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

[DandD]

You sure are certain about the future, I think we will see an increase or decrease in power as classes are released. Even in the 4e PHB there is disparity (haven't played long enough to see just how big...but it is there) between effectiveness of classes in the same role.

Actually, I did say that the future products may still screw up (and I'm certain that the developers will reintroduce sub-elf-race-glut, to our dismay).
If in 4th edition the classes aren't well-done, it's not because they intended them as system-mastery-traps like in 3rd edition (at least, it seems so). Mistakes are something that can be forgiven (or you can still be mad at them, that's okay too).

But the idea to create classes and feats purposefully to be bad, as it was done in 3rd edition, is something that should never be repeated ever, in any game there is.

As an example, 3rd edition Toughness-Feat compared to the 4th edition Toughness-Feat. The 3rd edition toughness (3 hp) is a trap to waste a valuable feat and trick new players. The 4th edition-version toughness (5/10/15) isn't that great too at heroic, but automatically updates itself at higher tier, and gives out a little bit more hitpoints than its predecessor at lowest tier.

The good thing is, feats aren't class-abilities anymore. The fighter suffered from this idea.

I'm pretty sure that in some years, I will see some faults in the 4th edition systems, and will like 5th edition a lot more.

I played a cleric for the first time in D&D, thanks to 4th edition.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not at all. We are comparing games that are played here, not books. I am playing a 3.0 game. If I ask myself if I should switch to 4E, I compare games - I look what I can get out of 4E, compared to my current game, not compared to a hypothetical 3.0 core only game.

That's a fair point, from that perspective. And tracking back far enough, I do see your original comment which intimated as much. For the record, I don't agree with AtomicPope's assertion that 3.X classes are all completely about combat.

My point was not about having a hypothetical 3.0 core-only game. My point was about comparing editions at similar points in their development. Which I see now is not terribly relevant to your point.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No problem!

I don't really understand, though. How does acknowledging that a player is the one making decisions for the character mean that the character can't, in his fictional world, take any action that a resonable person with a similar skill set could take?

If you say "The player is making the decision" as a means to circumvent the idea that a character (PC or NPC, were he real), faced with the same stimuli, would have the odd experience that what was possible through supposedly mundane means at 1 am is not possible at 3 pm, you have entered into territory that feels very much like accepting the program limits of a video game to me.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

3e actually let you at least try to do more things than 4e does.

This is, at this moment, demonstrably true. In this thread alone we have people complaining that 3e allows you to attempt a trip or disarm whenever you think it advantageous (gasp! oh noes!).

Not allowing PCs to attempt things was never one of 3e's problems.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'll say it again: Characters only notice these effects if you want them to; and if their noticing these effects bothers you, why would you want them to?

Why don't you want to describe the effects in such a way that the characters don't realize what's going on?

That a perfectly fine way to rule it, but for my group that kind of degrades suspension of disbelief which takes world immersion right along with it. Ignoring obvious gaps in logic like that only draws more attention to the rules (making them come painfully to the forefront in some cases) instead of settling them into the background.

 

[Mallus]

None of what I listed above needs to be explained unless the character has any meaning beyond being a playing piece.

None of what you listed needs to be explained when a character is significantly more that a playing piece, either.

They're more-or-less irrelevant to the way a lot of people construct 'suspension of disbelief' or define interesting, well-rounded, immersion-capable characters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No...you paid the cost of a feat so that there was a mechanical benefit to you "reflavoring" your spell. I'm still not seeing a difference, and lke I said 3e actually let you at least try to do more things than 4e does. Unless of course you don't care about nerfing a power by making it a stunt for anyone.

It tried to let me do more, but how? It gave me the option to suck at a combat mechanic, but at least try it (provoke AoO, if you fail, enemy returns favor,you deal no damage) or the option to be good at it (negate most disadvantages and grant some bonus).
Stunts don't have to "nerf" powers. A power is a guarentee of the system that you can try the maneuver at least ones. A stunt requires you to come up with a creative idea on what to use, and requries you to use the surroundings.

I am not arguing that 3e's system for skill allotment was better or worse than 4e's...but it gave more options where variety and individualization was concerned. I would have rather seen a system where you were given differing points to spend on types of skills, like Earthdawn's skill system...than the answer become just remove all of the options. (this is one of the things that has me leaning toward Pathfinder).

I think I prefer a "siloed" skill systems, too. At the moment, there is just one silo for skills in 4E, but expanding the system to cover more or less "background" features like Craft, Profession, Perform and Hobbies might require a different subsystem.

I honestly never expected that I would like the idea of different subsystems. But then, before I used the Iron Heroes villain classes, I was convinced that the Monster as PC model of 3E was the best way to handle stuff, too.

Yeah, well I just find it hillarious that the Bard="worse character evar!" while the Warlord= "Tha new bestest!"... though I will note that some people are seeing the same problems crop up with the Warlord that plagued the Bard... mainly that he is a sub-standard warrior unless there is another defender or striker he can reach with his powers.

The Bard was the worse character because he had a mostly "passive" support - he sang his Inspire Courage, but couldn't really hope to compete in spellcasting with other spellcasters or in combat with fighters or Rogues. The Warlord has the same BAB and damage as the Fighter but his powers have different secondary effects - they buff his allies, while the Fighter screws his enemies.
If the Bard had a better HD and AC, and a chance to compete with Rogues or Fighters damage-wise (say: He deals buffed with Inspire Courage the same average damage per round as a Fighter without Inspire Courage, all things equal) , he would be a lot better received. Or if he could just cast more spells with higher Saving Throw DCs.

My point was not about having a hypothetical 3.0 core-only game. My point was about comparing editions at similar points in their development. Which I see now is not terribly relevant to your point

Well, following Fenes argumentation - 3E simply has those 6-8 years of development over 4E. The wealth of material can't be ignored if discussing which system you prefer _now_.
In 1 year, or 2 years, or 8 years, a lot will have changed, and when 3E was a winner in its wealth of material, 4E might have exceeded it by then.

The discussion where 3E stood one month after release and 4E stands is not uninteresting and might allow us speculations to the future, but if you have to decide _now_, that's not the point of view you take. Of course, no decision made has to be final, and it is not always possible to predict whether it is.

 

[DandD]

So ultimately narration counts for nothing then.

Narration is for interpreting the rules. Narration especially helps where the rules are really abstract, like hitpoints.
Player-narrations are not a immunity-device to make your character impervious to the actions of the game environment or the NPCs and monsters.

I agree with this. The effects of using an ability that produces a discernable effect ARE in fact character knowledge. The character might not know precisely how many hp of damage are dealt with an attack but will know if the use of an ability had an effect on an opponent. Things thare are transparent are those that the CHARACTER could not readily observe, such as the awarding of XP.

And the character will know something had an effect if he suceeds in doing it.

Levels (yes)

Metagame knowledge. We agree.

the amount of how many times you can smite evil, perform a defensive roll, attack with your stunning fist and other things, (no)

These are also metagame knowledge. Or how are you going to explain that the Paladin can't smite evil more often, the rogue cannot evade such a deadly blow once more this day, or the stunning fist-dudes can't stun more baddies? They are limited by the game rules, which tell how many times you can do this per day.

the damage output (yes to a degree)

Good that we agree again.

Not at all. Anything that is limited in application per (time period) is very easy to explain. Its magic pure and simple.The per encounter frequency is not worth trying to explain. Why do things get massively better? skills increase with practice over time, and magic has new gifts to bestow from the gods or from dedicated research.

Defensive rolls and stunning fists aren't magical at all. Yet you can only do them a limited times per day. And you should ask yourself, why do things only get better WHEN you level up. No matter how hard a D&D-character trains, if he's not level 20, he's not one of the best. An 80-year old dude can and will be a lowly level 1 commoner (with at best a little bit better wisdom, intelligence and perhaps charisma), unless he goes on adventure. Pure game-mechanics, only appliable for players.

What can't be explained:
Why I forget how to use abilities I just used yesterday?

You don't forget them, you use better abilities that do the things even better (or you don't choose a new one and stick with the older ability, a thing you can do in 4th edition - the same as in 3rd edition Tome of Battle). It's an ongoing learning effect, where your older things improve.

How does the frequency of getting into a fight have anything to do with my magical energy resources?

It's a mechanical trick to help players if they get into more fights. Also, you explained it yourself anyway. Here's your answer with your own words: "Not at all. Anything that is limited in application per (time period) is very easy to explain. Its magic pure and simple." If you want, you can say that the magic of the magical item that is attuned to you gets recharged because of your inner strenght and willpower, as you prepare to face another danger. And if you don't want to, then that's okay too.

How come this great healing elixer won't make me feel any better because I'm out of surges?

Because you are mentally and physically so exhausted that it really can't help you anymore. However, it will still stop you from dying, even after you're out of healing surges.

None of what I listed above needs to be explained unless the character has any meaning beyond being a playing piece.

Exactly. Now you see it too. Explanations are only for the people who bicker and complain all the time. Sometimes, the explanation works. Sometimes, it doesn't, and no other explanation will work, no matter what edition and whatever game you play.

 

[jemmerx]

In the last several weeks, I've played in Game Day, I've run Keep on the Shadowfell, converted the Caves of Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands) to 4th for playtesting, and we've run a bunch of test parties through the encounter decks described in the DMG.

I have a very mixed opinion on 4th so far. I know that I was a bit worried about it when it was first announced, but as I saw different previews pop up, I grew more and more excited to see it. I loved my first look at the game and the first adventure on Game Day (June 6th.)

I know that DMing it was frustrating at first. Instead of the promised quicker fights and less complexity, I found that first level holds a much higher level of complexity than 1-5th in 3rd ed. I'm being conservative on that at this point, but I will admit I was still learning the rules.

We've clocked encounter times and have been steadily lowering it to around 40 minutes per encounter now. Not bad. This is also three people running up to 2 characters a piece and charing the DM load (using the encounter deck.) This is an improvement.

I'd like to point out that in any comparison between 3rd and 4th ed, we should be ruling out those things that are not edition dependant or easily fit into one or the other. The DMG for example is an amazing piece of work that is almost entirely useable no matter the edition or even what game system you use. It's that good! The Monsters are a great improvement over the way they used to be done and can be taken almost as is and inserted into 3rd ed. I've been doing something similar in my 3rd ed campaigns. To me, the real comparisons are in the rules that have changed. This is almost entirely based on the PHB.

So with all that said, here is my impressions so far. I will discuss them point by point:

- The rules are now simplistic and unified across the board.
This is both good and bad.
Good because once you know the rules, you simply apply the exception created by the powers on them. Very much like Magic the Gathering.
Bad because it anything based on those rules suffers in flexibility. Every character class and race feels almost the same. Almost like those video games like Diablo where your class choice was irrelevant because they all accomplish the same thing in only slightly different ways.

- No more 5 minute adventuring day.
So far, with all our testing, we've extended the 5 minute adventuring day into an hour or so adventuring day. PCs last longer but the encounters are more draining. After 3-4 encounters of appropriate level, the party cannot go on. This is an improvement, but not anywhere near what we'd have expected from the 4e promotions.

- Monsters and encounter design
This has been an amazing improvement. It's so easy to throw encounters together now. And finding total XP after the encounter is a no-brainer now.

- Feats
Is it just our group or are there really no good feats to choose from? I've now made almost 2 of each character class covering all the races, and I'm always stuck choosing a feat. Not because I'm stuck between two good ones, no, because I can't decide which one might actually be helpful. I've chosen durable and toughness on more than I care to admit.

- Races
I don't see what the designers were talking about on a race having more impact over the course of a characters career than before. A few feats maybe, but nothing more than what was available on 3rd. Racial Powers seem to be the greatest differentiation, but I find that gets lost among all the other powers a PC has.

- Classes
At first glance, the classes seemed to really be well defined. After a number of games, the only real difference we noticed is a slightly similar thematic set of powers. And even then, leaders are very much alike, strikers the same, defenders the same. I also noticed that if I blink, they all feel the same.

- Powers
These went from the neatest improvement to a great frustration. How many encounter powers or dailies have been lost to staight misses, more than half. Admittedly we tend to roll really bad, no matter the edition.
Also, this new mechanic of a power affecting the target until the end of your next turn or until a save is made just makes many of the powers, especially the wizard's, feel wimpy. Best daily so far that we've seen: Flaming Sphere.

- Dice decide everything
* I know this seems strange to be bringing up as a point, but read on to understand my point. *
Using powers that we get once per encounter or per day really has increased the stress of each die roll. With each one we hear breaths being held (which sounds good right?) but too often, as fate would have it, encounters and daily's miss. This may be a hollow complaint, but it's the one constant we've encountered (no pun intended) in all our 4th ed sessions. The misses have much more impact that they once did, especially in light of the tougher monsters and the greater number of them.

- Multiclassing
The weak point of 4th ed. Multiclassing now just isn't very good. It pales in comparison to the ultimate flexibility of 3rd in this regard. I've found that I would rarely take any multiclass feat past the first as the others allow only swapping of powers. Remind me of metamagic feats.
Right now, I'm still testing it. But at this point, I'm more mining for ieades to alter 3rd to take the better ideas and leave the rest.

~~~~
What angers me most about 4th, especially after seeing it and playing it, is that Wizards could have just fixed 3rd ed with many of these ideas and made a better product than either is seperate. I stack these editions side by side and I'm not sure which is better. I know that there is a missed oportunity though.

Sorry about the long post!

 

[The Little Raven]

WOW!! So now it's not just...don't compare 4e core to splat books... it's become wrong to even compare with 3.5 core... That's a real stretch there.

It's because 3.5 wasn't a new edition. It had 3 years of development with customer feedback after development on 3.0 ended. Comparing 3.0 and 4th is a clear comparison, but comparing a brand new game to one which had three years of development to it on top of the years of development on it's original core system is a bit slanted (especially when those three years of development are on refining the system, rather than rebuilding it).