Finally got the 4e core books

[Scribble]

From what I've read today it seems that those who love 4e are those who never divert from the rules. Those who hate it are those who use the books more as a guideline. Is this a fair statement?

This does not describe me, so anecdotaly, no it's not?

 

[BryonD]

Encouraged. We´re not all experienced DMs. It´s better that the corebooks spell this out.

So you are saying that 4e is the game for inexperienced DMs and 3E is the game for experienced DMs?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Encouraged. We´re not all experienced DMs. It´s better that the corebooks spell this out.

I cannot tell you how many times I've argued that the 3e books should have done a better job on this.....Only to be told that I didn't know what I was talking about (by many of the same people now championing it, to boot!). However, I disagree with Lost Soul's analysis; rules still seem very much the king in 4e to me. At least in terms of using mundane manuvers in combat.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Mercule]

You don't say?

Right. It just sucks, for me.

Whether or not 4e does or doesn't has yet to be seen.

 

[LostSoul]

So what you're saying is that 3e didn't need a system overhaul so much as your DM just needed to be given explicit permission to take charge of his game.

Not saying that, so much, as that 3e doesn't have as much support for this, and how do it in a fair way.

I mean - do I allow ranged attacks to disarm people, or trip? Okay, but what if someone has taken the feat that's there to allow that sort of thing?

This points to a different philosophy when playing.

edit:

Let me throw down some actual play experiences. I don't have much, but I have played a few times.

In the first game, one of the PCs tried to do an Acrobatic stunt. Spoilers for Kobold Hall - the DMG adventure - follow:

[sblock=Kobold Hall Spoilers]In the rock throwing room, one of the PCs tried to jump on the rope that was flying around, sail across the room, and kick the kobold who was going to catch the rope.

This was an Acrobatic stunt, but it failed because the DCs were still messed up.

In 3e, I guess I would have resolved it using a Jump or Tumble check, then an attack roll at the end.

The difference is that I have to apply the precise mechanics to something they were not meant for vs. rolling a skill check.[/sblock]

In the second game I ran, a PC tried to convince some human rabble to flee using a Diplomacy check vs. Will, doing standard damage (1d6+3 for level 1).

In 3e, I have no idea how I would handle this. There is no standard table for basic damage by level.

In the last game I ran, a PC tried to knock a guard prone and silence him. This was resolved as a Dex attack vs. AC - Dex because of how the player described the action. He succeeded.

In 3e, this is flatly impossible unless you break the grapple and trip rules and want to nerf casters.

So anyways, my own personal experience is that 4e is much more flexible and much more concerned with what's going on in the fiction than 3e was.

 

[Scribble]

So you are saying that 4e is the game for inexperienced DMs and 3E is the game for experienced DMs?

3e is easier to DM if you are an experienced DM.

 

[Jhaelen]

From what I've read today it seems that those who love 4e are those who never divert from the rules. Those who hate it are those who use the books more as a guideline. Is this a fair statement?

Uh, no. Not at all. Actually, I'd almost say it's the other way around. Which indicates neither is correct.

I think 4E turns D&D into a better game. That's what most people seem to like or dislike about it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm fighting some orcs in a bar. One of them is near enough the wizard to charge, and I, the Fighter, am too far away to block him.

So I pick up a barstool and throw it at the orc, hoping to trip him.


3e? I cannot do this without the Ranged Trip feat, from one of the splat books; in the core, I just can't do this.

4e? I can do this, as long as the DM allows it. The DMG is full of advice telling the DM to allow it, and guidelines for resolving it.

In 3e, the rules define the world, and what is plausible within it; in 4e, this is the DM's job, who should take care to say yes to the cool ideas of the players.

Is that an improvement or not? Depends on how you like to play.

You could do this with every edition ever printed. 3E did go a little too far in trying to define everything that you could possibly do with a rule and that wasn't a good thing. 4E is attempting to go back to the days of "let the DM decide" on one hand and smacking you with the mega-thick " heres a zillion pages of exactly what you can and cannot do" on the other.

4E is split like this because of 3E. We end up with the worst of both worlds, a game burdened with too many fiddly little rules that tries to tell the DM to just make stuff up.

If we embrace the DM freedom why did we pay all that money for these huge rulebooks?

If we love detailed coverage of all game events by the rules why is there an annoying snippet of advice telling us make something up at a critical juncture when a detailed mechanic is called for?

Does anyone here who supports the 4E "power back to the DM" design concept remember all the "mother may I" arguments that flew back and forth during 3E rules discussions?

 

[Foundry of Decay]

If its not for you, fine, sell the books.

Classes work radically differently (Martial classes with powers, etc). Diseases work differently, vancian magic is gone, poisons work differently, planes work differently, saving throws work differently, defenses work differently, armor no longer the solitary defense, monsters work radically differently, ECL abolished, CR abolished, monster creation easier and works differently, XP works differently, 30 levels instead of 20, level tiers introduced, ritual casting, artifacts work differently, magic items work differently, magic item creation works differently, auras work differently, fear works differently, overhaul to the death and dying rules now works very differently, healing surges introduced, healing changed, hit points work differently, core races changed, templates work differently, abolished the Prestige Class, core assumptions work differently, DM's Toolbox introduced, thievery works differently, traps work differently, quest rewards now a part of the core rules, Its now possible to reward social encounters with xp as well as run them as a mechanic if you so prefer, skills work differently, feats work differently..

Do I need to go on? Precisely what radical changes are needed to warrant a new edition then? Fantasy rules for making ice cream? Gnomes given stats for giving foot rubs?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In the last game I ran, a PC tried to knock a guard prone and silence him. This was resolved as a Dex attack vs. AC - Dex because of how the player described the action. He succeeded.

In 3e, this is flatly impossible unless you break the grapple and trip rules and want to nerf casters.

I'm really not sure I understand you here.

It seems to me that if I'm a kobold, every attack I make against the PC wizard is going to be a DEX attack vs. his AC to trip his ass and silence him.

In fact I'm at a loss to figure out why I wouldn't use that on everybody. It's going to be one huge scrum of flailing legs and gagged mouths.

So you are saying that 4e is the game for inexperienced DMs and 3E is the game for experienced DMs?

It's not that 4e is "dumbed down;" it just doesn't ask as much of the DM and does a little more hand-holding. That's not a bad thing-- that's a good thing.

But it doesn't exactly explain where the Great Wheel went...

3e is easier to DM if you are an experienced DM.

4e is easier to stomach if you aren't.