D&D 4E Got to play 4E today
- Thread starter Thulcondar
- Start date
Baron Opal
First Post
4e is like tofu?
skipdog172
First Post
FitzTheRuke said:
QFT
FitzTheRuke said:
Having not seen the final DMG, I don't know what it provides for RP related tools; thus, as indicated, I reserve judgment on such until I see the final.
The rules might (potentially, not saying it is so) negatively impact RP if a player attempts an RP action (particularly in the middle of combat) and there is no method of objectively resolving the particular action. Many DMs would make up a method for resolving such on the spot, while a less experienced DM might resort to consulting the book on how to handle the situation. Lacking a suitable reference, the DM might simply say "You can't do that right now," which might turn out badly for the characters.
I'm not so much concerned with how such will be handled by experienced DMs, but rather by inexperienced DMs - the new customers 4e hopes to attract.
Another way the system can negatively affect RP has to do with time management. 4e certainly seems much easier to manage than 3.x, which should allow more time for RP. DMs would be well advised to take advantage of the time savings and invest in story rather than adding combat-only encounters.
I am eager to see how the DMG addresses such. I am not prejudging, just anticipating a potential issue that I hope has been adequately covered in a manner that will be clear to new DMs and with sufficient objectivity for tournament play.
Much has been said about the combat system, which has some very nice features, but very little (by comparison) has been released concerning role-playing elements. I would like to see more info from WotC regarding such. I remain open to the prospect that a few magic words might dispel my apprehension instantly.
BTW, I'm just posting my observations based on what I've seen so far first-hand about 4e balanced against many years of experience with previous versions. I'm just trying to be informative, not combative, so don't take any of this as bait for an argument.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
BlindOgre said:
While I'm sure you mean this sincerely, your discussion so far sounds more like "Unless the DMG proves me wrong, I believe 4E will be bad for RP" rather than "I don't know either way until I read the DMG"
BlindOgre said:
Me too! I've DM'd 14 games of 4E now for 29 different players. Based on that experience and many years of DMing, I'm pretty sure that RP is in good hands in 4E, and you will be sastisfied if you read the books with an open mind.
I am, however, sure that one could read the books and still come to a preconceived conclusion if they were so inclined. Like the WoW arguement for example. You will find many, many similarities if you look for them, most notably because WoW was entirely inspired by D&D in the first place. The designers simply "took back" things that work well.
Fitz
Last edited:
Nytmare
David Jose
I think that what is more important, and furthermore what would make a statement like that valid, is to back up the statement with, if not facts, at least what it is that makes you come to that conclusion. Saying, "I think that 4E is like WoW" is not, in and of itself, valid. It's an empty statement that needs to be explained.Korgoth said:
As a whole, Enworld has seen its fair share of claims that 4th is going to be like WoW for one reason or another, and I don't think that any of those claims have stood up to any real scrutiny.
As a side note, food metaphors are always valid.
FitzTheRuke said:
Your interpretation is not accurate. I said no such thing. I simply foresee a potential issue and have expressed hope that it will be adequately addressed in the DMG. In fact, I believe nothing. I either know or do not know. I can, at best, anticipate based on experience, but am quite open to the possibility of such anticipation being deemed unwarranted.
FitzTheRuke said:
How else does one read a book? Reading a book without an open mind seems rather a pointless waste of time. I feel somewhat insulted that you would suggest I might have a closed mind when I have repeatedly expressed the opposite. I have no preconceived conclusions and never said so - I have justly conceived questions that have yet to be answered. BTW, I've only played in one 4e demo, but I've been a DM for (holy crud) 34 years. So, I'm not quite a hapless rube.
FitzTheRuke said:
Well, that's all quite obvious. But I'm not yet sure about the "things that work well." They may be things that are popular, but popularity is seldom an indicator of quality.
I must leave this for now. Life intrudes. Acknowledge that someone can have a legitimate and well-considered concern with which you may disagree and leave it respectfully at that. Have fun, and try to not take this all so seriously.
Jack99 said:Haven't seen one yet (yes, I realize that I am not the one you asked). 4e is teh win, it's faster, sleeker, smarter and better than all the previous editions put together..
So what you mean to tell me is, that the OP's opinion based around impressions gleaned from an actual play session with the game...is completely invalid?
Is this what you're telling me?
Not having played WoW that much, I can't really compare it. But when I tried it, I did think it was a lot like DnD. Only without any roleplaying at all.
Thulcondar, I know where you're coming from. I started playing only a few years after you did. I've done 0E, 1E and 2E but then I went on to 3E, 3.5E and now, it looks like I'll move on to 4E. I think 3E improves on a lot of things 1E and 2E struggled with but 4E, like a few people have said, from my experiences playing and DMing has quite a bit to offer over 1E.
1E & 2E were relatively quick and easy to run compared to 3E. On the other hand, 1&2E doesn't have anywhere near the depth of 3E. 2E tried very hard to add more character options and monsters to add the variety that 1E lacked but these options tended to be either weak sauce or overpowered. I'm looking forward to 4E because it looks like I'll get the depth of 3E without the complexity and it also looks like I'll get the simplicity of 1E without the confusing and quirky mechanics (eg is that plus a bonus or a penalty?).
The new skills, in particular, give you the depth of 3E's skill system with the simplicity of picking a nonweapon proficiency. One thing I disliked about 1E was the lack of stealth that fighter types were generally able to display. I felt it keenly because I played a Paladin for a decade or two and I was just as good at being sneaky at 20th level as I was at 1st and there was nothing I could do about it. Now, I can grab a skill training feat and be a sneaky Paladin.
I share your concern over the battlemats as I prefer not using any minis at all myself. But, having played 4E without it, I can say that IMO it's just as easy to not use minis as it is in 1E, 2E or 3E. Likely, you've got the knack of distances and all that already, so it should be a big deal. Oh, and don't be put of by the 'squares' thing like I was. One 'square' is just 5'by5', so working out ranges and such is easy.
Lastly, on the matter of Wizard's hit points, it really doesn't work out the way you're thinking. Yes, a monster can now do 10-15hp with one hit but the difference between 1E and 4E in this is a matter of percentages. As you noted, your Wizard had 20hp and monsters of similar level to you are doing 10-15hp damage. That's 75% of your hp a round. In 1E, a wizard can expect 4hp max, maybe more if you get a lucky Con roll but who assigns a high score to Con to a wizard when three other ability scores get priority? A 1E monster of similar level is doing on average about 8hp max a round, not counting strength. That's 200% of a wizard's starting hp. Your wizard will take 2 hits to go down in 4E, which gives you a margin for error. Rather than no margin for error in 1E. For me that's an improvement, particularly after the pain I experienced playing a 1E Wizard with 1hp.
So, powers. I like the new powers system, since it makes everyone useful and fairly balanced against each other. That and my 1st level Wizard wasn't only fragile, he's also useless after one round... and fairly useless during that one round and entirely usless before. It took me a little to get used to it but the trick is that 'normal' attacks in 4E aren't your normal attacks. they're really there for Attacks of Opportunity (or 'AoO', the fancy name they gave 'stabbing people as they run away from you' after 1E). At wills are your normal attacks only more interesting because they give you benefits.
I don't know about you, but I found 1E combat dull. It's like playing craps, only you're (intelligently) using an abstract resource called 'hp' rather than real money. The best thing a fighter of any stripe can do is pick their biggest weapon, stand still and roll dice. At higher levels, they do this while the mage and cleric do all the real work. This was mitigated somewhat by 3E but became so complex nobody bothered. Now, 4E feels like it has depth and simplicity at the same time while making everyone in the party useful at all levels.
IMO, it's a good change, I hope you give it a chance.
Thulcondar, I know where you're coming from. I started playing only a few years after you did. I've done 0E, 1E and 2E but then I went on to 3E, 3.5E and now, it looks like I'll move on to 4E. I think 3E improves on a lot of things 1E and 2E struggled with but 4E, like a few people have said, from my experiences playing and DMing has quite a bit to offer over 1E.
1E & 2E were relatively quick and easy to run compared to 3E. On the other hand, 1&2E doesn't have anywhere near the depth of 3E. 2E tried very hard to add more character options and monsters to add the variety that 1E lacked but these options tended to be either weak sauce or overpowered. I'm looking forward to 4E because it looks like I'll get the depth of 3E without the complexity and it also looks like I'll get the simplicity of 1E without the confusing and quirky mechanics (eg is that plus a bonus or a penalty?).
The new skills, in particular, give you the depth of 3E's skill system with the simplicity of picking a nonweapon proficiency. One thing I disliked about 1E was the lack of stealth that fighter types were generally able to display. I felt it keenly because I played a Paladin for a decade or two and I was just as good at being sneaky at 20th level as I was at 1st and there was nothing I could do about it. Now, I can grab a skill training feat and be a sneaky Paladin.
I share your concern over the battlemats as I prefer not using any minis at all myself. But, having played 4E without it, I can say that IMO it's just as easy to not use minis as it is in 1E, 2E or 3E. Likely, you've got the knack of distances and all that already, so it should be a big deal. Oh, and don't be put of by the 'squares' thing like I was. One 'square' is just 5'by5', so working out ranges and such is easy.
Lastly, on the matter of Wizard's hit points, it really doesn't work out the way you're thinking. Yes, a monster can now do 10-15hp with one hit but the difference between 1E and 4E in this is a matter of percentages. As you noted, your Wizard had 20hp and monsters of similar level to you are doing 10-15hp damage. That's 75% of your hp a round. In 1E, a wizard can expect 4hp max, maybe more if you get a lucky Con roll but who assigns a high score to Con to a wizard when three other ability scores get priority? A 1E monster of similar level is doing on average about 8hp max a round, not counting strength. That's 200% of a wizard's starting hp. Your wizard will take 2 hits to go down in 4E, which gives you a margin for error. Rather than no margin for error in 1E. For me that's an improvement, particularly after the pain I experienced playing a 1E Wizard with 1hp.
So, powers. I like the new powers system, since it makes everyone useful and fairly balanced against each other. That and my 1st level Wizard wasn't only fragile, he's also useless after one round... and fairly useless during that one round and entirely usless before. It took me a little to get used to it but the trick is that 'normal' attacks in 4E aren't your normal attacks. they're really there for Attacks of Opportunity (or 'AoO', the fancy name they gave 'stabbing people as they run away from you' after 1E). At wills are your normal attacks only more interesting because they give you benefits.
I don't know about you, but I found 1E combat dull. It's like playing craps, only you're (intelligently) using an abstract resource called 'hp' rather than real money. The best thing a fighter of any stripe can do is pick their biggest weapon, stand still and roll dice. At higher levels, they do this while the mage and cleric do all the real work. This was mitigated somewhat by 3E but became so complex nobody bothered. Now, 4E feels like it has depth and simplicity at the same time while making everyone in the party useful at all levels.
IMO, it's a good change, I hope you give it a chance.
Last edited:
