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

[Fallen Seraph]

The talk about magic items already being overpowered, etc. Doesn't take into account that it isn't as if these items are necessary to play the game effectively.

So, in many regards there just another means of adapting the game for a certain style, in this case a more magical/powerful style. Since it isn't required unlike before to take such items to do well.

I personally for magic items am just giving the staggered bonus to my players automatically and then simply have the abilities of the items stay.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I was (and am still) under the impression that all the 'iterations of core threes', so to speak, will be considered core. Mind you, it's been a while since I actually delved into the 4e product line / marketing schemes, strategies and even titles.

Is it the case? Er, or was it ever for that matter? If not, that's cool - I don't have a point to prove here. As I said, it's an impression, and one I got from. . . um, somewhere or other.

 

[That One Guy]

Mustrum "Look at my new, shiny high horse" Ridcully

LOL.

Let's call this the Incompetence Fallacy; the belief that a character is inherently deeper, better rounded, and/or more interesting because they're bad at what they're supposed to good at...

Going along with this is the Competence Corollary; a character get less interesting the better he or she is at what they're supposed to be good at. This is nonsense, too.

I like those terms. And, I agree with you.

I wonder why rolling for stats is so important to us DnD players...
...Now I prefer point-buy because it levels the mechanical playing field and forces players to think about their characters beyond mechanical stats.

Yeah, I noticed a similar aspect in myself. In other games I prefer a point-buy because I feel like it puts everyone on an equal footing. I also feel like it helps for D&D, even though rolling for stats is an oddly fun thing.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I wonder why rolling for stats is so important to us DnD players.

The same reason casinos are profitable.

This does not work for a lot of DnD players I've met, and I wonder why.

They haven't admitted they have a problem. That's the first step.

 

[jokamachi]

Nope. Still nothing.

 

[Midknightsun]

Yup, definitely liking it. Though I'll admit I was completely burned out and looking for new systems a good year before the announcement for 4e was even made. DMing 3.5 was such a chore I'd joke to my players how I should just go back to grad school and at least get a degree to show for all my work. (which I did) Don't get me wrong, I loved 3.5 in many ways and would still play in a 3.5 game without a problem. 4e has some wonkyness to it, definitely, (so does 3.5) but overall I like a lot of what they've done. Our group's only problem is that we are trying to break in a new DM and get used to a new ruleset, so combats are crawling much more slowly than they should. In time I'm sure that'll improve though. I'm sure by the time 5e comes out, I'll be ready to move on to another system, I have no illusions. Then again, I'm an RPG tramp, so that's a given.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The same reason casinos are profitable.



They haven't admitted they have a problem. That's the first step.

Nice.

The random stat thing does have that gambling appeal, but problems start almost immediately when one player rolls very well (or poorly) and gets stuck playing a character that easily outshines the group or is looked upon as baggage because they are useless.

In a non-competitive game this can result in super unfun so what usually happens is some sort of compromise for the unlucky player or players that brings everyone up to to the higher grade of stats (because bringing the high ones down is a kick in teeth) and so to make everyone happy there is the full party of high stat characters.

Anyone who has been playing a long time may have experienced this scenario to one degree or another. For those "take what you get" types I wonder how many sub-par characters have set off on thier first adventure intent on finding thier own doom.

The point is that random rolling is often an illusion that we all want to believe in sometimes.

 

[Sunderstone]

My group still has no interest in 4E (same goes for myself as their DM) so I guess it isnt doing it for us .

On a slight tangent, we were getting a new player to join our group but it turns out that she got into a new 4E game during the past month. Her group plays on the nights we are planning to play on.
She's also semi-new to the game (a little 2E iirc) and I dont think shes ever played 3.5.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

On the original question, yes it is doing it for me. I could never see my self running 3.x again. I would play it or pathfinder but not run it. That said I have ran a group that rolled stats for Keep on the Shadowfell and i have not noticed any especial difficulties. Obviously more in the promary helps. In another group that I have run one session, most of the group rolled except one that point buyed. Again the group did ok despite a ranger that in a 7 hour session did not roll over 6 on any attack roll.

On the recent comments on roll vs point buy, I like rolling because it give me something to play off since I rarely come prepared with a concept other than race or class.

That said, while I have had enromous fun with some sub par characters over the years, they only work in a large party where you have the scope to play their quirks. The thing with sub par charachters is only use them as support cast (if all stats are sub par) if they have a primary good enough for their role (fighter, rogue etc) then make the really good at that and sacrifice all to being good at that but forgoe the rest to character quirks.

 

[SolitonMan]

I've been playing in a play by post game using the 4E rules, and that's been OK in so far as not having the immediate pressure to decide an action from limited choices. I also just dropped out of a group in which we played two sessions of KotS. The first session was ok, the second not so fun.

I find myself feeling the same way about 4E that I did about VB.NET. See, I spent years programming in ASP/VB/SQL and was comfortable with it. When I tried to make the switch to .NET, I found that my previous VB experience was just enough to confuse (and frustrate) me. My previous experience gave me no leverage in the new paradigm (I ended chucking VB.NET and just learning C# instead).

In a similar way I find my 4E experience getting frustrating. "Oh, right, it's a move action to take a 5-foot step now." Little things like that. Plus constantly having to look up powers - drag.

There are some things I like about 4E. Movement in squares insteaed of distance so you can skip that double-count crap with diagonals - genius. All areas of effect are squares - brilliant. Spellcasters always have something to do effectively - awesome. But mostly it's felt more like work than gaming trying to engage 4E. Probably just the cranky old man syndrome...

Anyway, to be succinct to the OP's question - nope. Doesn't do it for me.