Grognard's First Take On 4e

[Jasperak]

My own plans have been to pick up Keep on the Shadowfell even though I have not liked most of what I've read or heard about 4E just in case all of that is somehow wrong. I fully expect this adventure to capture the essence of the new game. If not, then it was a poor decision to release this particular adventure before the rule set with a set of quick play rules. While I have pretty firm plans to continue play with 3.5 and then switch to Pathfinder for the next while, I still might pick up the main 4E rules if Keep on the Shadowfell seems interesting. If not, it will be a while longer before I pick up the core rules, but I expect I will eventually get them just because I'm a bit of a D&D completest.

Exactly my thoughts on the intro adventure and 4e in general.

 

[pawsplay]

Couldn't resist getting Shadowfell from Amazon (the 3 maps alone are worth the $20). Though I never plan to run 4e, I was secretly hoping it would be cool. Having glanced through it last night, my initial take on 4e is -

Wow, it's much worse than I could ever believe and extremely unappealing to a 3.5e grognard. I was open-minded, truly, and still need to read it more carefully, but if you're in the "I'm going to play 3.5e forever" camp, the real thing is not going to change your mind. It's just what we've been predicting and more.

Well, that's too bad. I've grown kind of resigned to that idea, but one always hopes. Of course, I still keep getting tempted, just like I have copies of The Arcanum, Runequest, WFRP, even though I'm unlikely to run more than one... still, 4e is to me distinctly unappealing, not D&D-ish enough in the characteristics I prize in D&D, and a poor imitation of more elegant games like Hero System, D6, or Shadowrun.

 

[elijah snow]

I really appreciate the responses to my initial post. I feel like there needs to a grognard's 4E board so I don't raise the ire of too many 4E fans, as the primary audience for my thread was my fellow grognards.

I'd like to point out that being a devoted 3.5E grognard does not mean pretending that 4E isn't here, that it isn't a legitimate game system, or that I may not find myself playing (not running) a game in it someday. I just wanted to reality check the amazing, glowing reviews that Shadowfell & 4E previews are getting from the grognard's perspective.

After a bit more reflection, it may be more fair to say that 4E looks like a variant D&D - like d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga Edition, True20, etc. - rather than something as foreign as Savage Worlds - but it's not a natural progression/improvement on 3.5E, which is the implication from the marketing department - that it's faster, more intuitive, and just plain better.

Also, let me give three examples of what is terrifying in third edition - the Blood War, the fact that your wizard may run of kewl spells before the end of the day (at least he doesn't have to hit with a ranged attack to fire a magic missle), and fighting a tiefling warlock/chainfighter that comes from a rift in the planar fabric of reality, not the tiefling city a half day's ride from this point of light.

 

[hong]

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

Unfortunately, either your response, or the original claim, made no sense.

 

[gribble]

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

Well, thanks for the more rational response. I hadn't actually considered this scenario, so it's good to have some actual playtest feedback. When I think about it, your observations make a lot of sense.

At low levels, combat was not faster.
...
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.

This makes sense. The damage values in 4e don't appear to have increased significantly (even at higher levels), whereas the available HP have (especially when considering healing surges). The logical conclusion is that, everything else being equal, combat will last a lot more rounds. Unless the rounds individually take a lot less real-time to play out, combat overall will take longer...

Is 3e combat riskier? Sure it is, but it also seemed a lot more interesting to me. YMMV and all that.

I was actually having a conversation with a friend about the "swinginess" of 3.x the other day. He didn't like it and was looking forward to 4e solving that problem (I can understand his point - one of his players has died in the first couple of rounds of the first encounter 3 sessions in a row...). Me? I prefer swinginess to samey predictableness - it's one of the charms of 3.x to me. Of course, until I try out 4e I won't know how samey and predictable it is, but early playtests like yours seem to indicate it might be.

I think this is very much one of those personal preference kind of things. Some people like games where every attack roll could be the one that kills you, others prefer games where characters only die if it's "plot-appropriate".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, if so, I'm pretty sure Monte was quoting his colleague, (now 4e Developer) Mike Mearls. Mike made that observation in the run-up to the release of Iron Heroes.




That's not bad. I actually think one could argue that being "class and level-based" is also at the heart of what makes D&D "D&D."

Hmm. You might be right. It might be so essential that I simply forget to mention it.

Still, in the end, even with all these elements, I must admit that it doesn't matter that much for me if it's D&D. I am also happy if it's just a good game. It's not like a need a special "D&D fix". But maybe I am wrong, and if I ever stop playing D&D, I might show signs of withdrawal?

 

[Boarstorm]

So, have we convinced the barbarians to embrace the enlightened truth of 4E, yet?

No? Well, keep plugging away.

 

[Shadeydm]

More like judging a book based on the Cliff Notes.

I guess putting the cliff notes out before the book is just another WotC marketing issue then?

 

[BeauNiddle]

I was actually having a conversation with a friend about the "swinginess" of 3.x the other day. He didn't like it and was looking forward to 4e solving that problem (I can understand his point - one of his players has died in the first couple of rounds of the first encounter 3 sessions in a row...). Me? I prefer swinginess to samey predictableness - it's one of the charms of 3.x to me. Of course, until I try out 4e I won't know how samey and predictable it is, but early playtests like yours seem to indicate it might be.

I think this is very much one of those personal preference kind of things. Some people like games where every attack roll could be the one that kills you, others prefer games where characters only die if it's "plot-appropriate".

I'm a tactician and I hate / dislike quick deaths. In 3.x is was charge at the enemy and hope they die first. Massive fights end in 1 or 2 rounds due to save or dies being thrown around or just massive damage output. That gives no time to change plans in combat. There is a certain amount of pre-combat planning (or buffing as it mostly is) but nothing in the actual combat itself.

I have this same problem in Savage Worlds and a few other games I've tried which don't have hp. The battles result in a 'lucky' blow finally getting through the defences and the fight is over.

So it's "I'm fine" - "I'm fine" - "I'm fine" - "I'm fine" - "I'm dead"

I prefer "I'm fine" - "I'm hurt" - "I'm healed" - "I'm hurt" - "I'm critical" - "I'm hurt" - "I'm ..."

That way you get feedback on whats going on and how good the enemies are.

In 3.x the time you know you've bitten off more than you can chew is when they are burying your corpse. At least in 4th ed you stand a chance of knowing when to start running. You might not make it but at least you have the option

A long battle doesn't preclude the threat of death or limit you to "plot-appropriate" deaths it just gives the player more warning on whether or not a death is headed their way and it allows the player to choose if they want to do anything about it.

 

[Iron Sky]

^^^

This.