Forked Thread: Name exactly what 4E is "missing"

[The_Gneech]

Unless you change it. Or make your own. From what I read, you liked the earlier editions because you could create your own stuff and put it into the game. That's a bit harder now, as classes take a bit more work. But certainly there's nothing stopping you.

Well, it's the more work that irks me. In 3E, tweaking a concept via class combos was easy (at least for me), even just using the core 11 classes. If I have to build stuff from scratch, I'd be better off using HERO, which is designed to work that way. In 4E, I'm fighting against the system to do what I want.

-The Gneech

 

[Mercule]

Granted they were 20th level, but NO PC should command 20 minutes per turn playing 2-3 different characters at the same time.

I can appreciate that 3e was possible to totally abuse, in this regard, even if I've never seen it myself. What I'm really wanting is some boundaries, but not a straight jacket. A middle ground, if you will.

Look at the barbarian writeup posted the other day: "You use powerful two-handed weapons to deal serious damage to your enemies. ... even at the start of your career, the primal spirits of the world infuse your body with vigor. At higher levels, the primal spirits flow more freely through you and your weapons, creating effects that are more obviously supernatural..."

So ... barbarians are druids that wield two-handed weapons. WTF?

Or, they're actually holding to a lot of real world models. The Viking berserkers were supposedly possessed by bear spirits in combat. Pretty much every tribal/shamanistic culture has something similar.

I really wouldn't expect much different for a Primal barbarian and am pretty happy with the flavor. Especially when compared to the 3e barbarian which was pretty bland.

If you want Conan, you probably want a Martial-driven character. Most likely a fighter with some heavy dipping into rogue.

 

[Gundark]

To me, 4E is no longer freeform when it comes to decision-making on the DM's part. [...] I do miss the "loose and fast" decisionmaking from previous editions.

to me 4e means I can make quick decisions, moreso than previous editions

Me being young.

hah!...QFT

 

[The_Gneech]

Or, they're actually holding to a lot of real world models. The Viking berserkers were supposedly possessed by bear spirits in combat. Pretty much every tribal/shamanistic culture has something similar.

I really wouldn't expect much different for a Primal barbarian and am pretty happy with the flavor. Especially when compared to the 3e barbarian which was pretty bland.

If you want Conan, you probably want a Martial-driven character. Most likely a fighter with some heavy dipping into rogue.

I don't get how the 3E barb was bland and the 4E barb isn't blander still. As for real-world models, that's as may be, but I've been talking all along (or trying to, at least) about inclusiveness here. To quote a friend of mine who commented in my LJ...

A previous D&D version barbarian might be used for anything from a tribe of feral pre-humans, to a warrior from a tribe in africa, to a marauding hun, to a highland scottish warrior, to Conan, to every dwarf who has taken drunken, improvised, astonishingly effective double-fisted axe-flailing to a professional level.

All of this marvelous roleplaying potential in both combat and social interactions would be discarded in favor of one blanket explanation which reads kinda like a thinly veiled attempt to justify "Fighter mana".

-The Gneech

 

[Mercule]

Summoners, if they ever appear, will likely work like the Figurines of Wondrous Power in AV. The summoner spends minor actions to give his summoned creature any action, subject to the normal limit of one standard, one move, and one minor action. So a summoner could hang back and cast a spell (standard action), and then command his creation to move (minor -> move) and attack (minor -> standard).

This is also my expectation, which is why I said 4e is missing a "good" summoner.

AV Figurines are a great example of how to botch summoning mechanics. The philosophy behind the mechanics is absolutely wrong-headed. Any mechanic derived from that philosophy will be a bad mechanic.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

I've looked at 4e (and played it). I find it quite different in play from other editions. I can't work out if I have a prejudice for the earlier editions/styles of play as that's what I grew up with or whether it's something else.

Locally, getting people to player earlier editions (e.g. 1st) can be difficult as a lot of them grew up with more recent versions, and they like to play what's 'current' and supported (with product). They also don't want to shift systems if it's actually 'D&D' ("Why should we play an old/less supported version of 'D&D' ?"). Fair enough it's a personal choice.

I considered pitching OD&D/1e again, but now I think, "heck with it", I'm just going to offer "Dungeons & Delvers" in Call of Cthulhu via a gateway to the Dreamlands and use some of the old 'D&D' scenarios on the fly. That'll offer High Fantasy with a good dose of "Oh My God!" thrown in.

I'm not sure what 4e is 'missing' but for me at least, combat feels far too mechanistic. I guess I like combat a little bit more 'fast & loose', but each to their own, there's enough editions to suit most styles of play (as long as you can find the players). Meanwhile...

Onward Delvers!

 

[Fifth Element]

I dont think anyone is saying that someone, with a bit of d20 experience or with due diligence, cant build an effective character organically, without the pre-planning.

In fact, the post I was responding to said "Spontaneity? Gone. Organic character growth? Zilch." No shades of grey there.

I certainly agree that 3E characters can require a lot more advance planning, especially for certain Prestige Classes. But that's more true if you're concerned about the character's "effectiveness" and less true if you're not too worried about "balance".

 

[Remathilis]

When everyone's special, no one is.

Isn't that a polite way of saying "Wizards, druids and clerics should rule the game after level 5 and fighters, bards and rogues can sit in the back of the class with the safety scissors & the glue?"

While I'm not sure the at-will/encounter/daily structure was the best method of equalizing power between the classes, I'm certain setting fighters at "weak but infinite repeatable attacks" and wizards at "super-strong but daily-limited" doesn't work, esp when wizards get enough "daily" attacks to reasonably keep pace with fighters round per round.

(You want to really make magic rare-but-powerful, go back to true Vancian magic; six spells per day TOTAL, but no limit on power level).

 

[Ydars]

Love about 4E; the ease of DMing

Hate; 4E is not one game; it is TWO. The first is the Roleplaying game and the second is the tactical board-game and the two don't gel very well. Not that 3E was a great deal better but somehow the balance seemed more customisable.

 

[Korgoth]

Summoners, if they ever appear, will likely work like the Figurines of Wondrous Power in AV. The summoner spends minor actions to give his summoned creature any action, subject to the normal limit of one standard, one move, and one minor action. So a summoner could hang back and cast a spell (standard action), and then command his creation to move (minor -> move) and attack (minor -> standard).

Ugh. I'm really glad I'm not playing 4E then. It sounds impossible to have a proper necromancer.