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

[Duncan Haldane]

I wanted to highlight this fallacy...

In BECMI: a 1st level magic-user had 2 1st level spells, chosen by the DM.
In 1e: a 1st level magic-user had between 4-9 1st level spells, depending on his Int score.
In 2e: a 1st level mage had 3d4 (3-12) 1st level spells. Specialists gained 1 additional in their specialty.
In 3e: a 1st level wizard had 3+int mod (4-7) plus all cantrips (19). A 1st level sorcerer had 4 0-level and 2 1st level.
In 4e: A 1st level wizard has 2 at-will, 1 encounter, and 2 dailies (choose 1 per day) as well as 3 rituals. (if he has expanded spel book, it increases by 1 daily, if he's human he has one more at-will).

So assuming each was a non-specialist and had an 18 in their caster score...

BECMI: 2
1e: 9
2e: 12 (max roll)
3e Wiz: 26!
3e Sor: 6
4e: 8

Clearly, the 19 cantrips for the 3e wizard creates the biggest boost. Remove them, and you find the wizard is only at a modest 7, much more in line.

And yet you have overlooked a major part - in previous editions wizards could expand their spellbooks, and choose on a day which spells they wanted to memorize. Now there's no such choice.

To answer the OP, so far in my experience with 4th Ed, I see mostly what the first group is seeing - too much "more of the same" for my liking. See, IMO, the different classes don't all need to be equal. I don't play my games to have a competition to see who can be in the limelight, therefore I don't need WotC telling me that everyone must get exactly the same sized piece of cake and the same amount of candy for it to be fair, even if someone want less cake and more candy.

Duncan

 

[Miyaa]

3E is key lime pie. Very tastey.

4E is key lime cheesecake. Like, holy crap, who doesn't like key lime cheesecake?

Quoted for Truth. Plus, I failed my will save versus hunger role.

I think for me it's still too early to say whether or not 4th edition will be good based on what they've put out there. I also did like the comparison of spell slots, so to speak. Very interesting.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

FWIW, one of my friends and I both decided to make dragonborn warlords as our first 4E characters, neither of us knowing that the other was doing so.

Our characters were virtually identical. Same feats, exploits, and ability scores (with one 2-point difference). YMMV.

If the most important thing and the most defining thing is the stats of the characters then this will be true. But with histories and personalities having similar or the same stats, race, and class becomes less important. I had a great campaign once where unbeknowst to anyone else I had the exact same character as another PC. We were both fighters and even though the numbers were exact the characters were very different.

I think in 4E though, the sameness would be jarring in play. You would be relying on the personality difference as it is the only thing to differentiate the two - and even then, once in combat you would most likely feel that if you could offer something different to your "twin", you would be making the party more effective for the variety.

I think 4E perhaps over-streamlines in this regard, in that you have specific builds (charisma-based or int-based for the Warlord for example). The die from which the character's are cast is very strong; you can tell from a round or two of combat, what build each character is. Good for being able to co-ordinate abilities for maximum effect and teamwork but at the same time, different from previous editions.

I've found 4E enjoyable so far, but at times it feels more like a game, than as an epic story that the players are trying to help unfold. Maybe this is because the mechanics are new and thus being focused upon. Or maybe it is because this gamist design permeates the rules in subtle and not so subtle ways.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[mhensley]

No sir, I don't like it.

 

[knightofround]

From a complexity standpoint, the thing I like about 4E is that all the classes have depth to them. Whereas in D&D 3E the only classes that truly had depth to them were the cleric, druid, wizard, and sorcerer classes, due to the many things they could do with spells. All other classes were pretty boring to play because you didn't have many options unless you took purposefully overpowered PrC/multiclass combos.

That said, 4E isn't perfect. 3E has a much better economy and has a far more detailed combat system.

I think 4E is probably more fun for PCs that like complexity, and 3E is more fun for DMs that like complexity.

 

[Kzach]

4E took away what they felt made D&D unique. Couple of POV's were once you took away the flavor text every attack is identical to the next, the versatility that Wizards once had is now gone.

How is more less?

4e has given every class more powers and abilities than they've ever had before in any edition. Are they seriously comparing a fighter's attack from every other edition to 4e's multiple versions and saying 4e comes up short?

If that is the case, then there's really no hope for them. They've turned on the blinkers and will see what they want to see, not what is actually there.

Yes I know they don't run out of spells now, but quantity does not equal quality. 3.5 I could have 3 human 1st lvl wizards that could still be completely different, in 4E that is not possible.

Which has also been a major problem for most groups throughout the last thirty years. Grognards don't like to admit it, but once you got to around 10th-level, every other class other than wizard and cleric becomes obsolete. Let me guess, all the complainers and whiners are wizard/cleric players.

Also the "forcing" of needing each role filled does suck.

Another completely ridiculous assertion. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says, "YOU MUST HAVE A DEFENDER, A STRIKER, A CONTROLLER AND A LEADER OR ELSE THE GODS OR ROLEPLAYING GAMES WILL STRIKE YOU DOWN!"

The only thing that WotC has done is to name the roles. The roles were always there, in every edition, since the concept of an adventuring group coming up against a bunch of monsters first existed. Saying that you're somehow forced to make a group with these roles filled is such utter nonsense that I have to wonder if this group is just being contrary to be contrary.

Ironically, 4e makes the roles even less a requirement because they have classes that are flexible enough to fill other classes roles. Paladins can be healing machines if you focus on that, fighters can pretty much take care of themselves, a lot of classes have controller-like powers, warlords and clerics can fill a defender role in a pinch, etc. That was far less the case in previous editions, with the exception that 3.x gave you that versatility once you started getting into prestige classes.

I am the only one of this group that is pro 4e but I can't change the level of disgust this group has for 4E (I was surprised at the amount).

The 2nd group I have been with for about 5 years and part of the first group makes up the 2nd group (small percentage) however the group just felt like they were going through the motions not really getting into it like they once did.

And this is where we come to the real crux of the issue. They don't want to like it. They're not giving it a go, they're going through the motions so that they can say, "Well, we tried it, didn't like it, now let's get back to what we know and love!"

No matter what the truth or reality is, they've already made their decision and are going to stick with it. They have no objectivity.

Which is just fine and dandy. Let them play what they like playing. Forcing 4e on them is obviously not the way to go.

 

[Kzach]

Clearly, the 19 cantrips for the 3e wizard creates the biggest boost. Remove them, and you find the wizard is only at a modest 7, much more in line.

You forgot the four cantrips a wizard gets in 4e.

 

[billd91]

3E is key lime pie. Very tastey.

4E is key lime cheesecake. Like, holy crap, who doesn't like key lime cheesecake?

Ugh. I detest cheesecake. Never liked flavors based on cream cheese. Regular old key lime is so much better.

 

[Wycen]

For the time being 4E is not doing it for me. It is an excuse to gather to socialize, but 4E just isn't exciting me.

My first group went 4E because the DM is our FLGS owner and he has to sell the newest flavor of anything. He also says he likes the ease of running 4E, but when I tease him about skill challenges he just cringes and shakes his head.

My second group went 4E because our host killed our 3.5 Savage Tide game. Ironically our host is now running 4E. We gather to try the system, but I'd jump back to 3.5, or a different game, in a heart beat.

My 3rd group was going 3.5 but somehow got it in their head to try Chaosium's Basic Role Playing, so now we are Burping. I'm going to try to get them to give Bulldogs! a try on days they don't have anything ready for the BRP game.

 

[malraux]

For me, yes. I was rather burned out on DMing 3e. I haven't played as a character yet, but from my perspective as DM, 4e removed so many of the hurdles that 3e threw up it makes the game very enjoyable.

btw

Combat also seems to drag in 4E because everyone has so may hit points.

I think this is very much an experience thing. Aside from some solo battles, to me the hit points seem about right. However, the first few sessions, before my group got a handle on the emergent complexity and party tactics, definitely did feel that way. But after everyone got several fights under their belt, the HP seem fine to me.