• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Grognard's First Take On 4e

elijah snow said:
1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

So far, the rules don't feel like D&D to me. Or at least they don't seem to be enough of an improvement for me to never play 3.5 again.

When 3.0 came out it was a breath of fresh air and I would never play 2.0 again.

With 4.0 it doesn't seem to be a replacement for 3.5 but rather a different way to play D&D.

In conclusion, without having played 4.0, I will play 4.0 but it has not completely replaced 3.5 and I will still play 3.5 given the chance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Imaro said:
Okay, let me address a few points. Given that there is no sign on a minions back that says "Minion" how do you ever determine if they are minions, you could again hold onto your daily and still blow it on a minion. Also given that minions are constructed to viably threaten PC's...why does it matter if you use your dailies to kill them. You still reduced the number of attacks that can come at your party. In fact even if 20 more goblins come rushing into a room...you still reduced the number of attacks you have to deal with. I think alot of people are missing this very important point...You have reduced the number of actiona against as well as the amount of damage in a quicker span of time that can affect your party as a whole.

As far as the power level of monsters...what about elites or other types that are as powerful or moreso than the PC's . I think you are making a very general and broad assumption that I do not believe (especially looking at the kobolds vs. 1st level PC's) will not necesssarily be true. But we'll see on June 6th.

But, you're assuming that the daily power is an area affect. If a daily simply does scads of damage to a single target, then blowing it on a minion actually doesn't make things any faster. You haven't reduced the number of attacks against you any more than if you had used an at-will power.

Only solos are actually more powerful than a PC. Even elites won't be. One elite is still only 2/5ths of an encounter. Remember, that encounter, presuming its an appropriate level encounter and not way above the party, assumes that the aggregate of all actors will still be weaker than the entire party. An elite might be close to a single PC, but, still will likely be weaker since you're supposed to have three other actors there. The elite might be twice as powerful as the regular monster, but, he's still not more powerful than a single PC.

Actually, powerful is the wrong word. Durable is probably a better word. It should never be to the point where the baddies can kill the PC's as easily as the PC's can kill the baddies. This is the primary mistake that was made in 3e. Baddies did too much damage. You absolutely HAD to kill the baddies as fast as possible, because if you didn't, you died. Letting a baddie get two or three full attacks on a PC meant a dead PC, barring emergency healing.

We know that this isn't true in 4e. The PC's are considerably more durable for one and the monsters do less damage each for another.

Again, you are making assumptions here that aren't based in what we know. You assume that daily powers affect multiple targets, and that you can catch large numbers of targets in area of effect powers as well. Neither of that is necessarily true. You also assume that all the actors in a given combat will be known a the beginning of the combat, allowing the players to optimally decide when to use their dailies. You also assume that dailies will always be effective as well, when we've seen examples like Sleep, where it has been less then stellar. You also assume that dailies do damage.

There's a whole bag full of assumptions there and none of them are really rooted in any concrete examples.
 

One point I disagree with is that an elite isn't more powerful than a PC of the same level.

I'm thinking it is probably worth just under 1.5 times worth the value of a PC.
 

Hussar said:
Again, you are making assumptions here that aren't based in what we know. You assume that daily powers affect multiple targets, and that you can catch large numbers of targets in area of effect powers as well. Neither of that is necessarily true. You also assume that all the actors in a given combat will be known a the beginning of the combat, allowing the players to optimally decide when to use their dailies. You also assume that dailies will always be effective as well, when we've seen examples like Sleep, where it has been less then stellar. You also assume that dailies do damage.

There's a whole bag full of assumptions there and none of them are really rooted in any concrete examples.

No, I don't make any of these assumptions you list...first, the original argumnet was posed on certain criteria where certain abilities represented "hits", but it wasn't my assumption. Secondly I don't assume you can catch large numbers of opponents in area of effect powers...I assume the PC's will coordinate to eliminate one target rather than displace damage amongst numerous targets, which is dooable.

Once again, I don't assume optimization of when to use a daily...my whole argument is based around releasing the daily power first. And in my argument one of the crux is that it doesn't matter how many opponents arrive later since there will always, no matter if you use a daily in the first round or fifth round, a finite number of opponents in an encounter.

Last but not least, again the original argument set the parameters in which to judge the powwers on. There is no guarantee any of the powers will go off successfully, but that is irrelevant in determining a most likely scenario for success since nothing but chance determines if that is the case. In discussing this randomness can not be accounted for, a player could roll a series of ones through a whole combat, but does that in anyway determine how tactically sound his judgement was.
 

hong said:
In MY day, generic food metaphors used peanut butter and ice cream, and we LIKED it.

By an odd coincidence, my favorite flavor of ice cream involves peanut butter...

Me, I'm going for the analogy of the D&D gendandkenspace being a stew - it has chunks and it has liquid, veggies and meat, and what you get out of it depends very much on what you're using to eat it with. Me, I plan on using a spork and some bread on the side to sop up the leftover juices...
 

smetzger said:
So far, the rules don't feel like D&D to me. Or at least they don't seem to be enough of an improvement for me to never play 3.5 again.

When 3.0 came out it was a breath of fresh air and I would never play 2.0 again.

With 4.0 it doesn't seem to be a replacement for 3.5 but rather a different way to play D&D.

In conclusion, without having played 4.0, I will play 4.0 but it has not completely replaced 3.5 and I will still play 3.5 given the chance.


No I've been a big booster of 4E around here, but I can certainly agree with this - it is a ifferent system, not just a better system. Given my druthers, I'd play 3.5 again. What I won't do is run it - I found that to be too much tedious work.
 

Imaro said:
No, I don't make any of these assumptions you list...first, the original argumnet was posed on certain criteria where certain abilities represented "hits", but it wasn't my assumption. Secondly I don't assume you can catch large numbers of opponents in area of effect powers...I assume the PC's will coordinate to eliminate one target rather than displace damage amongst numerous targets, which is dooable.

Once again, I don't assume optimization of when to use a daily...my whole argument is based around releasing the daily power first. And in my argument one of the crux is that it doesn't matter how many opponents arrive later since there will always, no matter if you use a daily in the first round or fifth round, a finite number of opponents in an encounter.

Last but not least, again the original argument set the parameters in which to judge the powwers on. There is no guarantee any of the powers will go off successfully, but that is irrelevant in determining a most likely scenario for success since nothing but chance determines if that is the case. In discussing this randomness can not be accounted for, a player could roll a series of ones through a whole combat, but does that in anyway determine how tactically sound his judgement was.

Sorry, I attributed the assumptions to you. But, the fact is, you are still following those flawed assumptions, whether you originated them or not.

See, while there is a finite number of opponents, leading with dailies isn't always going to be the best answer. Overkilling weaker opponents means that stronger opponents last longer. So, blowing all your dailies on the soldiers just means that the elite is going to be that much harder to take down.

On the elite being 1.5 of a PC. I highly, highly doubt it. An elite shouldn't be doing 150% the damage of a PC. That's too much. That's what made 3e combat so swingy. The elite will do more damage, true, but, it will not be even equal damage to what the PC is doing. It can't be since the monsters will already start from a position of having more hit points. If the Monster has more HP's than a given PC, and then does significantly more damage than a single PC, then he's going to be killing PC's.
 

I guess from what I've been reading, from a few places and from both sides, is that combat takes longer and is more battlemat intensive. For me, if I wanted D&D Miniatures I would have bought that game. It really appears to me that things are very much more of a boardgame or tabletop than previous editions and that is not really my game of imagination. If I want tabletop I'll play Warhammer Fantasy battle or some other game, if I want a compter game then I'll go with that.

That said maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from other people's impressions....

For me WotC did something unforgiveable with Dragon and Dungeon and it is really hard for me to find a reason to even look at 4e let alone spend hard earned (and these days hard to come by) cash on it.

-W.
 

Transit said:
But how can you have that opinion? You haven't seen "4e" yet, only the preview adventure. That's like judging a movie from a teaser trailer.


Why is it when someone is critical of something 4e, we keep seeing folks trot out the tired excuse of "you havent seen 4e yet?

KotS is their very first shot at showcasing 4e. Its not exactly inspiring from what other people have said in reading it:

Heck even orcus has a complaint or two.

Wotc should have done a better job with the preview out of the gate.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top