Grognard's First Take On 4e

[HeavenShallBurn]

...

I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values. Using limited power slots instead of points for balance

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My biggest concern as well is the leveling of all the classes in terms of complexity. Right now I am playing a Fighter because it is simple, I don't have to do much but stand there and hit things and it is fun when I am in the mood for that. In the past I have also played spellcasters and my next character will likely be a Wizard because I am looking forward to that level of complexity again. Both types of play are fun for me but rely on different mindsets. I am not really interested in a system where everyone is forced to play at higher level of tactics and complexity to be successful. To me that would get draining in even the medium run and force me out of D&D altogether and into either a different RPG system or out of RPGs for awhile.

I worried a bit about the same, especially if I wanted to take the position of a newbie not familiar with D&D or possibly roleplaying at all. Playing a Fighter is pretty simple... off course, I think that actually is not true in 3E. At higher levels, he might be ineffective, but that's hardly good for a newbie.

3E introduced a level of tactical complexity into the game that I haven't seen in many others.
Combat Maneuver, complex spells, and similar aspects all require tactical understanding. Even a Fighter is not excluded from this.

And if I look at the Fighters I enjoyed most - they were usually build around using special combat tactics (the most successful one was a Fighter specializing in all kinds of combat maneuvers, typically ending up with trip as the most useful).

In short, I think that the complexity of each class isn't that different.

The difference lies in fact more in what you do - as a Fighter, you hold off enemies (possibly so that the Cleric can buff himself or the Wizard can cast his best spells), and coordinate with other melee combattants for flanks. And typically (not a given in 3E, but common) you fight in melee.
As a Wizard, you usually fight from range. And you strike multiple targets, and use "non-evocations" to weaken your enemies or buff your allies.

I think that's why the design time ultimiately decided to give every class a "spellcasting-like" ability progression, but define the 4 roles. Because these exemplify the differences the classes best. How often you can use an ability is less important then what kind of abilities you have.


Off course, that's my opinion, and your experience might be different.

 

[TwoSix]

I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values. Using limited power slots instead of points for balance

So they kept the ability to customize your character, but cut back on the calculations, overwhelming number of options, and capacity for powergaming that derail a true point-buy system? Someone fire those designers!

 

[Lacyon]

I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values. Using limited power slots instead of points for balance

GURPS without point buy isn't GURPS.

Using points buy instead of classes, level progressions, and spellpower slots is precisely what makes GURPS different from D&D.

 

[Spatula]

For those familiar with it, how does the adventure of KotS compare with Sunless Citadel? Not in terms of production values, but in terms of giving a good adventure while introducing the rules?

As an intro, KotS is definitely superior, but as Crothian notes, Sunless Citadel was not designed as such. KotS is sprinkled with a few pages of good newbie DM advice, along with some sidebars giving you tips on how to deal with some monster abilities.

The adventure itself is a series of outdoor encounters followed by a short dungeon crawl. There's a couple of skill challenges, a room full of traps, and nasty monster synergies. The dungeon inhabitants aren't quite as interesting as Sunless Citadel's in terms of roleplaying opportunities, but the village is under more direct threat, opening up more roleplaying possibilities at that locale instead. And there is a Meepo-wannabe.

The later bits are somewhat undead-heavy, which makes it seem like running without the paladin & cleric pregens would be a mistake, at least for a group of people new to the game.

At the end, the PCs are assumed to have reached level 4. I think Sunless Citadel put the characters partway through level 2 or maybe starting level 3 by the end.

 

[Rykion]

I was talking about the feel, the feel of the game is very different from every previous edition. Different enough that it just doesn't feel like the same game to me anymore. Not everybody will feel the same, but for me it just isn't D&D anymore.

I and some of my group have found this to already be the case with 3.x. We've talked about how it feels like a generic D20 fantasy game rather than D&D. I'm looking forward to 4e. I don't know that it will be the game I want to run and play, but I know that 3.x definitely is not.

 

[Scribble]

On the point of GURPS but not GURPS...

Remember the WOTC mathematician's gleemax post? He talks about the failures that yu find in point buy? (Where even though you have a bazillion options available there really ends up only being one or two "good" builds... everything else is sub optimal.)

I think 4e took the best of both worlds. The good parts of point buy, mixed weith the good parts of class system. 3e started to do this, but didn't find the right balance.

Point buy allows an amazing amount of options and characters, yet has the problem of really there are only a few builds that are "good." people end up playing the same role.

Classes give each character a defined role, but end up being too restrictive.

You want characters that are customizable, but if you go too far, you end up just giving people a bunch of different options that are a filter for making one character. So the best bet? Mix the two options. Give them a defined role, but with the ability to wiggle that role a bit.

In 3e they introduced character customization through feats. People liked this. You could still play a "class" but at the same time customize it to make it different. Feats "failed" in a couple of ways, however.

1. The prerequisite/chain thing. Essentially once you took a feat you were locked into that progression. (unless you didn't mind a suboptimal character.) So really it wasn't so much a a customized character, as it was a class with several different "sub" classes based on feats.


2. They were confused about what they were. Should I be a power for a certain class or should I be something everyone can take. I know, I'll be open to everyone, but really be only useful to a certain class.



I like the 4e solution and think it works well.

Powers seem to be doing what feats wanted to; make each class customizable, yet still keep them within the "feel" of the class role. A fighter still fights, but in a way the player envisions.

Powers aren't locked into a chain, so theoretically you could bounce around and make some crazy combos without "ruining" the class.

Powers make no claim that they are open to everyone. A fighter takes fighter powers, a ranger takes ranger powers. Again allowing for customization, but still defining a class.

My fear wuith the pwoers, is that they might start to subconciously/unconciously start designing powers that "stack."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I stand by the statement 4e is like they took a GURPS style point buy system and filed off the point values. Using limited power slots instead of points for balance

I* always thought of the magical item system in 3E was like a latched on point-buy system to a level based system. 4E seems to do it more the other way around.

I and some of my group have found this to already be the case with 3.x. We've talked about how it feels like a generic D20 fantasy game rather than D&D. I'm looking forward to 4e. I don't know that it will be the game I want to run and play, but I know that 3.x definitely is not.

I have come to the conclusion that "It's not D&D" or "still feels like D&D" has little meaning without knowing the persons definition of what constitutes D&D. There is universal, objective truth of what D&D is (if there is, we'd certainly have to ask diaglo). There are a lot of common elements that can be part of D&D, and a subset of them must be part of it, but the subset is not exhaustive enough to describe something that can uniquely describe D&D.
The strongest identifier for something being D&D is the label on the cover, which off course is not a satisfying solution. It's a necessary element (at least it was, until Pathfinder came around, but that at least still is just one D&D edition on steroids) but it's not sufficient.

I have no experience with AD&D, OD&D, BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia or what ever else of rules were used to define D&D. D&D started with 3E for me. I would probably not even bother to check out the older systems, since everything I hear about them make them look like inferior systems.**). And for all intents and purposes, D&D 4 still looks like D&D to me.

Asking an avid AD&D fan to use my definition of D&D to determine whether 4E is still D&D is asking a bit too much.

I am actually hard pressed to formulate my own definition of D&D. Maybe something along this:
- Pseudomedieval Fantasy
- A phletora of creatures and monsters from myths and folklore, plus an assortment of D&D-specific monsters (Beholders, Mind Flayers, many-colored Dragons)
- Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings.
- Main archetypes are Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue
- Rules allows for complex tactical combat
- Mechanics focusing on dungeon exploration and fighting monsters.

*) rather: Other smart minds made me understand this. I believe it was actually Monte Cook that wrote that in a blog where I read it first...
**) Yet, for some reasons, these games could inspire thousands of roleplayers, and (if I can trust the "Is D&D 4E retro" contained some interesting design aspects or "gameplay feeling".)

 

[Brown Jenkin]

- Rules allows for complex tactical combat

Part of my fears is that the rules require rather than allow for complex tactical combat. It seems that 4e relies on all players knowing how and when to use their powers in conjunction with everyone else. In 3.x there were classes and abilities that could be taken that allowed for players without strong tactical ability to play alongside those who did have that ability. Yes in both systems strong tactical players will do better in combat, but in 4e weak tactical players will be at a larger disadvantage.

 

[JohnSnow]

I* always thought of the magical item system in 3E was like a latched on point-buy system to a level based system. 4E seems to do it more the other way around.

...

*) rather: Other smart minds made me understand this. I believe it was actually Monte Cook that wrote that in a blog where I read it first...

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.

I am actually hard pressed to formulate my own definition of D&D. Maybe something along this:
- Pseudomedieval Fantasy
- A phletora of creatures and monsters from myths and folklore, plus an assortment of D&D-specific monsters (Beholders, Mind Flayers, many-colored Dragons)
- Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Halflings.
- Main archetypes are Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue
- Rules allows for complex tactical combat
- Mechanics focusing on dungeon exploration and fighting monsters.

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."

I'll confess that I've been playing since before the AD&D books had orange bindings, and that I think of the "Red Box" as a "New Edition." That said, I had started to drift away from 3e because it was getting too hard to prep for (as a DM). I had a friend who tried to convince me to give Castles & Crusades a try, and while parts of it appealed to me, parts of it absolutely did NOT. Largely, I think that's because they just imported the 30-some year-old D&D magic system (with all its attendant flaws).

What I see when I look at Fourth Edition is the flexibility and logic of 3e in a system that seems to lend itself more to a basic/1e style of game prep. I know there are some people who miss certain of the legacy "flavor" elements, but I can't honestly think of anything mechanically superior about previous editions.

Where the game has diverged from previous editions and introduced something "new" is in play - by giving options to all the classes that were previously only the province of spellcasters (barring the inclusion of late 3e supplements like the (4e-derived) Tome of Battle).

I doubt anyone would quibble with the notion that having tactical options (in the form of "powers") makes the classes more fun. And the only thing I can say is that, on reading, the fighter's "exploits" feel very "different" than the wizard's "spells." And the wizard's spells still feel like spells, even though they get more magic to use.

Of course, I was never a fan of fire-and-forget magic, or "Wizards über alles" so if those are some of the things you think "make D&D what it is," (and I know for some people they are) then I have to admit 4e doesn't support that as well.

Time will tell, but I think 4e will be a more fun (i.e. exciting and engaging) game that still captures the essence of D&D.

My two coppers.