Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Celtavian]

Actually, it is, but you need the PHB2. Druids have a utility power that lets them wild shape into a tiny, unobtrusive animal. Polymorph is strictly a druid shtick these days.

No. It isn't. Because one class can polymorph does not make polymorph based infiltration a reality for groups as it used to be. I wonder how long that utility power lasts?

 

[Celtavian]

I kind of felt the same way about spells being used to overcome social challenges, to be honest; they were pretty dull. The silver-tongued rogue is always the second best option because the wizard has a social gun that kills with one shot (though save negates). I prefer systems where the silver-tongued rogue is the first choice to go to for bluffing your way past the guards, or the cleric can trust an inspirational speech to have as great a chance as anything.

I dunno, maybe we just don't play like the generic "you" who hacks their way in and hacks their way out of just about everything, but I didn't see a reduction in non-combat negotiations because the quick fix of the spell was taken away. Skill checks are still skill checks, as before, skill challenges are what you want to use if a situation has taken on the comparable gravity of a combat encounter (without being about combat).

The main thing is that skill challenges are designed to engage everyone at the table, like a combat: everyone gets a turn. This is a very good idea, but it also suffers terribly if you give poor examples, like social challenges where Intimidate is an auto-fail: you're pretty much punishing the fighter (or other classes who only have Intimidate as a social class skill) for taking part, which goes against the idea that engaging all players is a good thing.

Is it really only "some" DMs who use skill challenges, though? Man, that seems horrid. It's like playing 3.5 and only "some" DMs using the craft items rules.

Still possible with 3E skill rules. Not like 4E improved on the skill system.

I prefer magic systems that aren't completely focused on combat. 4E is almost completely focused on combat magic.

 

[Jack99]

No. It isn't. Because one class can polymorph does not make polymorph based infiltration a reality for groups as it used to be. I wonder how long that utility power lasts?

5 minutes. But how was it a reality for groups in prior editions, if they were lacking the two relevant classes? Or are you saying that the whole group in 4e can't polymorphed and thus infiltrate as a group?

 

[Celtavian]

I'll agree with this. If you want to play an ordinary-people game or a farmboy-to-hero game, 4e isn't the right system for it. I make WFRP2 my first choice, when I'm looking for this. (And it's a heck of a system for it, too.)


That kinda depends. If by "abilities" you mean "hugely-powerful spells which can be cast in the midst of battle", then yeah. Those are gone. But if you're talking about martial abilities, 4e does a much better job, IMO, for high-level play - your fighters, rogues, rangers, and the like have a lot more options in this case.

Also, if I wanted true high-powered gaming, I might give Exalted a spin rather than work with any of the various D&D's. Playing demigods is, IMO, kind of a niche that requires a lot of mechanical tweaks. I don't think using the same system I've been using up to godhood cuts it at that point. YMMV, of course.


Yep, those are definitely missing. I love returning to 1e - or even Call of Cthulhu d20 - for simplified characters.


No, if you're looking for a truly Vancian wizard, they're not in 4e. This would be the biggest category I'd choose 3.5e (or maybe Arcana Evolved) for.


These are a lot more arguable. Specifically, I think you're undervaluing what 4e can bring to the table. There are some aspects of D&D playing that, IMO, 4e does better than any previous edition. There are some aspects that 3e does better. There are plenty that 1e/2e do better, too.


If the kind of game you want to play is one where a wizard has a swiss pocket knife of spells which can be inventively used to bypass or defeat any social or infiltration challenge, then 4e is not that game.

My argument - and it's been made before, so I won't belabor the point - is that by removing this element of 1e-3e play, the skill system has been placed at the front and center for exploration and interaction. This can be through skill challenges or good, old-fashioned narrative resolution (like in 0e-1e). Also, with adequate prep time, some timely 4e rituals can help a ton.

What moves this away from a friendly discussion about what systems do what well is, IMO, your last assertion that the only way through social and exploration-style play in 4e is to hack your way through it. That's a little uncalled-for.

-O

I think I mentioned specifically a rescue mission, not 4E in general. I use that as an example because it is a mission I've ran a few times, either a teleport rescue operation or a teleport assault operation. Now that option was taken away in 4E.

Exploration and social interaction play is easily done in 4E. I do not claim that it is not.

But you cannot do things like I mentioned as you could before. The wizard had a truly unique role in the group as did the cleric. That role is no longer as unique due the focus on damage and combat capabilities for all classes as well as class balance.

I get that many players abused the magic system to stand heads and tails above their fellow melee types. I get that that probably wasn't to fun for players of melee at time. But I certainly didn't expect the answer to be a complete and utter neutering of the magic system. Yet that is what they did. And it wasn't necessary to incorporate the other elements into the game.

 

[Celtavian]

I actually completely agree... As one example- For years I was bored bored bored of the monsters in the game... 4e brought that original "ooooohhhh monster!"ness back for me, because of the way the monsters are set up.

I still think nostalgia plays a bit, but that's equally true for everything in life.

The monster creation process was pretty interesting in 4E. I like the idea behind it, though the implementation was a bit boring after a while. But it does give the DM alot of freedom to create surprising and potent monsters from the depths of their imagination.

 

[Celtavian]

5 minutes. But how was it a reality for groups in prior editions, if they were lacking the two relevant classes? Or are you saying that the whole group in 4e can't polymorphed and thus infiltrate as a group?

In prior groups they had spells like mass polymorph or you memorise polymorph multiple times or disguise self, veil, mass invisibility or other such spells such as illusions.

As an example, I use an illusion spell to run creatures off a bridge using the old 3E rules. I also used to use illusion spells to draw out ambushes. Something I was not able to do in 4E.

4E neutered the creative caster. Why do you think a few of us hate the game? We got alot of mileage out of the previous editions magic system, and it wasn't throwing fireballs.

One time we were fighting a cadre of leveled arrow demons and I concocted a strategy that took up almost all of my spell slots as the clerics just to put the melees in a position to take out the arrow demons because it was our best option. It was creative use of windwall, teleport, invisibility, and other such non-combat spells to get the job done.

That type of planning and strategy was completely absent from 4E in 11 levels. Every class focused mostly on taking the best possible powers for their given level and using them over and over repetitiously. Then they used those powers even when they weren't needed just because they could.

That was the playstyle I saw encouraged by 4E. Whereas in 3E in our particular groups, there was a great deal more reliance on party support. The cleric players had to know how to provide defense against a mob of negative energy creatures or having resist energy spells ready for dragons or harsh magical creatures.

It's one of those things I chalk up to the "experiences differ" aphorism. 3E encouraged a greater degree of interactivity and reliance than 4E for our gaming group. Whereas 4E encouraged min-max power choices and a stronger focus on what an individual character could versus what a well-prepared party can do. One of the main reasons being the lack of options. Once powers are chosen, they are set. The cleric and wizard never used to be in that box and even smart melees used options like sunder or disarm to improve their combat options.

To some 4E seems like a game that expands options, to a player like me it limits options. It comes down to differing experiences with the exact same game systems. That's how it usually works.

 

[Dausuul]

I wonder how long that utility power lasts?

That's not entirely clear, actually. It says, "Until the end of the encounter, you can use wild shape to assume the form..." That could be read as meaning the form lasts until the end of the encounter, or it could be read as meaning you can assume the form at any time before the end of the encounter and stay in it as long as you like. The wild shape class feature has no duration limit.

For that matter, in a typical medieval city, you don't even need the utility power. Just turn into a big dog or something.

 

[fuzzlewump]

4E neutered the creative caster. Why do you think a few of us hate the game? We got alot of mileage out of the previous editions magic system, and it wasn't throwing fireballs.

Fireball is bad, in the face of save or suck/die or no save wonders. Your 'creative use' just means finding the best options. Why use fireball when you can insta-kill enemies by running them off a false bridge? Creative use for me was casting Solid Fog just beyond the melee line, effectively sealing off any ranged combatants from the melee. Then I did that every encounter. Over and over. (I was a beguiler, so had sorcerous-style casting.)

Also, take a look at Ghost Sound to create ambushes, and as far as magical items not being used out of combat, wondrous items would like to have a word with you. And I'm not sure you can complain about rituals being reserved for out of combat and then complain that items focus on combat.

On another note, what "interactivity and reliance" did the non-casters of your party offer in 3E? Are you sure their jobs were not better filled by a wizard with Polymorph, a Cleric with Divine Power, or a Druid shapeshifted?

 

[Fifth Element]

4E neutered the creative caster. Why do you think a few of us hate the game? We got alot of mileage out of the previous editions magic system, and it wasn't throwing fireballs.

There's a difference between being a creative caster, and being a caster with a spell for every occasion. 4E did remove a lot of the "Solve Problem X" spells from the game. One might argue that it forces casters to be more creative with their casting, since they lack the ready-made spell for the occasion.

 

[BryonD]

Then I did that every encounter. Over and over.

Good thing you have game that moves away from encounter based powers.