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

[KarinsDad]

TO YOU, maybe.

Can we PLEASE knock the "It's not D&D" bs off?

To many people.

It's not bs if it results in lack of sales and loss of customer base. Deny it all you want. It's reality in the minds of thousands if not millions of customers.

And I'm merely explaining why people think that way. Calling it bs is all fine and well, but that ignores the issue instead of addressing it.


4E is a great game. It has a lot of great features and is a blast to play. But, it is so far from the roots of D&D that it isn't even funny.

 

[KarinsDad]

Disarm is very hard to pull off in practice. Sure it's a cinematic move - but most people keep a good hold of their weapon.

Even when unconscious on the ground in 4E.

 

[the Jester]

To many people.

And it doesn't matter how many people don't think 4e is D&D, it's still trolling for an edition war to throw that in a post here, and you know it very well.

It's not bs if it results in lack of sales and loss of customer base. Deny it all you want. It's reality in the minds of thousands if not millions of customers.

And it doesn't matter how many sales and customers are lost, it's still trolling for an edition war to throw that in a post here, and you know it very well.

And I'm merely explaining why people think that way.

Bull. You're asserting:

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

All you have to do to make this statement not an edition war troll is add "in my opinion" or "to me" to this statement.

4E is a great game. It has a lot of great features and is a blast to play. But, it is so far from the roots of D&D that it isn't even funny.

In your opinion. To you.

Right now, again, all you're doing is edition-war trolling, and I would love to see you stop. Why can't you respect the choices of other gamers without saying, in essence, "Well, that might be a fine game, but it's not D&D!" You can certainly express your opinions and explain where they come from in a way that isn't provocative just by adding four letters (IMHO) to that sentence!

You are no more the authority than I am on what "D&D" is, and we are both considerably less the authority than, say, the guys who work on the game for a living, own the IP and publish it. If they put out a simplified game of Risk and call it D&D, it's D&D, no matter how little you like it or even if nobody in the whole world likes it. The guy that owns the stuff and publishes the stuff decides what counts as the stuff.

To draw an apt comparison, just because you hate the Phantom Menace doesn't mean it isn't a Star Wars movie.

Saying that my game isn't D&D on this board is very close to a personal attack. And it's not just my game- it's the game of thousands of happy 4e players. The no-edition-warring rule is pretty soft here sometimes, but that doesn't mean you need to constantly probe it until you start a fight (not that I'm saying that's your intention, but c'mon, you've ridden this rodeo before- you know DAMN WELL that in the end "your game isn't D&D" doesn't do anything at all but start flame wars, and it certainly doesn't actually help engender civil discussion).

Especially when all it takes is "IMHO", why is it so hard to avoid the "Your game isn't D&D" bs? Seriously, is there some reason why adding "to me" or "in my opinion" is so offensive that you'd rather start (yet another!) flaming edition war than just add those few extra characters to your post? What is gained by being disrespectful to other playstyles? What is wrong with trying to be polite and trying not to provoke the other side of the discussion?

 

[Consonant Dude]

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

For the record, I don't like 4e and it's the only version of the game I go out of my way not to play but I read your list and a lot of it seems very arbitrary.

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.

Never liked level drain. I've played DnD for over 30 years and I don't go "OMG, this is so DnD" when I think of level drain. I find that aspect lame and am not gonna complain if it's not part of 5e.

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. They can also self heal during combat and sometimes even if the PC is unconscious. Physical damage is gone from the game and has been replaced with the equivalent of Champions STUN.

Hmm, sorry but DnD never did "physical damage" really well. It's not a "wounding" system and Hit Points, even in old school DnD represent all sorts of things, not just physical damage.

I believe it would be pretty easy to give DMs a "healing rate dial" that they could set depending on their campaign needs and preferences.

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.

Abilities are iconic to DnD. They are: STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA

I think powers work for spellcasting classes and I hope some of these ideas are tweaked and carried in 5e. I don't really like most of them or their implementation in 4th edition, though.

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.

Yeah well... I totally disagree. I think this is just a value judgment and a misguided one. I also think action point mechanics are one of the most elegant ways in ANY roleplaying system to do heroism (rather than superheroism) well so it's extremely ironic that you would want that sort of thing out of the game, cause it kinda defeats the point of your rant.

I was first introduced to action point mechanics in a very gritty system and they work well. And that bit about "player entitlement" is just judgmental and doesn't make sense.

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.

DnD was always a superhero game. It's just a matter of how fast you want to reach that point. Even in ADnD, the 5th level fighter can ignore a couple of archer trying to stop him at bay with bows and simply charge them with his sword. The 5th level Magic-user meanwhile can fly and shoot fireball off his butt. The 5th level cleric is able to perform several stunts straight off from the Jesus Christ Miracles School.

I think there are ways to improve on all editions but a lot of things you label as bad and "entitlement" are just your way of saying "it's not what I'm used to". Which is fine, you don't have to like it. But it comes off as insulting and very arbitrary.

But I personally would like to see DnD fine-tuned a little and there are several "iconic" elements of old DnD editions (such as death by house cat and level drain) that I don't want to see in 5th edition.

 

[Oldtimer]

Even when unconscious on the ground in 4E.

Could you point me to that rule in 4E? I must have missed it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Could you point me to that rule in 4E? I must have missed it.

I could point you to the lack of the rule.

 

[The Shadow]

Agreed that level drain is something I don't want to see back - it's just so silly and arbitrary. But I do also agree we need something that strikes similar terror.

My group's solution back in 2e was to have level-draining monsters drain ability scores instead. Con, as I recall. Since ability points were non-trivial to get back (they didn't come back naturally, as in 3e) this was appropriately terrifying. Plus, of course, Con drain could kill you without reference to hit points.

 

[Mattachine]

My group's solution back in 2e was to have level-draining monsters drain ability scores instead. Con, as I recall. Since ability points were non-trivial to get back (they didn't come back naturally, as in 3e) this was appropriately terrifying. Plus, of course, Con drain could kill you without reference to hit points.

Fourth edition has monsters and effects that drain healing surges. It's the equivalent mechanic, and it is very scary in play. If you have no healing surges left, you simply lose 25% of your original hp. Ouch.

In addition to being able to kill your PC quickly if he is already tapped out (few or no surges left), attacks that drain healing surges make it tough for your PC to continue onward.

.
.
.

Anyway, I am happy to read the reports, and I am even happier to read the author's responses on this thread. Please keep it up.

 

[Bohemian Ear Spoon]

"Makes it difficult to continue on" until they've had a nap, you mean.

 

[Neonchameleon]

"Makes it difficult to continue on" until they've had a nap, you mean.

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!)