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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You're still doing this. But you probably print them out on separate cards and call them powers. I actually find it's MORE of a combat matrix now than before. I used to get away with 2 or 3 lines for most of my attacks (1 or 2 melee, 1 or 2 ranged). Now I need at least 4 just for 'basic' attacks, plus half a dozen others, all of which differ from each other in the tiniest way.

That's an interesting way to look at it I haven't considered before. So in essence, 4E makes me organize myself better?
There is also a difference in how this is approached - it is my conscious decision to choose a different power. Basically, it feels like I choose the bonus I want to use, instead of having a sliding scale thingy. And I don't have to deal with iterative attacks either, though this is not a reduction of the combat matrix, just speeding up the individual round.

From my limited experience of 4E, this hasn't changed. There's still tonnes of frustrating moments. They're just different moments to before.

Agreed. Not to my liking for example.

Do you like it more complex or less complex, or do you feel your group needs different complexity grades? Or do you like both. IIRC, we already had a thread on this topic before, so feel free to ignore. (I mean, even freer then you already are by the virtue of internet discussion forums)

HAH! I can't count how many times I've heard 'sly flourish' from our rogue. If that's not power spamming I don't know what is.

It's an at-will power. I expect spamming with them. They are no more spamming then a 3E Fighter making an attack every round.

My original fear (way before 4E was actually published) was that everyone would get more and more encounter powers, so that at high levels, it would be one encounter power every round.

 

[sidonunspa]

You're still doing this. But you probably print them out on separate cards and call them powers. I actually find it's MORE of a combat matrix now than before. I used to get away with 2 or 3 lines for most of my attacks (1 or 2 melee, 1 or 2 ranged). Now I need at least 4 just for 'basic' attacks, plus half a dozen others, all of which differ from each other in the tiniest way.

lets see in 4e my ranger had 6 attack matrixes..
Melee: Two-Handed Sword, Two-Swords, w/power attack (-2/-5), w/combat expertise (-2/-5)
Ranged: Bow, /w power attack (PrC), with "trance" (PrC)

Not counting spells & common outside buffs.

I still remember taking a few min between turns to write up my new attacks and damage when someone else buffed me.

HAH! I can't count how many times I've heard 'sly flourish' from our rogue. If that's not power spamming I don't know what is. Sure it's not fireball or some other big boom-y power, but we're only level 1. I can think of... maybe two rounds where that wasn't the power used by the rogue. I'm sick of hearing it already. Partly this is due to the name though. Sly flourish sounds to me like something that should happen when you're about to beat the pants off of someone, not something you do every 6 seconds. It's how I'd describe the swashbuckler's finishing move, or his posing move prior to the actual combat, not every attack he makes..

But "I attack, power attacking for -4" sounds sooooo much cooler" or when you have a spike chain, trip monkey... "I trip, and use improved trip"

yay!

Really? Hmmm. Funny, I was thinking that during my last session of 4E. I'll be trading out one of my two almost identical powers next level so that I can actually have a power that lets me do something in future.

in 4e all you have to wait is one level, in 3.5 (unless you use the retraining rules) you are stuck with the feat, forever. you know you pick up levels in a "orc slayer" class and suddenly the GM stops using Orcs.

Oh, sorry, I should clarify. I was talking about how often they were handed out, not how many existed in books. Particularly when you look at weapons that added extra dice of damage to every attack, or items that altered your primary attributes (str etc), I did not see those being handed out on any sort of regular basis. Then again, this could be unique to my play group?

You never had a magic item crafter in your group make the fighter a +1 frost, shocking, acid longsword? or the +1/+1 ghost touch, holy staff of Disruption?

I know in my group, we would take a week or so brake between major story points as the cleric and wizard crafted better items.

I find that it lacks elegance, and leads to an increase of the combat matrix Mustrum_Ridcully was referring to earlier. I continually forget how many dice of each type I need to roll, and what damage type they all correspond to.

Seems people forget the 24 strength character with +1 Spike Chain (2d4) of frost (+d6), Shocking Burst (+d6 and if a crit +d10) on a character with +6 to hit in buff spells who rages (+2 more to hit and damage) and uses his power attack swaping the total bonues +16 damage, gaining a sweet 2d4+26+2d6 (+d10 if critical) who then clicks his boots of speed (+1 to hit and an extra attack) and takes 8 damage from divine sacrifice (ring of spell storing, filled by the paladen) for a total of 2d4+26+2d6+4d6.. btw not adding a million other bonuses I can come up with... or rouge levels.

 

[WizarDru]

Oh, sorry, I should clarify. I was talking about how often they were handed out, not how many existed in books. Particularly when you look at weapons that added extra dice of damage to every attack, or items that altered your primary attributes (str etc), I did not see those being handed out on any sort of regular basis. Then again, this could be unique to my play group?

Someone did a thread here about magic item distributions throughout the printed core modules, comparing AD&D with 3e and generally found that AD&D had the potential to give MORE magic items, not fewer. A lot of math was discussed, but the end result was that in general, magic items were no less or more commonplace in previous editions than in 3e. The primary difference under 3e was that they were far more transparent about the necessity of them. In 1e, if you encountered a creature that could only be hit by a +1 or greater weapon, you were out of luck. This generally meant that players would invariably find such equipment unless the DM wanted his players to encounter a no-win situation or relegate the spellslingers to doing the fighting against some creatures.

One of the key points of perception, I think, came from WotC's research data about play habits. Most campaigns did not (and probably still do not) last long periods of time. Therefore, many games never reached the loftier heights of AD&D's double-digits. The slower advancement meant that many of the bigger, more dramatic items and spells stayed beyond many players reach, creating a perception of equipment never given out. 3e intentionally sped that advancement arc up and thus more groups were routinely exposed to higher levels and more magical loot, IMHO.

 

[Allister]

I think another perception problem is that pre 3E, you couldn't actually create items reliably.

Anyone remember what the books like the DMG and PO:S&M recommended for magic items?

Since the items were so random, even if a player had three times the amount of magic items in pre 3E, the fact that most of he items weren't going to be used on the person of the character meant said character appeared to have fewer items.

 

[Scribble]

(And, since I am working on a mechanically simpler system myself, don't take this as me insulting you for liking something less complex! I don't think mechanical simplicity has to lead to overall simplicity.)

RC

Depends what you mean... If something is mechanically simpler then overall the system will be simpler, easier to use, etc. I don't know if this is what you meant though.

4e does a great job in my opinion with presentation, and categorization of information. From the things like stat blocks, to combat options, it does a great job of presenting rules that someone needs when that person needs them, and doesn't try to have them know all rules at all times, and select from what they feel is right.

Looking at one "compartment" of rules and not the whole I think is part of what leeds some to believe the system as a whole isn't "robust." This isn't true. It's just easier to use, which is a good thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Depends what you mean... If something is mechanically simpler then overall the system will be simpler, easier to use, etc. I don't know if this is what you meant though.

A system can be mechanically simple, IMHO, and yet offer a whole range of possibilities within play. Mechanical simplicity =/= simplicity in terms of what can be done at the table. It is quite possible to have a system that, although itself composed of simple rules, allows for complex decisions to be made.

As an easy example, 3e grapple is overly complex in order to allow for complex decisions to be made; 4e grapple is simple, but doesn't take into account obvious things that a real-world grapple would entail. I believe that it is possible to have a system that is both simple (ala 4e) and allows for complex results (ala 3e).

There are a lot of good things about 4e. Simpler stat blocks is definitely among them. IMHO, the longest time spent in adventure/world creation should be deciding upon the "story elements", not figuring out how to translate them into game mechanics. However, I don't believe that this means you must limit your story elements as much as, IMHO, 4e does (at least at this point), nor that you have to sacrifice verisimilitude in order to have a game that is fast-playing and fun.

Which is why I am working on my own system.

One of the lessons that I have definitely learned is that, although it is my goal that D&D adventures (and, to a lesser degree, sourcebooks) from any edition are easy to translate into my system (which will be free and mostly OGC, excepting art, game name, and possibly one or two design sidebars, and which will have free licensing to use the game name), trying to merely "fix" 3e isn't a good place to start from. Far better to begin with what you want to achieve, and working those elements from scratch, as the 4e team seems to have done.

(OTOH, my initial release will include druids, sorcerers, and bards, as well as gnomes, so there. )


RC

 

[Scribble]

A system can be mechanically simple, IMHO, and yet offer a whole range of possibilities within play. Mechanical simplicity =/= simplicity in terms of what can be done at the table. It is quite possible to have a system that, although itself composed of simple rules, allows for complex decisions to be made.

I agree.

As an easy example, 3e grapple is overly complex in order to allow for complex decisions to be made; 4e grapple is simple, but doesn't take into account obvious things that a real-world grapple would entail. I believe that it is possible to have a system that is both simple (ala 4e) and allows for complex results (ala 3e).

See in this case I think you're missing the whole. In 3e grapple was a rules "chunk." If we want to wrestle we do this set of rules.

4e takes another approach. Notice there isn't an action in the 4e combat section called grapple? Grapple in 4e consists of starting with a grab + all of the other powers/actions that link to grab. The way a wrestling match plays out between two characters might be completely different then how a similar event plays out between another set of characters. Yet they all use rules stemming from a coherent base, but add their own unique options and ideas to the game. The options are complex, but the rules are not.

There are a lot of good things about 4e. Simpler stat blocks is definitely among them. IMHO, the longest time spent in adventure/world creation should be deciding upon the "story elements", not figuring out how to translate them into game mechanics.

I agree...

However, I don't believe that this means you must limit your story elements as much as, IMHO, 4e does (at least at this point), nor that you have to sacrifice verisimilitude in order to have a game that is fast-playing and fun.

I'm sick of that word. Really I am. This board needs a thesaurus buit in.

I also think a lot of the sacrificed "versimilitude" is set up by the sacrificer to convince himself that he had no choice but to make the kill.

Which is why I am working on my own system.

Let me know when you're done. I'll check it out.

trying to merely "fix" 3e isn't a good place to start from. Far better to begin with what you want to achieve, and working those elements from scratch, as the 4e team seems to have done.

Not sure I agree with this. I think they took a lot of ideas from earlier editions, smelted them down, and remolded them.

One thing I WOULD like to see is someone go back, and find al the various OGL rethinks on the rules and see what would happen if you made them the standard rule. As opposed to re-doing the game based on another rule you think might work.

(OTOH, my initial release will include druids, sorcerers, and bards, as well as gnomes, so there. )

Cool?

if they work with the system at least... If they're just tacked on to make people happy... eh...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm sick of that word. Really I am. This board needs a thesaurus buit in.

Maybe, but it's a good word.

Let me know when you're done. I'll check it out.

Will do. I am beginning to post design bits on the "RPG Design" section of my website. Not much there yet, but there will be. Daniel J. Bishop on the Web

Not sure I agree with this. I think they took a lot of ideas from earlier editions, smelted them down, and remolded them.

The ideas, yes. The integration, no. And that, I think is important. It is the ideas that make D&D what it is, IMHO, not the form in which those ideas are expressed.....caveat, of course, that there are some cases where I think that removing the form generally removes the idea.

One thing I WOULD like to see is someone go back, and find al the various OGL rethinks on the rules and see what would happen if you made them the standard rule. As opposed to re-doing the game based on another rule you think might work.

I am using some 3pp OGC materials.

if they work with the system at least... If they're just tacked on to make people happy... eh...

If I just wanted to make people happy, I'd stop posting my opinions....


RC

 

[messy]

without reading the rest of the thread, i'll chime in.

i haven't seen much about 4e that's gotten me interested. a heavily-houseruled 3.5 works for me, so if it ain't broke, why fix it?

messy

 

[AllisterH]

re: Attribute changing items in pre-3E.

I think it was more focused. I distinctly remember in my circles that "Belt of X Giant Strength" and/or Gauntlets of Ogre Strength were always considered a staple magic item.