D&D 4E Just played my first 4E game

[Fenes]

Maybe. But maybe this more points out the fact that the analogy to "video-games" just fails.

No. The analogy works still, especially with regards to combat. It's not bad or good per se, and there's always the question what game took what from what game, but there are similarities which are more pronounced in 4E, if only for using terminology that makes them more apparent, and less hidden.

And ultimately, crafting never helped my role-playing.
The last time I used a Craft skill in a role-playing game, it was in a Black-Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) game, and I used it to have at least some stuff where I could use my skills for. (And I didn't have the impression that the rules really explained what I had to roll or how often to create the wooden shield I was working on. Strangely enough, the math of DSA still makes me feel a computer might be better suited to calculate it then a player, but that wouldn't help me enjoy the game more, either. [/tangent])

Don't mention DSA, I am still scarred from one combat there...

I think games are fine omitting rules for things not relevant to most game scenarios. There are no rules for pregnancy, either, though we would need them to "simualate" pseudo-medieval life (and it might also help us understand the entire Dragonboob issue ).

What is relevant and what is not differs for most people. I do think WotC cut down a bit too much what they considered "unfun", and mainly on the non-combat side. I'd have kept more skills, but added more skill points in general, to provide more variety, for example.

Well, most characters just buy the items they need, too. Setting up a smithy shop just to create your own sword sounds a bit to involved if you could just buy one from an established smith or trader. The "modding" rules are again far more important, since magical items will always be required.

For some character concepts, it's noce to be able to forge that one sword. It might even be the base of an entire campaign. And reducing crafting to some magical modding process just feels wrong.

(Programming isn't really an exception. It's not really "realistic" to assume that a busy shadowrunner has the ability to recreate or even exceed over what a full team of software developers could create.
But that's just a part of the trope of Shadowrun or Cyberpunk - like fighting Dragons and Giants is in D&D
If I was to create a Cyberpunk-type game, I might adapt this idea and incorporate the thought of open source - real hackers use open source software for their hacking, and all you do as a hacker is to create some small modifications to better suite the situation at hand...)

Open source is covered some in Shadowrun's latest sourcebook, Unwired.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Don't mention DSA, I am still scarred from one combat there...

Sorry, I didn't want to bring up any negative memories. I didn't look at your User Location and thought you most likely had no DSA experience.

What is relevant and what is not differs for most people. I do think WotC cut down a bit too much what they considered "unfun", and mainly on the non-combat side. I'd have kept more skills, but added more skill points in general, to provide more variety, for example.

I think it's more they just omitted to much stuff that other people find important. It should be very easy to add a craft system to 4E, but the just didn't find any room for it. Importing the 3E rules framework here would have been very easy. I don't know if it would have helped the critics, or if it would have made the PHB to large and required other sacrifices, but it would have been nice if they had included it.

I think they should consider adding some Dragon support for it. Many people will not accept "fan excuses" or house rules.

For some character concepts, it's noce to be able to forge that one sword. It might even be the base of an entire campaign. And reducing crafting to some magical modding process just feels wrong.

Sure, sometimes. But I noticed that most of the time if forging a sword is important, it has to be successful - the story can't have you failing to forge a sword. That means the only reason to have the craft rule is to give you some idea how long it should take or what materials you might need.

Open source is covered some in Shadowrun's latest sourcebook, Unwired.

I am not really up-to-date with 4E Shadowrun. I liked the new mechanics, but my group as a whole still doesn't like the initiative system. And personally, I am just not that good at creating compelling Shadowrun adventures...

 

[Imaro]

Also been seen in previous editions of D&D, whether it was spells per dat, Paladins smite perday/remove disease per week, Clerics turning per day the list goes on and on and on.

The difference I think is that those things in previous editions of D&D that were based around this type of "recharge" mechanic were never mundane things. They were things that, outside of game mechanic logic, had a reason to be limited in a simulationist viewpoint.

As an example with the power atttack feat it seems logical to conclude that by concentrating less on attacking (-2 attk) and more on the force of my swing (+2 dmg/+3 dmg) I can do more damage. This is something that has no limitations... and any class can gain if it has a 15 Str.

On the other hand only the Fighter can concentrate more on his attack (Sure Strike) to get a better chance to hit by sacrificing damage.

Why is one a class power (and I'm not even going to go into how this power seems like it would be easier for a striker than a defender to learn), and one a feat? Why can one supplement any power and the other is a power in itself? It feels wrong to me in a logical sense.

I think the roles have alwys been there in D&D (look at the classic party of the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief), the only difference in this edition is that the designers have decided to spell it out for us.

I disagree (to a point) here as welll, who exactly was the "striker" in previous versions of D&D? Was it the Fighter...Was it the Wizard using a spell that targeted a single creature, or was it the Rogue when he did a sneak attack?

Who was the "controller"? The Wizard or Cleric using area spells...The Rogue using bluff and tumbling to distract and confuse monsters...Or the Fighter who could trip, bull rush and disarm opponents while others attacked?

THis is most probably the biggest nod to computergames in the editions, the idea of balancing classes to be usefull both in and out of combat. And I for one am glad about it. Beside, if computergames can steal ideas from pen and paper rpgs, the designers of said rpgs should be able to steal ideas that work back.

I think I have issue with how the classes have been balanced. The balance seems to be... this is what your character does, and this is the best way to do it. PERIOD. I have a question, with the powers, what incentive does a character have to try a stunt? It's harder to pull off, probably does less damage and is inefficient for your role.

Another thing this "balance" does is make a party missing certain roles sub-optimal when facing certain encounter types...thus the Rogue vs. Undead of 3e all over again.

As I pointed out earlier, there shouldn't really be an issue with games designers looking at other games in other media and seeing what works, what doesn't work and what can be adapted. If it brings out better products, this is a good thing.

Phaezen

If the product is better I totally agree... as far as 4e goes, I'm playing it now but finding myself less and less inclined towards it as time progresses. I have promised my players we will play until October, so my oppinions may change...but even my players are finding it less and less fun as we continue.

 

[Mallus]

The difference I think is that those things in previous editions of D&D that were based around this type of "recharge" mechanic were never mundane things.

Why are you considering Conanesque 'mighty hewing' and crazy wuxia-style martial artwork 'mundane things'?

They were things that, outside of game mechanic logic, had a reason to be limited in a simulationist viewpoint.

There's nothing inherently simulationist about treating spell casters like artillery units with limited ammunition. That's just a D&D-ism that grew out of its wargaming.

 

[Imaro]

Why are you considering Conanesque 'mighty hewing' and crazy wuxia-style martial artwork 'mundane things'?

Yet, my problem is that 4e doesn't have any distinction between those things (see my example above). Sure Strike vs. Power Attack should both be either feats or powers yet one is a power and one is a feat. So you can train anyone to hit exceptionally hard...but only fighters can train to be accurate (even though they are defenders and not strikers). You seem to be arguing that 3e had some disconnects... so it's okay if 4e has even more.

There's nothing inherently simulationist about treating spell casters like artillery units with limited ammunition. That's just a D&D-ism that grew out of its wargaming.

I'm sorry but almost any fantasy novel, movie, etc. has limitations on magic. Now whether D&D mimics a particular type of literary magic (which vancian actually is) or doesn't is neither here nor there. But previous editions did limit magic just as fantasy media tends to.

As far as the spell casters being "artillery units with limited ammunition"... Which one is it? Are they just artillery... or are they the end all and be all of versatility as some claim? IMHO, the 4e spell caster is much closer to what you describe than any before it.

 

[Tervin]

I am a D&D fan. Have been for over 25 years, and have enjoyed many a session of every edition from AD&D and onwards.

I am also a fan of deep immersive roleplaying. Have been doing that for the last 20 years or so. As an old RPG fan I have read the rules of more than 50 RP systems written from the seventies onwards, and tested about 20 of them in play, give or take a few. I am not saying that this makes me an expert, but it makes me feel that I have a decently well founded opinion.

My opinion is that D&D 4E is not a system that is built for in depth roleplaying. Neither is any earlier D&D version. 3.x did try to allow for a more in depth game, and it clearly was better suited for it than the earlier editions. Still it cannot stand up to games with a clear focus on that style of roleplaying. And 4E does not try hard to improve on 3.x in that respect. In some ways it might be better for in depth RP, in other ways it might be worse. My personal feel is that the designers decided that the in depth niche is not what D&D is about, as the 3.x attempt failed at it.

I am not saying you can't play D&D for in depth RP. I have done that quite a bit myself, and written and run stories like that on conventions. After all, roleplaying is about imagination, not system. And to me the gamist bits of the rules are not too hard for my imagination to handle - just like they weren't before either.

I feel that D&D 4E is made with a clear focus on light casual roleplaying with quite a bit of action, but keeping the door open for people who want to
do other things. As I think D&D was at its core always that kind of game, I think this was a good decision.

 

[JesterOC]

Wizards have been seriously neutered. With this 'daily powers', 'encounter powers', 'powers at will' system, one of the major advantages of the wizard - versatility - has been seriously curtailed. No longer can a wizard have a spellbook containing hundreds of useful spells and swap-and-change them for specific tasks - a sort of weapons package if you like. That was the great advantage of wizards over sorcerers in 3.5 - you chose either versatility or firepower.

While I am not saying he is more versatile than a 3.X wizard he defiantly retains much versatility. Yesterday we had a session that proved that, in our group, the wizard is the king of versatility.

I had a player who had started out as a warlock. After three sessions that left him unhappy with the character (It was a teifling Warlock), I suggested the wizard. In yesterdays session he did the following.

Used prestidigitation to cause a small brush fire to slow down a group of chasing kobolds.

Used prestidigitation to produce the smell of meat in front of a cave to lure a cave bear out into a group of chassing kobolds (He and the party hid on a small ledge over the cave so the cave entrance was 10 feet away from the wizard.

Used mage hand to open a few suspect doors.

Used ghost sound to distract a group of goblins they were sneaking up onto.

Used comprehend languages while in dungeon to understand goblin.

In combat he used Magic Missile, Thunderwave, and Flaming sphere.

It was his 4e experience to date.

JesterOC

 

[el-remmen]

RE: Video Games

We played our first playtest of 4E this weekend and there were several references to Dynasty Tactics as we played, as we tried to set up and set off our combos.

I was actually going to post my own thread like this one, but there isn't much point.

To be honest, we weren't very serious about it, and while we had a lot of fun, most of the fun was in mocking the game - part of which came from the fact that our limited time required that we skip ahead a lot to get a chance to try a couple of different combats as they took as long or longer than our 3E ones - but I attribute that length to unfamiliarity with the rules.

I did like some of the interupting movement and I really like the warlord and am now tempted to allow a version of the Marshal class in my 3.xE games.

The change to the skill system is a bone of contention in our group as opinions on it are divided.

 

[Spatula]

Cooldowns are not "per encounter powers"! An ability that has a cooldown can be used again in the same "encounter".

That depends on the length of the cooldown. There are abilities in WoW, for exampe, that have 30 min or 1 hour cooldowns. Some non-combat (crafting-related) abilities have cooldowns that last multiple days in WoW. In any case, the mechanic is the same. A 4e encounter power has, essentially, a 5 min cooldown. Or 10 min depending on how you look at it - 5 min for the encounter and 5 min for the short rest. A monster power that recharges on a die roll is a random-length cooldown that will probaly be usable again within the same encounter.

 

[Mallus]

You seem to be arguing that 3e had some disconnects... so it's okay if 4e has even more.

I'm saying that what you're calling 'disconnects' are simply example of D&D prioriterizing playable game mechanics over any form of simulation. Which the game has always done.

I'm sorry but almost any fantasy novel, movie, etc. has limitations on magic. Now whether D&D mimics a particular type of literary magic (which vancian actually is) or doesn't is neither here nor there.

The reason for the limitation matters a great deal. It's the core of your argument against things like martial dallies. Besides, magic in the novels I've read is usually limited by the idea people should refrain from using magic whenever possible because it disturbs the natural balance of things (cf. Earthsea). Or magic is fatiguing. Neither are modeled in D&D. So I'm not sure why it's easier to rationalize limited spell slots than martial dailies. Is it just because of Vance?

But previous editions did limit magic just as fantasy media tends to.

D&D magic has never really resembled it's media counterparts (including Vance), so invoking media representations of magic doesn't get us anywhere. Please ignore the fact I recently did so myself...

Which one is it? Are they just artillery... or are they the end all and be all of versatility as some claim?

Let's confine this conversation to daily abilities, magical and otherwise. Caster versatility is a whole other ball of wax...