D&D 4E Forked Thread: Some Thoughts on 4e

[KarinsDad]

The difference, I'd say, is that now *all* classes have a Batman Utility Belt, instead of a single class having it and all others just being spectators.

Spectators? All others?

I think this is an exaggeration. WotC is really trying to convince people that people who played Rogues and Barbarians and Fighters were not actually having fun for the last 30 years.

Those players did not have a utility belt, so WotC gave everyone a small utility belt and did not care that players of Clerics and Wizards had their utility belt decimated in combat.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people like big utility belts and feel like the game is homogenous when everyone has the small utility belt and every combat choice is similar.

 

[chitzk0i]

Spectators? All others?

I think this is an exaggeration.

Were you ever in a party with a wizard who used time stop to cast two meteor swarms? Yeah, CubeKnight is exaggerating some, but there's still merit to his statement.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

My favorite thing about Wizards in 3.5 was that they were so versatile. Of course, the versatility certainly led to an overpowered aspect, but as long as they were kept in check I found it wasn't too bad. With 4e it seems like virtually every ability is damage with some mundane effect added on, then some dailies are really awesome, and some seems kind of lackluster. Take sleep for example - it MIGHT hit a target and slow them meaning next round they MIGHT fall asleep and very rarely they'll sleep for more than just that one round. Assuming a 50% hit chance, that means 1 in 2 targets will be slowed, 1 in 4 will go asleep for one round, 1 in 8 will be asleep for two, etc. Ultimately this means that, once per day, you can buy maybe one round against at best half the enemies you're fighting (most likely less), while potentially doing the same to any allies in the area. And after this you just go back to spamming your at-will of choice. It seems like Wizards went from this really versatile, powerful class to a class that just spams AE damage abilities with your options basically consisting of various ways to deal somewhat equal damage in the same relative area size. :/

In terms of combat I've definitely noticed a level of repetitiveness with 4e. I've only played a few sessions but one person basically zones out until it's their turn and just uses twin strike (not really any better options anyway), and the encounters come off as pretty much the same no matter the situation. I'm hoping this is due to having less options at lower levels but it seems like there really aren't a whole lot of choices in combat (and most choices made are pretty irrelevant - "Oh, I pushed him three squares! Err, wait, he can easily walk back next turn... and for all I know this may even benefit him. Huh.")

 

[Mad Hamish]

In terms of combat I've definitely noticed a level of repetitiveness with 4e. I've only played a few sessions but one person basically zones out until it's their turn and just uses twin strike (not really any better options anyway), and the encounters come off as pretty much the same no matter the situation. I'm hoping this is due to having less options at lower levels but it seems like there really aren't a whole lot of choices in combat (and most choices made are pretty irrelevant - "Oh, I pushed him three squares! Err, wait, he can easily walk back next turn... and for all I know this may even benefit him. Huh.")

a) what were the options that an equivalent 3rd ed character had?

What did

b) Split the Tree & the encounter power that lets you shift wisdom squares before or after the shot get a fair bit of use from me as well.

 

[Mad Hamish]

In terms of combat I've definitely noticed a level of repetitiveness with 4e. I've only played a few sessions but one person basically zones out until it's their turn and just uses twin strike (not really any better options anyway), and the encounters come off as pretty much the same no matter the situation. I'm hoping this is due to having less options at lower levels but it seems like there really aren't a whole lot of choices in combat (and most choices made are pretty irrelevant - "Oh, I pushed him three squares! Err, wait, he can easily walk back next turn... and for all I know this may even benefit him. Huh.")

a) what were the options that an equivalent 3rd ed character had?

What did an archer or melee character do in 3rd ed that the 4th ed Ranger can't

b) Split the Tree & the encounter power that lets you shift wisdom squares before or after the shot get a fair bit of use from me as well.

c) There are times when moving the opponent are gold, there are times when it isn't. Certainly moving him into a flanked position for a rogue is a nice benefit as an example, moving them into difficult or dangerous terrain...

 

[ProdigalTim]

I've only been playing dnd for a few years now, and only 3.5 at that, but one thing I've really enjoyed about the game was exactly that which many people are hyping as the best change in 4th edition: lack of balance. For instance: what was the point of rolling for abilities in previous editions rather than simply allocating points a la 4.0? In my opinion, to create a lack of balance between characters in the group and between characters and their environment that led to RP tension between those with awesome stats and those with mediocre stats as well as forcing those in the second camp to either find ways around their limitations - or suck up to those more gifted than they. This to me brings an element of immersiveness that may be lacking in 4th edition: the characters in 3.5 don't all seem as if they've dropped from the heavens fully formed and ready to kill, but have flaws and vulnerabilities that they may never overcome even with optimal feat/skill placement - characters feel alive more, somehow, than mine did when we did a 4.0 playtest campaign.

I see the same paradigm reflected in the homogenization of the classes. One of my characters in 3.5 was an artificer - and I loved the fact that I couldn't directly cast any magic but instead had to deal damage, in the absence of constructs to attack, almost exclusively through my (at the time modest) magic items and my Spell Storing Item infusion. In a given day, I knew going in that I would only be able to 'directly' cast literally 3 arcane/divine spells (through my spell-stored pseudo wands - and that only at the cost of XP) in addition to my bull's strength/armor enhancement type infusions - and so I had to scour the spellbooks and PH to find spells that would be particularly effective in a given scenario. And if I wasted those spells on something only to end up in another fight later I didn't have any 'at-wills' to fall back on outside of my modest crossbow/morningstar skillz - and I loved it. That feeling of panic/fear in such a situation - where one's machinations suddenly seem so small - is the essence of gaming to me. I loved not always having an unlimited amount of energy to hurl at the enemy.

Don't get me wrong - after our current 3.5 campaign ends, my groups going to do 4th for a while, and I think it's going to be fun as hell. But that's because we've decided to embrace the encounter-oriented 'socialist' mentality of 4th and are planning on playing as a wholly evil group of bandit-types out for slaughter and pillage. No stealth or illusion for us.

 

[Vayden]

That was one of the great appeals of 3.x - the smarter you as a player were, the more the game rewarded you. If you could twink your fighter out well enough (multi-class, prestige class, broken little feat combos, etc), you were going to destroy other fighters. If you'd carefully picked the right spell or magic item, you were going to defeat the challenge. I won't deny that's very appealing in some ways, and it's definitely missing from 4e (maybe missing a bit too much). I know I've been frustrated quite a few times in 4e to have all my skill with the game get reduced to how well I can roll a d20 at this particular pivotal moment.

But at the same time, the gap between those of us who work hard at the game and master it, and our friends who just show up once a week to play and never crack a book outside of that has narrowed immensely, and it's nice to all be playing the same game again. And you still have little moments that reward smart play, they're just more frequently in the combat itself instead of the character building and pre-combat selection, and the rewards aren't as big as they used to be. It's a fair trade.

 

[LostSoul]

You cannot see the difference there? Now, it's fire, fire, fire. Before, one could use spells a LOT more creatively.

I guess you missed my post about the pit fight.

 

[KarinsDad]

I guess you missed my post about the pit fight.

Well, other than the fact that you changed that spell from a tiny minor single object image to a significant illusion of moving creatures that could affect combat, I didn't miss the point. The point is that you had to stretch the capabilities of the spell in order to get it to do anything in combat.

With Illusions, I still had tons more options in 3.5.

I stand by my statement:

"Before, one could use spells a LOT more creatively."

 

[LostSoul]

Well, other than the fact that you changed that spell from a tiny minor single object image to a significant illusion of moving creatures that could affect combat, I didn't miss the point. The point is that you had to stretch the capabilities of the spell in order to get it to do anything in combat.

I don't believe we streched the capabilities of the spell.

What we did was use the PC's resources (Prestidigitation) to create some colour/fluff text to give a satisfying fictional justification for applying the base mechanics. (Yes, I didn't realize the limitation of minor single object, but one rat would have been enough justification for me to say yes.)

Then we used the base mechanics (attack vs. defense) in order to get a result.

The result - the spider attacks the ogre.