D&D 4E First Impressions of 4E / Predictions on 5E

[cwhs01]

Feeling to play in a living, breathing world without any artificial barriers because of rules.

You mean like level limits on skills, vancian spellcasting, CR systems, expected wealth-by-level etc? or the "level" aproach to character advancement?

Seems that 4e actually try to get rid of most of these or simplify them. What i have seen and heard of 4e indicates they emphasize narativist and gamist styles more than catering to simulationist play. They also assure us that the game elements will be easier and faster than 3x. All of which imo is perfect for a heroic fantasy rpg.

And the "realistic play" in earlier editions broke down after level 1 or 2.

 

[Belphanior]

Those are my impressions of 4E and I am not alone with them. If you don't agree with them, fine. But don't accuse me of spreading lies especially when you don't even try to understand them.

But your impressions are wrong. As I have shown (and now cwhs01 too), pre-4e isn't "without any artificial barriers because of rules". 4e is not becoming something that D&D never was in this respect. We back this up with facts and show it to you. You're either not looking at those fact or your impressions are so entrenched they somehow endure to form your opinion despite of them. Neither is very conductive to a healthy conversation.

If you had shown me an example where 4e and computer games clearly are incapable of something that older D&D editions aren't, I'd concede the point instead of insisting it's my opinion.

Opinions aren't inviolate. Especially when based on demonstably false beliefs.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Derren, Steely Dan - may I suggest that you either use your manual ignore feature or the boards built-in ignore feature to ignore each other for a short while?

Thanks.

 

[Derren]

You mean like level limits on skills, vancian spellcasting, CR systems, expected wealth-by-level etc? or the "level" aproach to character advancement?

Seems that 4e actually try to get rid of most of these or simplify them. What i have seen and heard of 4e indicates they emphasize narativist and gamist styles more than catering to simulationist play. They also assure us that the game elements will be easier and faster than 3x. All of which imo is perfect for a heroic fantasy rpg.

And the "realistic play" in earlier editions broke down after level 1 or 2.

Instead I get (it it works like saga) automatic leveling skills where everyone can do anything without training, a role framework and level limits on magical items.

In 4E many things which were just suggestions in 3E will be in some way hardcoded into the rules. That is good for balance but bad for a "simulation". Why can't a 9th level character not benefit from a ring? Why can adventurers do everything equally without putting training into it?
Or in the case of monsters the question comes up how a monster does something out of the combat when it does not have an ability for it?

3E was by no means perfect, but 4E will be worse. The style of play 4E seems to advocate is something like a action movie. You have the good guys, a simple plot which explains why they fight the bad guys, some mooks which are only there to be killed by the hero(es) and a BBEG with lots of flashy moves.
That is fine and for the most people fun. But I want more from a PnP game. I want to have a world which doesn't feel as if it is only a simple framework for an action adventure. I want that in this world nothing happens "just because it fits the adventure" but that there is a explanation behind it.
In 4E it will require a lot more effort to get such a gaming world because to make it faster and easier to create an "action adventure" a lot of tools needed to explain things are being removed.

But your impressions are wrong. As I have shown (and now cwhs01 too), pre-4e isn't "without any artificial barriers because of rules". 4e is not becoming something that D&D never was in this respect. We back this up with facts and show it to you. You're either not looking at those fact or your impressions are so entrenched they somehow endure to form your opinion despite of them. Neither is very conductive to a healthy conversation.

If you had shown me an example where 4e and computer games clearly are incapable of something that older D&D editions aren't, I'd concede the point instead of insisting it's my opinion.

Opinions aren't inviolate. Especially when based on demonstably false beliefs.

The problem is that you are thinking in absolutes. 3E certainly was not a "simulationist heaven" and 4E is not a "MMO on paper". But in order to capture a cinematic feel 4E slides into a direction which makes it harder for me to have really enjoyable adventures (many people will of course disagree as they have a different taste). And thats why for me 4E doesn't look very good.

If you are into PC games you might understand this analogy.
Take Crysis and Call of Duty 4. CoD4 has small levels which railroad you more or less and force you to advance under fire (enemies respawn until you reach a checkpoint). It also has lots of scripting which makes it have very good atmosphere.
Crysis has big, open levels where you can go where you want and solve your mission in different way. If you want to snipe every enemy on the map you can do it and the enemy stays dead so if you do that you won't face much resistance for the rest of the mission. Also Crysis includes a lot less scripting.
Many people prefer CoD4 because of the atmosphere. I prefer Crysis because it does not railroad me and has silly things like continously respawning enemies till I reach a checkpoint.
And 4E is moving more into the direction of CoD4.

 

[Belphanior]

Instead I get (it it works like saga) automatic leveling skills where everyone can do anything without training, a role framework and level limits on magical items.

Shifting goalposts. You started with "without any artificial barriers because of rules" and are now at "the artificial barriest because of rules are different and I don't like the new ones". I'm not going to have a conversation with you if you keep altering your opinion to be contrary.

Furthermore, if you read SWSaga again, you'll find that skill training is still a very important element. Not everyone can do anything without training. Try to reprogram a droid or slice a terminal without Use Computer training. You can't do it.

The role framework was always there. It's just admitted this time.

Magic items don't seem to have level limits. Only rings do. We have yet to see the flavortext to justify this and the powers of the 4e rings, so I'm withholding judgment for now.

In 4E many things which were just suggestions in 3E will be in some way hardcoded into the rules. That is good for balance but bad for a "simulation". Why can't a 9th level character not benefit from a ring? Why can adventurers do everything equally without putting training into it?

We don't know about the ring. Read the DMG when it comes out. Maybe they'll have a really good story for it. And the skill comment... is just wrong. Training is still needed, ability scores and racial adjustments ensure not everybody is equal.

Or in the case of monsters the question comes up how a monster does something out of the combat when it does not have an ability for it?

Can you please elaborate with a specific example? I'm unsure what you're talking about.

In 4E it will require a lot more effort to get such a gaming world because to make it faster and easier to create an "action adventure" a lot of tools needed to explain things are being removed.

... huh? :\
I don't get it. What tools? Which explanations? Did 3e have a default "reason the orcs are invading" table I missed or something? I really don't know what you mean here.

The problem is that you are thinking in absolutes. 3E certainly was not a "simulationist heaven" and 4E is not a "MMO on paper". But in order to capture a cinematic feel 4E slides into a direction which makes it harder for me to have really enjoyable adventures (many people will of course disagree as they have a different taste). And thats why for me 4E doesn't look very good.

When you say "without any artificial barriers because of rules" that is a pretty absolute statement. I can only respond to what you say.

Now, I completely accept that 4e might not have the feeling you're looking for in a D&D game. That's fine. This is an opinion that I'm not going to touch. And I genuinely think this is a shame. But even if 4e doesn't look good for you, please don't make statements about it that are untrue.

 

[Fifth Element]

Derren, if you're going to keep posting to this thread you should really respond to the criticisms that have been offered to your position. You keep insisting that your opinion is correct, but when someone points out that 3E had a lot of rules restrictions, for example, you ignore them, and continue to insist that 4E will have rules restrictions, and that makes 4E bad.

 

[Derren]

Shifting goalposts. You started with "without any artificial barriers because of rules" and are now at "the artificial barriest because of rules are different and I don't like the new ones". I'm not going to have a conversation with you if you keep altering your opinion to be contrary.

Its more like: The artificial barriers of 4E are worse and more numerous than in 3E.

Furthermore, if you read SWSaga again, you'll find that skill training is still a very important element. Not everyone can do anything without training. Try to reprogram a droid or slice a terminal without Use Computer training. You can't do it.

]

I don't have SAGA myself but how it was explained to me is that you can't spend skillpoints but your skills increase as you gain a level automatically, with the ability to get "trained" feats in certain skills (here I heard conflicting things as some people say that it is quite hard to get training in a non class skill in SAGA while others say that class skills in SAGA don't exist).

That means that every fighter of equal level will be equally good in everything unless he is trained in it. To use 3E skills as an example every 10th level fighter would have a (i guess) +5 on ride be it a phalanx fighter who never sat on a horse before, a skirmisher, a archer or a men at arms. The only one who is better is a knight who is trained in riding.

If thats how it will work in 4E then it will be impossible to be not good at something at higher level. And that is a problem for me. Sure, its easier to balance, but what if I don't want my PC to be good at riding?
Just not riding a horse while having a +5 or higher ride skill is a bad solution imo

The role framework was always there. It's just admitted this time.

Yes, but it is much more concrete in 4E than in 3E. Tell me, what is the role of a fighter in 3E? i had the freedom to make a defender/tank or use charger build to make the fighter a striker. Even a Controller build with the spiked chain was possible.
Now in 4E this roles are spelled out and you can expect that the things a class can do is more limited to this role. Fighters are defenders, so most of their abilities will revolve around defending. It will be quite hard, either by rules or group pressure or a combination of them, to play a striker or controller fighter.

Magic items don't seem to have level limits. Only rings do. We have yet to see the flavortext to justify this and the powers of the 4e rings, so I'm withholding judgment for now.

One magic item is still worse than no magic item.
Why is it necessary to limit rings that way? Why not simply suggest that rings are only suitable for adventures of paragon level or above? Why hardcode this limit into the rules?

Can you please elaborate with a specific example? I'm unsure what you're talking about.

I'm talking about monsters loosing out of combat abilities. In 3E having a demon in the area which has Animate Dead as at will ability could lead to a "automatic plot hook" by having the demon raise fallen creature and spread havoc. When I want to have this sort of adventure in 4E I will likely have to rule 0 that this demon can animate undead. Sure, houseruling is easy but I can always do that even if the demon does have spelled out out of combat abilities. It just means that I as DM have more work to do as I have to houserule everything so that it fits together.

... huh? :\
I don't get it. What tools? Which explanations? Did 3e have a default "reason the orcs are invading" table I missed or something? I really don't know what you mean here.

Tools like the out of combat abilities of monsters or defined abilities of NPCs.
Or tools how to make two PCs distinct from each other by them having different abilities. While this will certainly be possible in 4E, because of roles and automatic skills the distinction will be less than what is doable now.

When you say "without any artificial barriers because of rules" that is a pretty absolute statement. I can only respond to what you say.

That was intended as a response to "Next, please list the things you don't get in computer games (but wanted to get)".
So I don't want to say what 3E in my opinion did, but what my vision of a perfect game is.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

How can this thread still be open?

 

[Khaim]

Can you please elaborate with a specific example? I'm unsure what you're talking about.

I think he's referring to the removal of all the random SLAs from high-level monsters. The argument is that while such abilities didn't affect combat much, they helped explain why a demon is so powerful, or why a mind flayer has so many slaves, etc.

My response would be that you don't need explicit mechanics to explain that stuff, and if anything, they limit your ability to explain a villain's capabilities. If the Mind Flayer has a well-defined mind control ability, then the players are going to catch you when he has too many slaves. If he doesn't, you're free to add as few or as many as you like to fit the story.

Also, rituals.

 

[Khaim]

That means that every fighter of equal level will be equally good in everything unless he is trained in it. To use 3E skills as an example every 10th level fighter would have a (i guess) +5 on ride be it a phalanx fighter who never sat on a horse before, a skirmisher, a archer or a men at arms. The only one who is better is a knight who is trained in riding.

True, except they're also exactly as good as the wizard (barring ability modifiers, of course). And you know what? I think that all of them aren't very good at all.

If thats how it will work in 4E then it will be impossible to be not good at something at higher level. And that is a problem for me. Sure, its easier to balance, but what if I don't want my PC to be good at riding?
Just not riding a horse while having a +5 or higher ride skill is a bad solution imo

I have to ask- why don't you want to be good at riding? Except replace "good" with "passable". These aren't random passersby we're talking about, these are the heroes. And not just any heroes: mid to high-level ones. You're shaping the flow of history, and you can't ride a horse? To be honest, 4e's solution sounds a lot more "realistic" than yours.

Yes, it's impossible to not be good at something at high level. I fail to see why this is a problem. You're high level, you should be half-way good at everything.

Yes, but it is much more concrete in 4E than in 3E. Tell me, what is the role of a fighter in 3E? i had the freedom to make a defender/tank or use charger build to make the fighter a striker. Even a Controller build with the spiked chain was possible.
Now in 4E this roles are spelled out and you can expect that the things a class can do is more limited to this role. Fighters are defenders, so most of their abilities will revolve around defending. It will be quite hard, either by rules or group pressure or a combination of them, to play a striker or controller fighter.

Not true. It sounds like a 2-hand weapon fighter is still a fairly good "striker"-type, although not as good as a full striker. Alternatively: don't play a fighter! If you're so caught up in your own stereotype that you identify with the class name instead of its purpose, then gosh. Sucks for you. But I'll be over here playing my Swordmaster (or whatever) and having a blast, while you're complaining that your Martial Defender is too much of a defender. Well, duh.

As for group pressure: well, that's between you and your group. Really.