Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[BryonD]

I reluctantly had to admit that it made for a more balanced, more team-oriented, and more manageable game.

I have very openly and with no reluctance whatsoever proclaimed these truths regarding 4E on these boards.

But what if you are speaking to someone who finds the price in diversity and mechanical realization of character to be a terrible trade off for an unneeded improvement in balance?
What if "team-oriented" is a totally negligible value?
What if another game that does a better job at other aspects of play is also completely manageable so that "more manageable" is of no benefit?

I'm not saying: "therefore 4E sucks". Obviously for some people it is just what the doctor ordered. But I am saying there are very legitimate reasons for finding 4E a much less satisfying game than other options out there.

 

[ferratus]

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.

This statement baffles me. In prior editions it is about maximizing outgoing damage and minimizing incoming damage to an individual character. People who try to go it alone by choosing powers and feats that make themselves awesome get slaughtered. You have to rely on the fighter to have your back, the cleric to heal you, the rogue to do damage, and the mage to disrupt and scatter the opposition. A 4e party that doesn't do party support properly are as good as dead.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

The game moved toward the power system to avoid spamming things that could be used in abusive ways they were not intended to be used for. Like the old flour-in-the-eyes example; once that works once some players insist on their character carrying around bags of flour to throw at their enemies. Rather than the DM having to contort to counter that in some contrived way, it can be included in the power system. (The rogue has a sand-in-the-eyes power IIRC).

It's one way to help the DM deal with such situations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The game moved toward the power system to avoid spamming things that could be used in abusive ways they were not intended to be used for. Like the old flour-in-the-eyes example; once that works once some players insist on their character carrying around bags of flour to throw at their enemies. Rather than the DM having to contort to counter that in some contrived way, it can be included in the power system. (The rogue has a sand-in-the-eyes power IIRC).

It's one way to help the DM deal with such situations.

I think that there are better methods, personally. You can use the old flour-in-the-eyes in my game, without it dominating play (as there are a potentially unlimited number of such tricks to try, limited only by the imaginations of the participants).

The new Doctor Who RPG has a suggestion that, if a character keeps trying the same thing, after three rounds the opponent can prepare for it, so that it gets harder to succeed. I rather like that rule, and it fits well with what the game designers are attempting to accomplish.

The point is that the 4e designers chose a way to deal with a potential problem, though for not all groups the best way, and there is a trade-off inherent in the method chosen by the 4e designers. Not everyone will think that trade-off worth it. Others will think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Mileages will definitely vary.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

The point is that the 4e designers chose a way to deal with a potential problem, though for not all groups the best way, and there is a trade-off inherent in the method chosen by the 4e designers. Not everyone will think that trade-off worth it. Others will think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Mileages will definitely vary.

Obviously. Just as Gygax's way of dealing with things isn't for everyone either.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obviously. Just as Gygax's way of dealing with things isn't for everyone either.

Exactly so.

I would be doing an inordinate amount of work, with RCFG, if I thought Gygax's way was automatically best!


RC

 

[Obryn]

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.

Note - I'm not disagreeing with you that the inventive Wizardly Swiss army knife of useful spells is largely missing from 4e. Rituals patch the gap, but really are only helpful if you have prep time.

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.

It's again a matter of focus. Like I mentioned before, if the Wizard can't solve the party's out-of-combat problems with creative spell use, it puts the party's skills (and their creative use of the environment) to work instead. Some people like this, and some don't. It's one of those checkboxes Barastrondo mentioned. 3e has something 4e doesn't have, and by removing something 3e had, 4e has required them to pursue other options that some players will like more.

I'm not going to try and convince you the 4e way is inherently better. It isn't - it's just different. There are, however, rational D&D players who legitimately prefer the 4e way, just as there are rational D&D players who legitimately prefer the 3e (or 1e or 2e) ways. And there are rational D&D players who don't care one way or the other, and will decide what to play based on other elements entirely. Frankly, I feel fortunate that we have all these great gaming options open to us.

-O

 

[fuzzlewump]

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

Yes! All my game! Stay away from it! I have both games, thank you, and though I don't want to play 3E anymore, I had much fun with it in its time. If you were wondering my point, it was that the particular issue the quoted poster had with 4E also exists in 3E. Hell, I still enjoyed casting Solid Fog every encounter, but did I feel creative and versatile? Not really. I stopped wasting rounds doing what I thought was 'interesting' after the first couple sessions and did what was most effective...which I suppose made it interesting, in that winning a combat sort of way.

I really do wish that criticism of 4E variety, creativeness, versatility of casters, and that sort of thing, came with a more specific review of the rituals system. The argument that everyone can have rituals (with a feat) and therefore casters are not 'special' I think is synonymous with "I want to be more powerful/interesting/fun than martial characters, no matter what."

Without a more specific review, I feel like people look at rituals, see a lack of "Color Spray" or any various spell with potent combat effects and short casting time, and say 4E killed the creative caster without evaluating what actually is there. Utility powers suffer the same fate, it seems.

I feel without this specific review, criticism of the versatility of 4E casters is actually an argument against the potency of 4E casters, which could be harder to defend given the general agreement that 3E casters far outweigh the power of non-casters after a few levels.

There are 34 Level 1 Rituals in 4E currently, according to the compendium. Here are a few:
Amanuensis: copies writing from a source material to your own material. Possible use: transcribing literature from the forbidden library, or from the wall of the forbidden temple.
Fastidiousness: keeps you completely clean. Possible use: while the rest of the party is covered in gore, maybe you should do the talking to the nobles.
Magic Mouth: when conditions that were set are met, a message is spoken. Possible uses: Warn the captain of the guard of what you have found at the scene, while you continue the adventure deeper in the dungeon.
Tenser's Floating Disk: hover disk!
Banish Vermin: ward an area from rodents, insects and the like
Animal Messenger: send an animal to deliver the message

None of these pop out and say GET ME! like color spray(3E) or grease(3E) does, given their potency. But are they without utility, versatility, or interest?

 

[jgbrowning]

None of these pop out and say GET ME! like color spray(3E) or grease(3E) does, given their potency. But are they without utility, versatility, or interest?

IMO, the main problem with rituals is that they take at least 5 minutes (typically longer) to perform. They cannot be done in the heat of action and thusly have greatly reduced interest, utility, and versatility.

For instance, were the casting time a single round, even the possibilities for the rituals you listed are greatly increased. IMO, much of the creative utility of magic commonly found in pre-4e editions of D&D has been removed and replaced by tactical utility.

joe b.

 

[BryonD]

Yes! All my game! Stay away from it! I have both games, thank you, and though I don't want to play 3E anymore, I had much fun with it in its time. If you were wondering my point, it was that the particular issue the quoted poster had with 4E also exists in 3E. Hell, I still enjoyed casting Solid Fog every encounter, but did I feel creative and versatile? Not really. I stopped wasting rounds doing what I thought was 'interesting' after the first couple sessions and did what was most effective...which I suppose made it interesting, in that winning a combat sort of way.

But the difference is that you have gone from you bringing the issue to the game over to the game bringing the issue to you.
For you personally it is clearly six of one, half a dozen of another.

So you played 3E as a button pushing game and therefore it is no problem that 4E plays the same.

Those of us who don't play 3E as a button pushing game see a difference.