Grognard's First Take On 4e

[The Little Raven]

There really isn't a difference.

You like one system, they dislike it.

You dislike one system, they like it.

If you don't see the difference between disliking a system after 8 years of playing it, and disliking a system without playing or even reading it (or even being willing to read it, as some have stated), then I'd suggest you stop taking crazy pills.

Mourn, out of the thread. This is completely rude. ~ Piratecat

 

[Jasperak]

I played last night and my grognard take is: 4e is weak sauce. I played the dwarf fighter and felt less heroic than earlier editions, not more. Yeah, I got a lot more hit points but when even kobolds have more than 20 hp what does it really matter? All that did was make me slowly nick opponents to death. Whee!

And what about all my kewl powerz? Wow, I can cleave and do a piddly 3 points of damage to somebody (instead of in 3e where I could possibly kill two guys in one attack). Whee! Or I could instead attack and do a piddly 3 points of damage if I miss. I guess it's pointless if I actually hit my target. Whee! Or I could attack and trip my target which imposes an incredible -2 penalty to them.. up until they just stand back up on their turn. I guess I could trip Orcus himself with this as there's no save and it's not opposed in any way. Whee! And best of all is my mighty DAILY POWER where I can attack for an average damage of 24 points... I might be able to kill an unhurt kolbold in one shot... maybe... once a day. Whee!

Wow, oh wow. All these options I never had before with a fighter. Cleave, trip, power attack. It blows my mind. Whee! Are we having fun yet?

Same exact thoughts here. Slow as crap on a Vermont morning. Not nearly as many tactical options as any of the other characters. In my next life I will be the rogue. He kicked butt.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you don't see the difference between disliking a system after 8 years of playing it, and disliking a system without playing or even reading it (or even being willing to read it, as some have stated), then I'd suggest you stop taking crazy pills.

Huh?

How is your position superior to someone LIKING a system after 8 years of playing it and DISLIKING everything they have seen of 4e so far?

Why is it permissible to form ONLY a positive opinion of 4e from the information we know so far?

(You might also want to stop making personal attacks.)

 

[drjones]

Wait, the same board full of 100 page posts bemoaning the lack of -1 level sheep molesters now also has complaints that x class/race/power is not powerful enough at level 1?

It makes me want to puke in my hat, unfortunately it is already full.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

It's more useful for the DM than 3e's biological taxonomy. The job a monster does in an encounter is much more important than whether it's an aberration or an ooze.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Huh?

How is your position superior to someone LIKING a system after 8 years of playing it and DISLIKING everything they have seen of 4e so far?

I agree with your point in general, but a lot of cases are far less absolute. There are people who dislike 4e or are on the fence with some concerns (like me) that don't necessarily dislike everything they've seen so far. But I've seen enough of the system and enough of the design goals and process have been explained to allow me to see things that aren't going to work for me based upon the information released so far.

Some or all of those things may wash out when all the rules are available in the PHB or DMG and some more may wash out with supplements. But it looks like some sacred cows of DND have been traded for sacred ponies of the 4e devs and other sacred cows have been resurrected and/or made more strict and limiting. In some cases it feels like 4e created arbitrary limitations based upon designer pet peeves and/or complaints on message boards from people who like a game more for what it restricts others from doing than for what it allows them to do themselves. Which, if it turns out that way, would be a shame because there is a lot to the system that I like.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It's more useful for the DM than 3e's biological taxonomy. The job a monster does in an encounter is much more important than whether it's an aberration or an ooze.

Not neccisarily. I, for one, have had more cases where I saw "Let's see, I need a bunch of demons..." over "Let's see, I need a bunch of heavy damage but low armor creatures..." When your party is in the hells, I find it easier to look up creatures by subtype ("Oh hey, these next few pages will be EVERYTHING I need!) over role (Dammit, time to go BACK to the table of contents ten more times).

 

[hong]

Not neccisarily. I, for one, have had more cases where I saw "Let's see, I need a bunch of demons..." over "Let's see, I need a bunch of heavy damage but low armor creatures..." When your party is in the hells, I find it easier to look up creatures by subtype ("Oh hey, these next few pages will be EVERYTHING I need!) over role (Dammit, time to go BACK to the table of contents ten more times).

What makes you think the MM will organise monsters by role as opposed to species?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

What makes you think the MM will organise monsters by role as opposed to species?

Nothing does. I'm responding to the response to "Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?"

 

[mhensley]

Well, while the tone of your post isn't the most conductive to a rational discussion, I'm afraid that the substance of your post is quite concerning...
I can actually see the point you're making, and it seems to have some validity. Parodoxically (given the "superhero" feel of the powers system), it seems to me that unless all you're facing are minions, then the game might actually make 1st level characters seem weaker than 3e. After all, most level 1 opponents in 3e *do* drop after one hit... hmmm...

I guess I'll get to see next week when we give KotS a play.

Sorry, I built up quite a load of snark while playing and needed a release. aahhhh...

Yes, that was my point exactly. We were told that 4e would be more heroic and 1st level characters would be kicking butt right from the word go. In 3rd edition, if I was playing a first level fighter built along the same lines as the one in the preview mod (16 str, two-handed wpn, cleave, power attack) and was in a fight with a group of weak monsters (kobolds, goblins, etc.) and it lasted 5 rounds, I could reasonably expect to kill around 2-3 monsters - given average rolls. In a 4e fight I would probably only kill 1 in the same time frame.

Cleave was a lot more fun when there was a significant chance to actually kill something with it. The same with tripping. In 3e, getting knocked prone was really dangerous. In 4e, it's a minor inconvenience. And we noticed real quick, that the sleep spell is so nerfed now that we'll probably never use it again.

At low levels, combat was not faster. I'm sure it probably is faster at high levels, but you probably won't see any difference in round speed compared to 3e until you're up around 7th level. Combat at 1st level seemed slow, slow, slow compared to 3e mainly because it took so much longer to kill our opponents than it would have in 3e. Is 3e combat riskier? Sure it is, but it also seemed a lot more interesting to me. YMMV and all that.