Grognard's First Take On 4e

[crosswiredmind]

I *did* note that combat is *more* abstract in 4E than it was in 3E.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think both systems are equally abstract but 4e requires more tactical thinking - you need to play as a team.

 

[mhensley]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think both systems are equally abstract but 4e requires more tactical thinking - you need to play as a team.

Chess requires a lot of tactical thinking but is very abstract. They are not linked in any way.

 

[mhensley]

You do realize don't you that you've just created the perfect analogy for the people complaining that 4e won't let them run the kinds of games they like? If the fork won't ever let you consume soup, then it's all the more reason to ditch the fork.

It's very possible that 4e won't work for what he used to use 3e for.

Yep, that is a very good analogy. It also means the utensil company has turned their backs on soup lovers and has fired them as customers. Well, there are other companies that still make spoons and still like soup.

 

[Hussar]

Not neccisarily. I, for one, have had more cases where I saw "Let's see, I need a bunch of demons..." over "Let's see, I need a bunch of heavy damage but low armor creatures..." When your party is in the hells, I find it easier to look up creatures by subtype ("Oh hey, these next few pages will be EVERYTHING I need!) over role (Dammit, time to go BACK to the table of contents ten more times).

Hrm, comparing this with:

Well, not necessarily, no. See, I think it quickly becomes quite boring if *every* encounter has one or more Controller, one or more Artillery, one or more Brute, one or more Skirmisher, a host of Minions, and so on. And it's not just that -- your character's role more or less determines which monster you're supposed to attack (e.g. rangers keep peppering arrows at the Artillery and Controllers, while fighters and paladins are supposed to always tangle with Brutes and Minions). So while the first few adventures it might seem cool and awesome to take on a host of monsters in each fight, but soon it may become wearisome to always concentrate on certain enemy "types" in the spirit of team play, because you're are *expected* and even *required* to.

Not to mention that if you're not a tactically-minded DM, encounter/monster design in 4E might take a lot longer than it did in 3E.

You can kinda see why monster roles are a good idea. Using the 3e system of monster type did no favours to the tactically challenged. Is creature X best used as a toe to toe brute or as an artillery piece? How does the monster's type (Outsider, Evil) tell you anything about how it should be used? What is the most effective way to use a Glabrezu?

So, the designers actually set out to categorize all the creatures. But, instead of taking existing monsters and then slapping on a category (the way the CR system was designed), they redesigned the monsters to fit them into a given category. So, a Pit Fiend is a leader. He has abilities that fit with being a leader as defined in the rules.

This is why the new categories are useful. They actually tell us something about the monster. Magical Beast tells me pretty much nothing about how to use a monster. Leader Level 26 tells me a fair bit, even before reading the stat block.

 

[crosswiredmind]

Chess requires a lot of tactical thinking but is very abstract. They are not linked in any way.

I did not say that they were linked. I said that 4e is just as abstract as 3e and in addition 4e will require more tactical thinking.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Chess requires a lot of tactical thinking but is very abstract. They are not linked in any way.

How is your post linked to crosswiredmind's post?

1 - Chess is no more abstract than poker or solitary, IMO. Unless you insist it's a representation of war, but then checkers would qualify too...

2 - He said 3e and 4e are equally abstract but one is more tactical. If you insist on the abstract chess metaphor, then he essentially said that chess and checkers are both equally abstract but chess is more tactical.

I would tentatively say that what I've seen so far tells me he's right and that I dearly hope it is so.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think both systems are equally abstract but 4e requires more tactical thinking - you need to play as a team.

I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.

 

[Blackeagle]

I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.

I'm having trouble seeing how the role is any more limiting than classes. In 3e, each class has just as much of a role as it does in 4e (some classes are even more narrowly constrained by their 3e role than their 4e one). The only real difference is that the roles in 3e are implicit, while the roles in 4e are explicitly laid out.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not really seeing how this relates to what was being discussed. I wasn't arguing if 4e promotes or doesn't promote going nuke...I guess I could think about it and post my response later. The discussion was about whether there was an advantage or not to using your more powerful abilities early on in a fight or using weaker abilities and waiting...whether you decide to use those powers or not in ay specific encounter is a different beast all together.

Even just using encounter powers where they equal "2 hits" and at-wills equal "1 hit" it is better for the group to hit most encounters with their most powerful abilities first...again with the 8 hit monster, if everyone in the party does "2 hits" instead of "1 hit" then the beast dies as opposed to being able to attk one or more players on it's turn. I think this will appear more and more in D&D 4e as time progresses, almost to the point where it will become redundant and predictable...I saw it happen with jedi in SW Saga ed. 85-90% of the time the players opened with most powerful to least powerful force powers.

That might be a problem if the standard encounter was "party vs one standard monster" but the only time the PCs are facing one single monster is against a Solo. Solos have the hitpoints to easily stand up to 5 dailies from the PCs which then results in a Solo monster that quickly reaches Bloodied and I'm willing to bet most Solo monsters get TOUGHER when they hit their Bloodied state.

 

[AndrewRogue]

I think the major point of contention is the definition of tactics in this case. There is old school fantasy combat tactics and the newer "role" based tactics. In both cases good teamwork is beneficial. The "role" version forces teamwork in a very specific manner. Each role has a defined subset of tasks that must be performed in order to do the very best both mathematically and tactically. I can see this as exciting for tabletop skirmishing but getting old in an extended campaign. Classes are already limiting by themselves without adding a the role layer to that.

But... unless you were a class who had the ability to do everything awesomely at once, you already had a "role" that defined what your class would function most optimally doing.

Your two-hand fighter with Power Attack was already charging low AC targets to blow them away with explosive damage. The rogue was already avoiding heavy hitters and diving into flanks to gain his sneak attack. The Wizard and Cleric are using their defined spell list to do whatever they are supposed to do.

Could you perhaps elaborate how the situation is any different now? About the only possible argument I can see is the concept that, because of role, class design is a little more streamlined, but even this argument is inherently faulty because every class has ALWAYS had some degree of streamlining about what they could and couldn't do. Any character not built as a jack of all trades (which tended to suck anyway, really) was FURTHER specialized.

So yeah. Hash this out with me.