Grognard's First Take On 4e

[Blackeagle]

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

You know, back around the time 3e came out, I seem to recall people saying that it was basically a point-buy system dressed up as a level based system.

 

[Rykion]

I should point out that the main reason I want to leave behind 3.x is complexity rather than my feelings as to whether or not it is D&D. It becomes complex as a player at high level. It can be complex even at low levels to DM, and I don't have any fun DMing a high level game. Any attempt to mod the game requires a lot of thought, as even minor changes can cause big balance issues.

I believe combat role was a defining part of the archetypes in earlier versions of D&D, and I'm glade to see 4e putting an emphasis on it. I also hope 4e is easier to DM and play at high levels. My primary concern is that there will be so many exception based rules and abilities that complexity level will not be reduced much between 3.x and 4e.

 

[Duelpersonality]

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.

I think that this one is probably highly dependent on the group. From what I've seen, if a group has a very large disparity between the tactical abilities of players, it doesn't really matter what game they're playing: it's going to cause a huge power difference.

Note that this does not just come from D&D. My group plays 3.5, Marvel, Star Wars (d6 all the way through Saga), Star Trek, DC, Champions (boy do we need to learn how to focus). When a few of the players first started playing several years ago, the problem was immediately apparent.

I think what 4e does in comparison to 3.x is take a lot of the pre-play tactics out of the equation. A very tactically sound player is usually a fairly rules-savvy player as well, and can widen the gap to an extreme with a highly competent build. I obviously don't know to what extent 4e will fix this problem (if at all), but it seems to me from the information we have that it will really help narrow that gap.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

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.

For the most part so did I, even before 3e I kind of felt that magic items weren't necessarily implemented a way I would have preferred. And I experimented with several ways of altering the system to create differing styles of campaign and setting.

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.

And I agree that's something each person can only judge for themselves. Some will decide it maintains the elements they consider vital to D&D others will decide it doesn't. Just the nature of people.

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.

Here I've got to disagree the label D&D is neither necessary nor sufficient as a criteria to the game actually being D&D. To re-use an example if I put an F-250 emblem on a Camaro does that make the Camaro an F-250? The title D&D is nothing more than a label applied by the party owning the label, it can be applied to literally anything. Changing the label does not change the nature of the thing because the thing is not the symbol.

Ultimately I'm just a different sort of gamer. I started with 1e kept going into the beginning of 2e, adopted many of the 2e changes but stuck with a lot of 1e mechanics. Then got out as TSR started the downward spiral. I can back to 3e because it preserved much of the old feel and sacred cows but had a lot better mechanics. It allowed me to play the sort of games I liked well, consistently and with a minimum of difficulty well into the epic levels.

And my main beefs with the new edition have to do with design philosophy and changes to a few specific systems. Mainly they've shifted the game heavily toward a fortune-in-the-middle model and I've never liked those. Plus the exception based design is at odds with the consistency and PC/NPC transparency of 3e which were some of my favorite parts, and a good change from 1e. The magic system is my largest irritant. The distinctive magic system and spells of prior editions were always one of my favorite D&D elements. they've essentially gutted the magic system and replaced it entirely. For one I find far less interesting than what it replaced.

We're different people who like different things, nothing wrong if either of us likes something different. I just can't bring myself to like 4e, and this is sad considering when I heard the announcement I really hoped the new edition would be great and fix the issues with 3e. But in fixing the perceived issues they just changed too many of the wrong things for me to be happy with it. Hey I've still got 3e and Pathfinder and for me they're fine.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Ah, the joys of geek fandom- where unconditional love and unconditional hate are both defended by pedants as being equivalent. Because, after all, the only possible way of comparing the two is through symbolic logic from a value neutral perspective. Both generate truth values in equivalent manners. They are clearly the same.

Uh, they ARE the same if you stand in the middle. The only people that think they're different ARE those with unconditional love or unconditional hate. You're both crazy fanatics from everyone who isn't on the far side.

And right now, it's the ones with the unconditional love that are showing their crazy side.

The idea that someone who dislikes 4e somehow has an opinion that inherently means less then someone who likes it is precisely why so many people are saying "4e's biggest problem is its fans."

 

[Mark]

(boy do we need to learn how to focus)

"Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at." - Steve Martin as C.D. 'Charlie' Bales in Roxanne (1987)

 

[gribble]

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?

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.

 

[The Little Raven]

Presumably the same thing that motivates some folks to have zero interest in Pathfinder (for example), to leave 3e, adopt 4e, and never look back.

Uh, no. You see, we've played 3e. We know what it's like. A decision to leave 3e is based on a large amount of actual information and experience. A vow to never run 4e or to never even give the books a read is entirely different, since it isn't made from a position of knowledge like the decision to leave 3e.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

As 3e classes were designed to merely be "buckets" that you could dip into in order to gain certain things (armor/weapon proficiency, front-loaded abilities, etc), it was far more of a "point buy" system than 4e is, with it's smaller focus on multiclassing. When you have players that go through 3 base classes and 4 prestige classes to make the uber-archer character (which I saw plenty of in 3e), that's far closer to "classes don't matter" than a system that restricts the amount of classes you can access with a single character to avoid cherry-picking of that nature.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Uh, no. You see, we've played 3e. We know what it's like. A decision to leave 3e is based on a large amount of actual information and experience. A vow to never run 4e or to never even give the books a read is entirely different, since it isn't made from a position of knowledge like the decision to leave 3e.

There really isn't a difference.

You like one system, they dislike it.

You dislike one system, they like it.

Reading through the adventure is SUPPOSED to be a show of exactly how the system work.

The only reason there's a difference is so you can pretend to be more special.