D&D 4E Finally, a playtest reporting there are good things from 4e in Next!!

[Oldtimer]

I could point you to the lack of the rule.

You're expecting an explicit rule saying that you can take equipment from unconscious characters? In what edition of D&D have we had that?

 

[Sunseeker]

Hmmm. Interesting point.

It's not that 4E-ism is bad, it's that it's not D&D.

Right, I mean, other people have pointed this out, you're totally NOT trolling for an edition war. You're just stating your opinion like it's fact because it's not and therefore you're right?

1) When I used to play Champions years ago (1E through 5E), nothing bad ever happened to the PCs as a general rule. They took a ton of STUN damage, but rarely took BODY damage. There were really no game mechanics for anything worse than BODY damage, so the PCs felt protected. Yes, they could and did lose fights, but nothing even close to temporary ever happened to them. This emulates the comic books quite closely in that superheroes as a general rule have problems in their personal lives, but they rarely have debilitating problems from combat itself (unless designed into the PC).

I've played Deadlands, probably the only TTRPG that really emphasizes "bad stuff happens to you! it's cool!" and frankly I loved it. At no point was I terrified for my life because I might lose a limb. Comic books are anything but safe, I don't know when the last time you read one was, but comic books haven't been safe for a good 30 years. Do the main-characters often come back from the dead? Sure they do. Is losing a limb common? No but it does happen.

2) When playing 1E and 2E, and somewhat with 3E, semi-permanent bad things could happen to PCs. PCs could lose ability score points. PCs could get level drained. PCs could get diseased or cursed or poisoned. The gaming environment, unlike the Champions world, felt more threatening and the PCs felt heroic, but not superheroic. PCs could walk into a burrow mound and the players knowing that undead in there could level drain their PCs were extremely apprehensive and cautious. It wasn't another simple encounter where powers were spammed, it was a careful search and quite frankly (like Sunday's superbowl), a bit nail biting where anything could happen.

So you basically set up encounters where normally powerful PCs would get level-drained into oblivion and then beat to death by zombies. This is why noone likes level-drain, it's obnoxious and really only utilized so that DM can laugh at the players.

3) 4E doesn't feel anything near 1E through 3E, hence, it doesn't feel like D&D, even though many of the terms are the same. It feels like Champions, not like D&D. The 4E game designers wanted to bring new and preferably young people into the game. A laudable goal, but the implementation was somewhat misguided. Very few bad things can happen to PCs because one of the design goals of 4E was to remove things that bugged some players in earlier versions of the game and add in shiny new things. Player entitlement (which I'll talk about later) was added to the game. There are many examples, but I'll give a few:

You know, honestly I've never played an edition where "bad things" happen to the PCs on a regular basis. Unless you rules-monkey it to make "bad things" cool such as Deadlands did(and the general western-dark-sci-fantasy-steampunk setting often does).

a) Level Drain, temporary and permanent. This was deemed bad, so it was removed. It was one of the most dreaded aspects of something bad that could happen to a PC, so it was removed.

It was also one of D&D's dumbest features. Nobody liked it. It was only ever used as a heavily punishing mechanic. I mean who wants to play for months and work hard to get to level 5, only to get hit with some permanent level drain and have to do it all over from lvl 3? I'm going to come out and say it: that just ain't fun.

b) Disarm. Obviously, PCs cannot fight without their absolute best magic stuff, so it too was removed.

Sarcasm, delicious. Disarm exists in 4e, though it's limited to certain powers now instead of being a general skill or feat.

c) Poison. It used to last beyond just a single encounter, now it can be gone by the very next round in many cases. Huh?

If you don't like the way the mechanics work, house-rule it to work otherwise. I don't know why people insist on acting like this is impossible in 4e. I did it all the time. ALL THE TIME. Not to mention poison as a mechanical feature does a solid 5-10 points of damage PER ROUND. If poison of that potency lasted, you could kill an entire party with it in under a day. Sure, let bad things happen to players. But wantonly killing your party just isn't fun.

d) Curses. These are not even part of the core rules. Mummy's Rot is called a curse, but it's a disease. There are a few minorly cursed magic items that eventually showed up, but for the most part, curses are mostly a no show in 4E. There is a Remove Affliction ritual, but it is hardly ever used.

Alright...you liked curses. I can't blame you, I liked curses too. Problem is they were incredibly complicated and took an awful lot of effort to deal with. This isn't a "don't have bad things happen to players", this is a "this was an obnoxious and overly-complex mechanic that few people utilized so we did away with it".

e) Grabs. Grabbing in 4E is, quite frankly, a bit of a joke. It doesn't really matter too much if many PCs are grabbed or not, most can still attack normally with no penalties and with any weapon. And grabs are really easy to get out of. The many tentacled monster is embarrassed as most PCs casually get out of its mighty grab, some of them spell casters and they didn't even need magic.

I pity the foo who thinks he can't houserule. No really, USE IT. Just because the box says A doesn't mean you can't do Z. Don't like that PCs can attack while grabbed? House-rule it so they can't. Don't like the fact that this particular TYPE of grab wasn't included in the game? Well oh well, that doesn't mean the game isn't D&D, it just mean you didn't like it. Your opinion is not a fact.

f) Fear, confusion, insanity, polymorph, and petrification almost never occur in 4E. If someone is feared, they shake it off in a round or two and the main result of fear is a little bit of forced movement. The 3E versions of Shakened and Feared are watered down to practically nothing.

I'm not sure what version of D&D you're really getting at here as being the "true" D&D, and I'll admit I've never played anything before 3.x, but in my experience, these things rarely lasted longer unless they were done by some incredibly dangerous high-level monster.

g) In earlier versions, some bad things that happened to PC lasted for days or weeks and sometimes even months. Now, many bad things like poison are shaken off in a round or two. Bad things in earlier versions required powerful magic to counteract them. Even diseases can be negated by 4E PCs, often with a single extended rest.

"So I want a system that makes my players suck for extended periods of time." That's really what you're saying. These things were removed because they were annoying and un-fun.

h) Maneuvers. PC maneuvers were rolled into the powers. I cannot trip a foe just because humans in real life can trip, instead, I need a power that knocks the foe down.

Honestly in all the non-4e games I've ever played, I've seen people use trip oh...about twice. If players aren't using a feature enough to warrant it's continued existence, there's really no need to keep it.

a) Let's start off with hit points. Any PC can recover all of his or her hit points without any magic at all during a short rest.

NO. They can only do so during an extended rest. They can recover SOME hit-points during a "short rest" through burning healing surges, but they won't get those back until they take an extended rest. It makes them more vulnerable in the next fight if they do this as you can ONLY be healed though the use of healing surges.

Honestly if you don't actually know how 4e works, please don't complain about it.

They can also self heal during combat and sometimes even if the PC is unconscious.

Assuming a 4e character is not stupid high, the only "self heal" a player has is "Second Wind", or an ability that allows them to use a healing surge. Times when an unconscious PC can heal are limited to rolling a nat20 on a death-saving throw.

Physical damage is gone from the game and has been replaced with the equivalent of Champions STUN. This is a level of entitlement, not asked for by players, but handed out by the 4E design team. Now, it's a major part of our D&D gaming community. Pro-4E proponents get very defensive about this, but even this core portion of the game system has been nerfed.

It isn't anything like that. You clearly lack knowledge of the 4e system.

b) Powers. The game designers even called them powers, just like out of any comic book or Champions-like RPG. They could have called them abilities or something else, but they called them powers. Could they have been any more blatant about it? In Champions, players spam a few superpowers over and over again in combat. In 4E, players spama few powers over and over again in combat. In many ways, 4E feels closer to Champions than it does D&D.

Oh no! They're called freedom fries instead of french fries! Whatever shall we do?!

c) Balance. While balance is a laudable goal, 4E took it out of the realm of mostly differing game mechanics for different classes and into the world of cookie cutter everyone seems the same. Everyone has their powers, everyone has the same number and levels of powers (until Essentials), and the designers tried to make the powers balanced with regard to how often they could be used. Balance became one of the new gods of 4E to the exclusion of much of what makes D&D, D&D.

This reeks of the same garbage I hear on MMO forums whenever anyone tries to balance out caster classes. "Oh no, I have to actually fight fair! But I shouldn't have to play by the rules!" Really this just shows you ignorance of 4e. Having the same number and same relative scale of powers hardly makes for cookie-cutter builds. Wizards just realized what everyone know about abilities, spells, and such from earlier editions: 90% of them were absolutely useless in most situations.

d) Effects. Many effects that were D&D-like (fear, confusion, polymorph) were replaced by things like Forced Movement that most PCs have access to. Also, effects are handed out like candy so much that every encounter has multiple effects on the board on nearly every round (with the extra bookkeeping that this resulted in).

What's that, everyone gets to do fun things instead of only one class? QQ moar plz. I feed on your tears. You complain that they remove effects, then complain that they're used too often? Make up your mind. This stinks heavily of "I don't like 4e so it isn't D&D!!!!" once again: your opinion is NOT FACT.

e) Action Points. Darn, I rolled bad. Let me try that again. Again, a level of entitlement was handed to the players on a silver platter.

You get 1 action point per extended rest and they can only be used once per encounter. It does not magically make you hit, it lets you TRY AGAIN. You clearly have no idea how 4e actually works and are just badmouthing what you've heard other people say 'cause you think you're "too cool" for a new edition.

Getting on the entitlement issue

An issue that doesn't exist. The only entitlement in this room is YOU, who wants to run around claiming that only YOU know what is or is not D&D.

4E is SO different from earlier versions of the game that players in droves fled back to 3.5, to Pathfinder, and to other game systems. 4E backfired on WotC in many ways. Yes, it did also bring in new players, but at a cost. Many players of D&D did see issues with 3E that needed correcting, but they didn't want a game of superheros with powers flung around the board like monkeys throwing poo where they would have to do a lot of bookkeeping of the vast plethora of superpower effects on a grid where the game is nearly impossible to play without the grid and without the bookkeeping.

replace everything you said about 4e and use 3.x instead. You know how many people said that? A whole bloody lot.

And putting one's head in the sand and denying that D&D 4E no longer feels like D&D for many players doesn't change the fact that 5E is attempting to bring D&D feel back to D&D. It's such a major issue for such a large portion of the D&D community that the game designers even see where they foobared.

Calling me an ignorant idiot does not in any way improve your pathetic argument.

So, it's not that the players of 4E are playing the game wrong, it's that WotC turned D&D in a superhero game with a lot of heavy duty PC protection and entitlement built directly into the game system. It's not that the game system isn't gritty, it's that it cannot even be slightly gritty without house rules.

You mean, sometimes a Gm has to think outside the box and do things their own way? Well who's talking about entitlement now?

And btw, this is not an attempt at an edition war. It's an attempt to explain why the entitlement and superhero type of terminology has entered our D&D gaming culture concerning 4E. It's a matter of lack of D&D feel to the game.

Except it is. It bold-faced is and you know it. You're just trying to hide it behind "Well, you're not doing it wrong, Wizards did it wrong." When the truth of the matter is you have NO CLUE how 4e works.

 

[Argyle King]

A full extended rest - something that isn't always easy under time pressure. And that was both regularly more important and much easier to do safely in 3e (Rope Trick - talk about player entitlement!)

There are plenty of things like that in 4th Edition as well. Magic Circle is a cheap ritual. The name escapes me at the moment, but there's also a very cheap magic item which allows you to cut open an extra dimensional space. It's an extra-dimensional dagger or something like that. It's pretty much the same thing as rope trick, but using a dagger instead. There are also powers which some of the classes have to do the same thing. The options are there; it's pretty easy to get a full rest if you want one.

 

[Henry]

Hmmm. Interesting point.

It's not that 4E-ism is bad, it's that it's not D&D. I see a distinct difference of mortal heroism and super heroism. Let me explain my opinions on the super heroism of 4E and maybe some people will see where these thoughts are coming from in our gaming community:Your experiences were definitely different from mine on many of the points on 4E you make here:

1) No experiences of Champions here, though I've played several superhero games so your point is taken.

2) 3E already started the trend of lessening permanent crippling misfortunes. Level drain isn't level drain, not in the main sense, multiple saving throws were introduced to things like Hold Person, and even the vaunted haste and harm got rewrites to add extra saves and reduce the aging penalties/system shock. I'd go so far as to say 3E and its derivations aren't that close to 1E and 2E.

3)Some of your observations match mine -- persistent conditions do I think need to return to D&D, BUT, some of the things removed, such as ability drain, 1E-style level drain, and anything that requires you to recalculate cascading changes to your character sheet, needs to be removed. You can have persistent conditions without needing to rewrite a third of your sheet thanks to a dex drain or losing permanent levels. However, a permanent "-2 to all attacks, defenses and skills" due to maiming, draining or whatnot I would prefer to "recalculate your ranged attacks, initiative, armor classes, attacks of opportunity, and reflex save due to dex loss."

Grabbing and Disarming, I have to agree with, BUT grappling a la 3E was NOT the way to go, and as much better as CMB and CMD work in Pathfinder, it's not really the best answer, either. Grappling and pinning is unfortunately far too easy to do in 3.X, and, much like a "millstone" or "Amish" deck-build in Magic the gathering, it's a way to bypass someone's defenses completely with an "I Win" button and for the sake of fun play needs to be useful but still curtailed, simulationism be darned.

4) agreed about an excess of in-combat healing, but the points about "powers" -- they did call them other things. They called them exploits, prayers, disciplines, spells, and several other things -- the overarching "powers" gets overused by fans, not designers.

Balance? As you say, essentials is where they learned better lessons -- but they learned them well, and it's a shame Essentials gets bad press because it has some awesome features I hope to see in 5E.

Now, what HAS 4E given BACK to D&D that 3E took away? A few things:

1) Resting after a combat. For goodness's sake, someone should not be able to simply hop from combat to combat with seconds apart completely unscathed; they should be out of breath, down on resources, and dreading the next corner, and 4E does simulate this. I've made it a point once every few sessions to have a scenario that encourages players to NOT take that 5 Minute rest, in the face of a negative consequence that faces them if they don't (stopping an assassination, a building is collapsing, goblins are cutting the rope bridge, etc.) If you haven't seen a 4E party scared to take a short rest, I highly encourage it at least once or twice.

2) Smaller totals of hit points. YES, I SAID SMALLER. (for those whom I've seen critiquing high hit point totals in 4E)
A 4E character gets only 4 to 6 hit points per level, NO con bonus; Your average 10th level fighter decked out in magic gear might have 90 to 100 hit points (about 10d10+5 or so); a 4E level 10 fighter has about 80, and as levels go up, this gets more pronounced. He gets the equivalent of average hit points per level, plus a "kicker" of about 20 points, same as Hackmaster, really.

3) DM Fiat, and Non-PC-style monsters, my two favorite returns to D&D. I can run a 4E session, of any level, using two charts from the DMG, and the monsters will be level appropriate and involve very few notes, only making the creatures within seconds of their needing to fight it. In 3E, I still can't do this (well, except for FantasyCraft d20) -- to have a level appropriate monster I need to have a half-page to full page writeup for every creature they could fight, including spells cast, effects should they dispel magic on them, etc. -- Stuff I didn't ever need in 1E and 2E.

4) Mundane challenges in adventures of fairly high level. This is one that actually 4E does MORE than older D&D did. Want to fly to bypass that castle wall? Sorry, you need to be about 14th level or more. (Or a druid as a defenseless little wren.) Want to teleport across the world? Sorry, you need this ritual, and can only go to these predetermined gates. Want to scry-buff-teleport to your enemy and take him out? What the heck is that???

All of the above I found in 4E that returned to the game, that was removed by 3E and its descendants. Much as I like and play both games, these are some concepts that I would be thrilled to see in 4E somehow mechanically represented.

 

[Piratecat]

Enough, folks. I have so very, very little patience for edition warring. I'm talking to folks privately, so please consider this a reminder to get the thread back on a friendly track. Now.

If you respond inappropriately to someone else's post and then read this, I gently suggest you go back and edit your post.

 

[LordArchaon]

I was cheerfully going to post a link here, before seeing what could happen to a cheerful thread with absolutely no premises for quarrels...
I hope with Kravell's permission, here it is, a link to his posts about his review at the official boards! (Continues for many detailed and juicy posts!)

 

[Tallifer]

According to Monte, any PC could do anything they want to try (ability check). Mechanics could help (skill bonus etc.). Roleplaying could also help (advantage). The DM might tell me what to roll or I as the player may make a suggestion.

The DM just needs to know what the six ability scores are and how advantage works. The player can work just off his character sheet. A player could also roleplay or offer creative suggestions but he won't be penalized unduly if he doesn't do so.

Back on track... I am wrestling with this idea. Part of me likes it, part of me hates it. I am not a theatrical fellow, but I certainly roleplay more than a casual new gamer or a gamer raised on shooters. On the other hand I played once with a group that had a would-be novelist, a professional stage actor and an amateur stage actor. My characters were scorned as insipid, my dialogue barely tolerated, and so on. At most tables a bit of imagination is appreciated, but at others it is never enough. Then there was a third group in which the dungeon master much preferred certain players' conceits and palaver to that of others: Harry Potter or Indiana Jones allusions were considered trite and childish but comic book or Salvatore references were considered clever and sophisticated. Different tastes in roleplaying are fine, but if the dungeon master arbitrarily rewards what he considers roleplaying, then that would be a horrible game.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Back on track... I am wrestling with this idea. Part of me likes it, part of me hates it. I am not a theatrical fellow, but I certainly roleplay more than a casual new gamer or a gamer raised on shooters. On the other hand I played once with a group that had a would-be novelist, a professional stage actor and an amateur stage actor. My characters were scorned as insipid, my dialogue barely tolerated, and so on. At most tables a bit of imagination is appreciated, but at others it is never enough. Then there was a third group in which the dungeon master much preferred certain players' conceits and palaver to that of others: Harry Potter or Indiana Jones allusions were considered trite and childish but comic book or Salvatore references were considered clever and sophisticated. Different tastes in roleplaying are fine, but if the dungeon master arbitrarily rewards what he considers roleplaying, then that would be a horrible game.

Not to me. I'd rather have no gaming than bad gaming and just wait for a better chance to come along.

I don't play in games with people who aren't my friends (even at conventions i have friends with me). I'd rather not see the game built to try to improve the attitudes of rude people. Rules really aren't gong to change those people.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They wouldn't be the heroes if they were just normal men.

Sure they would. A hero is a normal person who stands up for what's right even if they might come to personal harm.

There's nothing really heroic about beating a monster (even an evil one) to death if it posed little to no threat to you.

Note: I'm not saying you believe the opposite, or anything about 4e either way (I like 4e). This message is purely a friendly banter against the quote above.

 

[Mattachine]

I want to be sure that a game mechanic that relies on roleplaying explicitly calls out different types of roleplaying:

a. Improvisational Acting
b. Mix of in-character statements with player description
c. third person description of character actions and statements

All three can make for immersive roleplaying, and I reward all three equally in my games.