D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[LostSoul]

So, for instance, when a designer's faced with figuring out how grappling should work, with all the elements that come with it (establishing a hold, escaping, throwing, choking, squeezing, dragging), or how rules should apply to incorporeal or amorphous opponents (can they be grappled, pushed/pulled/slid, knocked prone, etc), he's got the choice to use the club or the rapier. Be meticulous, or just duct-tape the sucker. In the end, D&D went for "grabbed = immobilized, no pinning, no squeezing", and "incorporeal = half damage, otherwise treat just like everything else". There's a spartan principle at work that some folks like, but the mechanic has good reason to regard D&D as a "lite" game, and if he wants something deeper, he can't tinker within the system. If I want to pit the players against a foe that they can't deal with just by cycling through their power cards, then I'm working against 4e's grain, not with it.

Hang on a sec. Let's assume you're DMing a game.

Is there any way for a character to apply the Stunned effect (i.e. "pinned") to another character in combat without using a Power that specifically applies that effect?

Does Grab always mean that you phsyically take hold of another character? Could I, for instance, "Grab" a Ghost using a Religion check? How about physically trying to "Grab" a Ghost? What about Shifting a Ghost with a power that targets Will?

I would say - if you are saying no to all these things, you're going against the grain.

I think 4e works in the following modes:
-If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't. You need a Power to disarm someone, for example.
-You can try anything that makes sense to people at the table, with the DM as the final authority. You don't need to use a Power to disarm someone, for example. This seems to be the mode suggested in the PHB and DMG.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Coming from the dm's perspective, I find 4e to be such an awesome improvement that I just don't know what to do with all the time I no longer have to spend on prep.

Me too. Unfortunately that usually leads to more housework. Darn 4e! Darn you to heck!

Make no mistake about it, I'll still PLAY 3.x (and even 1e/2e). I just won't DM it

I agree. There just isn't anyone in my group that wants to run a 3.x campaign. Even the one or two that prefer 3E (or are maybe still a little unsure about 4E) won't run the thing as more than a one-shot here and there. Luckily, we're all friends and the players are willing to play whatever game system I am willing to put effort into running. I think they'd even try Synnibar and F.A.T.A.L. if I started a campaign.

 

[Plane Sailing]

3.5 I could have 3 human 1st lvl wizards that could still be completely different, in 4E that is not possible.

I think that one of the main reasons for this problem is the paucity of rituals they included in the 4e PHB. If they had included 20 1st level rituals, including a huge range of 1st (and 2nd) level spells from earlier editions, then we wouldn't be feeling this problem with wizards so greatly.

Among the rituals there should also be some 'utility' and 'attack' rituals in my opinion too - there is plenty of design space for that kind of thing, and it would have really made a difference in the perception of wizards IMO.

Cheers

 

[Fifth Element]

???

I didn't use 3e grappling as an example. I didn't speak of 3e at all. Be careful of falling into the trap of thinking that a criticism of 4e design is equivalent to praise of 3e design. Or, for that matter, thinking that because something has been handled in an overcomplicated way that the only way to remedy it is to replace it with something extremely simple.

??????

You discussed 4E design philosophy of choosing simple rules over comprehensive ones, even if the latter is more elegant.

One of the examples you then discuss is grappling. No, you didn't specifically refer to 3E, but it's clear that 4E started with the skeleton of 3E's mechanics, which it then made changes to. So they could have decided to stay with 3E's comprehensive grappling mechanic, instead of the simple grab.

Also, be careful of not falling into the trap of not reading my sig.

 

[timbannock]

In Descent, my most effective option in a round could entail two attacks, one attack, or even no attacks at all; there are other goals in a Descent skirmish beyond "kill all enemies", so you don't need to designate the action used to attack as being more valuable than the action used to move. When I do attack or move, I have many options to combine it with: a dodge, aim, or guard order. I also could elect to use a different array of weapons for the job, because even the choice of which dice to roll is significant (as opposed to D&D, where most characters just use one optimal weapon all of the time). And I've got fatigue as a resource to manage for both offense and movement.

Funny, I've felt this way about D&D for a very long time.

Skill challenges and quests seem to make 4e D&D more about not "killing all enemies," and adds a layer of systems to the non-combat stuff that I've found incredibly fun and easy to use.

Note that I'm not picking on your comment: I really really really want to try Descent, and you just made me want to try it even really lots more!

 

[The Ghost]

I'm not a big fan. Feels like a board game to me. Not that I dislike board games - I love board games! But I perfer my board games and my D&D to be more seperated.

This about sums it up for me and my group. That and the discovery of HeroForge/MonsterForge made 3.5 so much easier to DM again.

 

[Scribble]

Well, I'd already covered a lot of it in a previous post in the second page of this thread. There are a lot of 4e rules that just have sloppy mechanics, fostered by a philosophy that goes something like "a flawed, ham-handed rule is better than an elegant, comprehensive rule if the former is simpler than the latter: make rules for people who prefer the straightforwardness of a club over the intricacy of a rapier".

Hrmmm I dissagree. I think it's a case of not using a sledge hammer when you really want to use a normal hammer. See below.

So, for instance, when a designer's faced with figuring out how grappling should work, with all the elements that come with it (establishing a hold, escaping, throwing, choking, squeezing, dragging), or how rules should apply to incorporeal or amorphous opponents (can they be grappled, pushed/pulled/slid, knocked prone, etc), he's got the choice to use the club or the rapier. Be meticulous, or just duct-tape the sucker. In the end, D&D went for "grabbed = immobilized, no pinning, no squeezing"

"incorporeal = half damage, otherwise treat just like everything else". There's a spartan principle at work that some folks like, but the mechanic has good reason to regard D&D as a "lite" game, and if he wants something deeper, he can't tinker within the system.

I think what's being missed might be the "order" in which things work in 4e.

In 3e they seemed to go from a top down approach. What does the word incorpreal mean? What effects should it have? What things should not effect it, etc. Start at the top and work your way down.

In 4e they take a bottom up approach. Define only the basic needs. You can walk through walls, and take 1/2 damage. Then, as they design other elements they can then add functions based on keywords. This attack does not effect creatures with the "incorpreal" keyword.

Same thing with Grab.

Grab does not = grapple in the 3e sense. Grab is just the first part. The actual, well, grabbing part. It's intentionally minimal because it's the springboard from which your other options start. It's the very bottom level of the bottom up aproach.

I might have a monster with a special power, but it needs to grab first to enact it. I might have a special attack, but it involves a grab to achieve it.

Designing from the bottom up allows you to achieve different effects, without having to plan them all from the start. I could say, invent an action such as "flip." All I need to do is design the base idea of what is a flip, and how to enact it. Then, I can add on powers that utilize "flip" as the basic first step. It doesn't matter how many new things add on, because I haven't designed everything you can do with flip.

It might seem like sloppy or bad mechanics if you try to approach it from the top down angle, but it's not. It's just different.

" If I want to pit the players against a foe that they can't deal with just by cycling through their power cards, then I'm working against 4e's grain, not with it.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

[Benimoto]

That's because of your playstyle, though.

If you played a game with more intrigue and less combat, that wouldn't be true at all.

Well, like I said, I was making the character specifically for a Pathfinder scenario, which had a fair amount of intrigue but also a lot of tough combats. So I was limited by that.

But still, I stand by the fact that barely half the 1st level spells are actually good choices for a first level wizard, regardless of campaign style. Spells like erase and hold portal, are extremely limited use, and even spells like identify or detect undead are so limited in application that, unless you know for sure that they'd be useful, they're a bad bet as one of your 2-3 spells.

So, in my opinion, a 3.x wizard gets to pick 2-3 spells out of a list of maybe 16-22, with maybe 10 being several times as useful as the others. The 4e wizard gets to pick 5-7 spells out of a list of maybe 12 (I don't have my books with me) plus rituals.

What it comes down to is that as a player who enjoys campaigns with a fair amount of action in them, I don't really feel that 4e is reducing the wizards I play that much in versatility.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes. But 5e is way to videogamey for my taste. And the multi-classing rules are terribly wonky. And less is said about its anime artwork, the better.

Don't worry; no one will admit to those problems until the advent of 6e.

RC

 

[Festivus]

I am enjoying the low level 4E game, but then I also loved the 3.5 low level game. I have yet to DM or play a character above 4th level so I can't really speak to how I will like high level play. For low level play it's certainly different, not better or worse than 3.5

What I don't appreciate is the number of base classes available and the thought that I will have to buy additional books to get a bard, druid and barbarian (is that in three separate books each?). As for other books, I think I will be skipping the bulk of them as they are too high in price for what I am getting. After doing some soul searching I have decided against DDI and the online Dungeon/Dragon magazines, opting to spend my money elsewhere.

I will continue to play 3.5 with my group of friends who prefers 3.5, and I will continue to play 4e with my group of friends who perfers 4e. Likely it will remain that way for a long, long time, with the only possible change being dropping 3.5 for pathfinder when that comes out.