Grognard's First Take On 4e

[ExploderWizard]

Of course, the fighter in 4e is very different from the fighter in 3e/3.5. He's not supposed to be the one doing the most damage in each attack ... he's supposed to be the one with the best AC, the most hit points, the one that keeps an opposing character locked down so that the rogue, or the ranger, or the warlock can do the most damage. One of the strikers is more likely to take out a single character quickly ... that is their job. It's not a fighter's job to do that anymore ... so that changes things a bit.

This is type of change I feel uncomfortable with. In my opinion "aggro mechanics" have no place in tabletop games. They exist in computer games because the encounters are run by a CPU that needs a mathematical formula to calculate threat and govern behavior. A pen and paper game is run by a DM with a brain (hopefully). Granting classes artifical abilities to make them "sticky" screams MMORPG. I can accept a fighter having an ability to "hold a creature at bay" when defending a narrow gap that prevents the opponent from moving past but the whole marking concept just feels wrong. I enjoy playing WOW a lot, but I play tabletop RPG's for a different experience than that.

On another note, you have a good point about relative threat. The minions rules do look interesting and I will actually use them in play before totally dismissing them.

 

[Ginnel]

Its not about the fighter dominating combat. Other classes could easily drop a kobold with an average hit (from a d8 weapon) or a good hit (from a weaker weapon). Other classes could still one shot these guys. The thing is, now nobody can defeat enemies quickly including the fighter. Every (non minion) combatant is designed to last several rounds no matter what, which can (at times) make the heroes feel less effective than ever before.

players can crit and role high this will drop an equal level monster if hmm 3 party members hit with basics? then you include encounter powers, Wham bam thank you mam, combat over in 2 or 3 rounds with some good rolls. Of course this will happen less and all members of the party will now be able to do useful things during the battle including the clerics extra heals and warlocks cursing and then zapping.

It sometimes feels great to drop all your enemies in a round or two. Having to send out clay pigeons (minions) to get this effect is kind of unfun.

Umm Why?

A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 5hp 3rd ed monster goes down
A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 1hp minion goes down

A fighter in 3rd ed hitting the low AC and doing 3 hps of damage monster stays up
A fighter in 4th ed missing due to the scaling AC and the monster stays up
both round about equally as likely

theres not to much of a difference as far as I can see.

and if you want the critter to almost definitely go down in one round use a lower level minion

 

[timbannock]

Possibly because his quote says "opinions on 4e" and he hasn't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.

Except this is the extended teaser trailer, whose sole purpose is to show off what the game looks and feels like in actual play.

Remember that Nick Cage "Snake Eyes" movie, where the extended trailer gave away the entire plot of the movie, and quite literally came out and named which of the two only named actors was playing the villain? Based on that, I had no reason to see the movie. So, if KOTS gives almost everything away without seeing the full movie -- and you don't like what you're seeing -- then I'd say that's a pretty good basis for his judgment.

Not perfect, but pretty darn good.


p.s. I like nearly everything about 4E so far, so I'm not defending his opinion on that. Just the basis for his opinion, from his standpoint.

 

[mmu1]

This is type of change I feel uncomfortable with. In my opinion "aggro mechanics" have no place in tabletop games. They exist in computer games because the encounters are run by a CPU that needs a mathematical formula to calculate threat and govern behavior. A pen and paper game is run by a DM with a brain (hopefully). Granting classes artifical abilities to make them "sticky" screams MMORPG. I can accept a fighter having an ability to "hold a creature at bay" when defending a narrow gap that prevents the opponent from moving past but the whole marking concept just feels wrong. I enjoy playing WOW a lot, but I play tabletop RPG's for a different experience than that.

On another note, you have a good point about relative threat. The minions rules do look interesting and I will actually use them in play before totally dismissing them.

Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs, and it took ages for designers to catch on and finally do something about it. (And it still hasn't been enough - the whole tank/dps/crowd control/heal paradigm might have been OK for Everquest, but they've had a decade to think of something better, but they didn't, because it's easier to stick with the same old crap. Now, mind-bogglingly, the same "innovation" is finding its way into PnP games...)

Game after game, the same idiotic design: "Hi. We decided to make a class that's really good at getting hit so that other people can use their fun abilities and magic spells. And since you're already great at taking damage, we figured it's a bad idea to also let you do the most damage. Unbalancing, you know. We're going to make it someone else's job to do the huge damage."

 

[ExploderWizard]

A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 5hp 3rd ed monster goes down
A fighter hitting for 5 hp and a 1hp minion goes down

A fighter in 3rd ed hitting the low AC and doing 3 hps of damage monster stays up
A fighter in 4th ed missing due to the scaling AC and the monster stays up
both round about equally as likely

theres not to much of a difference as far as I can see.

and if you want the critter to almost definitely go down in one round use a lower level minion

While the end result may be mechanically similar I think some players may become tired of thier damage rolls not mattering. Everything is new and exciting at first but after plowing through tons of 1hp minions and not getting to roll damage it might become less so.

 

[timbannock]

This is type of change I feel uncomfortable with. In my opinion "aggro mechanics" have no place in tabletop games.

Honest question: what other mechanics might make a fighter truly shine as an individual class that sums up a fighter, that also gives the fighter the same level of tactical battlefield presence?

To answer my own question, I think the fighter should be more of a striker-type while the rogue was a bit more of the "sticky" guy. I don't know why I think that, but I do.

 

[Tuft]

Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs,

I have to agree with that. Not from the viewpoint of the tank, but from anything but the tank in a group that included one.

In my very subjective opinion, an attack feels effective only if the opponent reacts to it. It doesn't matter how large the number is that floats off above his head is, if he doesn't acknowledge my presence, well, the attack might not as well have existed.

That used to be a source of constant argument between me and a good friend and fellow "City of Heroes" MMO player, who loved playing Tanks.

That's also a good reason why I in 3.5 love status-effect causing magic (which is what "control" is to me, not the new 4E:ism of area damage), utility magic and indirect magic highly over pure damage infliction magic. It forces the opponent to react in a way other than the DM just jotting down a few numbers on a scrap of paper..

 

[timbannock]

That's a really good point.

 

[hong]

Quite aside from whether it makes the game feel MMO like, the "tank" classes were basically the worst idea anyone ever had in the history of MMORPGs, and it took ages for designers to catch on and finally do something about it. (And it still hasn't been enough - the whole tank/dps/crowd control/heal paradigm might have been OK for Everquest, but they've had a decade to think of something better, but they didn't, because it's easier to stick with the same old crap. Now, mind-bogglingly, the same "innovation" is finding its way into PnP games...)

Game after game, the same idiotic design: "Hi. We decided to make a class that's really good at getting hit so that other people can use their fun abilities and magic spells. And since you're already great at taking damage, we figured it's a bad idea to also let you do the most damage. Unbalancing, you know. We're going to make it someone else's job to do the huge damage."

Play more Guild Wars.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I think it comes down to:

Some people like to swing and others don't...

Yeah, baby.