the old modules that we used to do and is probably awesome at say White Plume Mountain, but the game (for me IMHO) wont have the same feel as using the 1ed or 2ed (or 3ed) rules. TSOY could also do a cool job in WPM but it really wont have the same feel either.

Well, my preliminary opinion is almost the opposite. That is, D&D3E never felt like "D&D" to me--not from reading the books, and not from playing it, extensively. D&D4E feels a little odd in some ways--warlords, tieflings--but overall, from reading [not likely to play it any time soon], it feels like "D&D" to me. When i have an itch to play "D&D", D&D3E can't scratch it. I tried. But i suspect D&D4E could.

Not sure i can put a finger on it, but i'll try. I know it's not specific classes or races--we always played with lots of unofficial classes, and weird races, Back In The Day(TM)--because Arcana Unearthed can scratch my D&D itch just fine. I think part of it is the level of complexity. I think complexity is part of it--D&D3E was just too damn complex, D&D4E seems a bit more straightforward, for the most part. Though i fear actual play will prove me wrong on this point (not that it's not simpler than D&D3E, but that it's not simple enough for what i think of as "D&D"). The fact that the classes seem a bit more monolithic may be part of it--the "take a level here, a couple levels there" approach to multiclassing in D&D3E is great in many ways, but definitely changes the feel from any previous edition of D&D--in all previous editions, you picked a thing (even if that thing was a multiclass option), and that's what you were for the entire character's career (well, barring dual-classed characters, but the penalties were so severe that i think i saw one person do it, once--by taking only one level in a class before switching). To me, D&D4E has restored that feel, while still giving you a lot more flexibility in the details of what exactly you can do.

OK, i'm all out. So, not a very compelling argument, i admit. But, i can still toss out my general impression: reading D&D4E makes me wax nostalgic for D&D. It feels like someone built a "better D&D", for some value of 'better' (that i'm not sure i agree with--*really* miss having a skillmonkey class). Reading D&D3E never made me think "this game is D&D"--it always felt like someone took lots of bits and pieces of D&D, and built a new, different, game out of them.

 

[woodelf]

D12, Avg damge=6.5
D4, avg damage=2.5

So, 2[w]:
D12: 13
2D4:12

Um, unless there's something else going on here when you double a weapon's damage, 2.5x4=10.

 

[woodelf]

The interesting question is not whether 4th is D&D (because regardless of what we here might say, its quite frankly, D&D). The question that interests me is, where do you draw the line, and by you I mean you all in general?

Woodgrain/White box? Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry? Basic/Expert/Companions/Masters/Immortals? 1st Ed AD&D? 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana? 2nd Ed AD&D? 2nd Ed class handbooks? 3.0/3.5? 4th Edition? Or somewhere in between those? Maybe Garys departure from TSR? WotCs take over?

AFAIC, everything you list is "D&D", except for D&D3[.5]E. Personally, everything published with the D&D label has felt of a kind, except for the Player's Option stuff, and D&D3[.5]E--those two pretty much feel the same as each other to me (though one is much better executed), and neither of them feels like "D&D".

But i'm not sure you actually wanted answers to your [rhetorical?] question, so i'll stop now.