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

[Moggthegob]

Ok...

So tonight, ( a full night early), we ran through Keep on the Shadowfell.
And my group attached ourselves to our normal roles. I played a Human Fighter at first, and the rest of the group consisted of an elven Wizard( he refused to play eladrin out of spite ), Half-elf Cleric, Halfling rogue, and a Dwarven Paladin. We played through the first couple encounters and everyone was clunking along and noticing that they really didn't like the 4e versions of the classes they usually played. We essentially, just converted our most recent 3.5 party into 4th ed counterparts( except since there was no gnome, the wizard, reluctantly, went elf.)

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, for reasons I still cannot place, couldn't stand the new fighter, found myself frustrated and frankly a little silly playing it.
As I looked around the table, the rogue was bored( he apparently thought he would be the same skill-monkey,combat light team member he was before and was sorely disappointed), the cleric wanted to heal and do buffing, without getting into fights.

The wizard was ok, but he missed having an arsenal to fire out of. As he said, "How many times do you expect me to cast the same spell over and over again."

The Paladin seemed to be the only one at the table enjoying himself,but even then we all got frustrated at him because his rounds were slower than could be.

So we scrapped our characters, and tried again, this time playing against normal type. We continued the adventure as though these were the characters we had been playing all along(only the paladin stayed the same).This time I played a Halfling infernal warlock and I have to admit it was fun. Frankly,it was what I thought the warlock always should have been. But, sadly, the game never really picked up steam. While I found a decent niche to play in, there were still three very unsatisfied players and I have to admit, role-playing wise Warlock really isn't my thing.

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.

So next week, we will be returning to 3.5 as, I swear to you, if my one player doesn't get to do relax at DnD next week he will absolutely go crazy and we can;t have that. Overall, however, it seems I do prefer 3.5. In fact, as things were winding down, one of my players remarked to me " Now that we've played both this and Castles and Crusades, I'm pretty happy with 3.5 being a nice happy medium." And that really seems to be where my group stands as a whole.

After a brief hiatus, I will be printing out portions of the book off of my digital copy and we will try again, to see if perhaps scaling down environmental factors it gets better. Hopefully it works out better, but I wouldnt hold my breath.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Less critique, but more a observation of difference, I find it interesting the difference when talking about building the characters. Before, there was much sighing and "once more I guess I will take this feat", now, it is more along the lines of... "hmm... this power would fit in well with how my character likes to prance and strut around the battlefield" or, "YES! finally my character can actually be good at his skills".

Just gonna mention a couple things that caught my eye:

Power Attack is still in the game.

Gnomes are also still in the game (their in the MM).

For the Cleric if he doesn't want to engage in combat, I'd declare his hit-based healing as workable without hitting (in my eyes, these powers don't "activate" on a hit, as so much as the Cleric is doing a series of things within that round so both hitting then turning and healing).

Was the wizard using his cantrips?

You or whoever the DM is should check out page 42 in the DMG, this is where things like disarm or trip are covered.

Is the whole concept of "Powers" what made it feel goofy for you?

 

[Moggthegob]

Well to be fair, I am ordinarily the DM, but the next two months are my time off from DMing, just so I get a chance to play.

The wizard played with his cantrips during cavern exploration,but once we were in battle, he didn't see the use in casting prestidigitation or ghost sound.

Power Attack is still in the game ,but in a different form.

I did mention that gnomes were in the Monster Manual but none of us could figure out how to convert the monster entry into a Race entry so we let it be.

The DM did not,in fairness, get a great chance to read over all the books. He spent 2 hours with the adventure and leafed through the DMG.

And I would say overall,yes, the concept of 'powers' did make it feel goofy, except in the cases of the paladin and warlock and to a lesser extent the wizard.

Just an observation of your observation regarding character creation: Is it possible that this is based around the newness of the system yet. I remember feeling many of those same feelings when 3.5 was new or every time I saw a new feat or prestige class. Or later when I got into spellcasting,every time I would read through a new spell I would get that sort of feeling. Perhaps, perhaps no?

Just an interesting parallel and I wanted to know if the feelings were similar or based around the new system fitting your fancy that well. Or possibly both

 

[AtomicPope]

Today i received my copy of the core rulebooks today as my award from winning a tournament at Gen Con and my first instinct was the above.

I was disappointed that all the classes "feel" the same. I miss the differing power curves, as that was something I really liked about DnD. The uniqueness of each class seems to be disappearing and I feel that could potentially limit replay value. It even seems like a very structured point based system.( I know they're popular in some circles, just not mine really. Seriously. You should have seen it when we tried M&M) And they just feel like the swordsage. I didn't particularly like the Tome of Battle and so this development disappointed me a bit.

This is bias not instinct.

I was not a huge fan of ToB because it made fighters, monks, and paladins truly obsolete in a single blow - power creep can be said of any 3e splat book. Fourth Edition is quite different from ToB in that:
1) There are no iterative attacks
2) All distinguishing features and powers come from classes rather than feats. This bears repeating - All distinguishing features and powers come from classes rather than feats.
3) Classes have an well defined role by design rather than by accident.


All of this points directly toward the opposite of your "instincts." You entered with the mindset that 4e = Sword Sage ToB, which is patently incorrect. It is true that 4e uses some ideas from ToB but it abruptly ends there. The resource management is better handled than any version of D&D thus far, monsters are better balanced to face PC's in a variety of ways, and magic items are part of the core mechanics rather than a nebulous array of bonuses that quickly gets out of hand.

Tome of Battle it is not.

4e is about making all characters, monsters, and magic items useful rather than "Intentional Suck" based on absurd fluff and "gotcha" killer DM mechanics.

 

[AtomicPope]

The DM did not,in fairness, get a great chance to read over all the books. He spent 2 hours with the adventure and leafed through the DMG.

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.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well to be fair, I am ordinarily the DM, but the next two months are my time off from DMing, just so I get a chance to play.

The wizard played with his cantrips during cavern exploration,but once we were in battle, he didn't see the use in casting prestidigitation or ghost sound.

Power Attack is still in the game ,but in a different form.

I did mention that gnomes were in the Monster Manual but none of us could figure out how to convert the monster entry into a Race entry so we let it be.

The PC write-ups are, if I head that correctly, at the end of the MM. They are not among the monster descriptions themselves.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

When I get my hands on a vorpal weapon I want cut off my opponent's head on a natural 20, not worry about the HP, and get on with my plans.

 

[MadMaligor]

Oh, and I totally agree; that's what I'm kinda getting at. I think the game would be BETTER, oddly enough, if some of those were let go and the game didn't have the "MUST BE VAGUELY D&D" attatched to it.

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?

There are all sorts of lines we can draw in the sand. In fact, I would argue that as soon as the Greyhawk supplement got released in what '75, '76, that the ball started rolling down hill from there. So that pretty much means Gygax screwed over D&D....or did he? Maybe it was meant to change from the start. Maybe house rules and miniatures are as much a part of the game, and meant to be that way since day 1. The old school devs since inception were changing their own rules, making stuff up on the fly. Publications like Dragon and Dungeon are children of that desire and need for diversity and change. Turning rule after rule on its head.

Ahhh "Jumping the Shark!" you say. We jumped here, we jumped there, who gets to make the call? I would say we have been "JtS'ing" since day two when Gary screwed us with Greyhawk.

Dam that Gary guy. Its a shame he didnt know what the hell he was doing.



MM

 

[Montague68]

Just an observation of your observation regarding character creation: Is it possible that this is based around the newness of the system yet. I remember feeling many of those same feelings when 3.5 was new or every time I saw a new feat or prestige class. Or later when I got into spellcasting,every time I would read through a new spell I would get that sort of feeling. Perhaps, perhaps no?

IMO there are a few explanations for your feelings on 4e judging from your experience:

One, you basically transferred the concepts of fully-fleshed out 3E characters with the benefit of years of splat-book mechanics behind them to a new system that's not even released yet and found them wanting. That's not a fair comparison.

Two, from the looks of it your group had low-level fatigue compounded with a reluctance to change. At first level even at 3E those characters you mentioned really would'nt work as you described them. A Wizard at level one hardly qualifies as an "arsenal"

Three, paging through the DMG for an hour or two really doesn't do the system justice. If the DM isn't really on board with the new system and is just half-assing things the game will suffer.

All that said, it's perfectly acceptable to have a group that likes 3.5 and doesn't want to change systems, it's happened to groups with every new iteration of D&D so far. However ascribing your group's dislike of the system to the game design itself might not be totally correct.

 

[darkdragoon]

The wizard was ok, but he missed having an arsenal to fire out of. As he said, "How many times do you expect me to cast the same spell over and over again."

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?