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

[Celtavian]

In this thread and others something that has finally caused me to comment. It's not a version war or anything...

I have seen TONS of comments about 3.0 and 3.5 talking about how wizards were overpowered and basically took the glory from all other classes. They had too many spells that did too many different 'utility' things. This was stated as a terrible problem with 3.x

Then I see not quite as many, but still large numbers of comments stating that ANOTHER flaw of 3.x wizards is the idea of selecting your spells - that unless you knew exactly what you were going to run up against you had to basically choose generic spells or attack spells of a general type.

I guess I'm not seeing how both can be a problem. It sounds to me like Problem #2 was a balancing factor on Problem #1...which might be why our group never saw wizards as show-stealers.

I'm not suggesting any one individual simultaneously claimed both as problems, but in my experience two contradictory 'problems' is generally a sign of no problem other than in perception/attitude.

I personally think the Pro-4E people exaggerate the power of the wizard to try to downplay what 4E did to the wizard.

But that being said, I also think alot of people played with DMs that allowed 3.5E wizards to do too much. They allowed wizards to abuse every loophole they could find with spells like shapechange andgate. They incorporated every broken spell 3.5 put out like avasculate and solipsism. They played with wizards prior to the 3.5 fix to archmage. Things like that.

It seemed that WotC would put supplements that would break the wizard such as new monster books that gave a particular monster they could change into that was overpowered or summon a new uber powerful creature that would wreck an encounter or fight better than the fighter. Or a new spell book with a few new key spells that were much better than anything else at equivalent level. Or a PrC that gave a much better advantage to the wizard class than any other wizard Prc such as archmage or the original elmental savant.

The wizard in the 3.5 PHB was fine. The wizard after all the splat books was a danger to balance if the DM didn't keep abreast of what was going on and was willing to put the kibosh on overpowered spells and combinations as soon as he saw them. That would mean arguing with your players, something I know quite a few DMs don't like to do.

 

[Korgoth]

I have argued in a lot of threads that 3e has problems. Heck, just before 4e was announced saying that 3e had problems was treated as the same sort of crazy-talk that claiming 4e has problems is treated as now.

Yep.

 

[AllisterH]

A fighter having to sit on his dailies and encounters for the right time like a wizard had to do just seems is just as lacking as you claim 3.5 healing was in terms of rendering fantasy characters.

Ah, but you don't see "spamming" either in literary books or movies. Sure, the protoganist can do any move at any time but he doesn't. Either the opponent is dead or the move is unsuccessful and the hero doesn't use it again.

For example, can you point out a scene or a character who uses say Tripping all the time round after round? Combat doesn't work like that in novels. Take the classic D&D nerd movie, the Princess Bride. It's much easier to ratinalize the fights on a per encounter/daily basis than it is to do the reverse.

I think the difference is that in novels,movies the writer insures that the "situation" where the move is effective will only come up once in a while. Conversely, this is almost impossible for a DM to setup properly in a game, which makes it hard to balance.

Whirlwind attack is a classic example of the problem. You can do it every time it comes up, but the expenditure of feats and the number of times that it shows up at the actual game table means that the feat tree is much less taken than the Power Attack line of feats.

The above is one of the reasons why I do agree that the 4E is more gamist n that it actually considers what happens at the table than a theoretical model.

It's one of the things I think makes 4E play better than it reads. A standard encounter is totally doable without the use of your big gun daily. You leave that for the climatic encounter (the level +4 battle) which admittedly makes it more cinematic.

In a lot of ways, I do think 4E models cinematic action/anime heroes than previous editions but I also think earlier editions modelled combat in a decidely D&D manner that didn't harken to either novels or cinema so when the claim is that 4E is more videogamey I wonder more videogamey in what fashion since earlier editions didn't model novels at all.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I'm kind of mixed on rituals myself. I like the concept. And some of the ideas for rituals are cool. But some of the rituals just leave you scratching your head wondering what they were thinking. The cost of scrying is insane for the limited amount of time you can scry. The cost of raising the dead prior to epic tier seems cheap and too easily done. Knock's cast time takes way too long. You could just bash the door down.

There is an unevenness to the rituals that I don't care like the person writing them just went low level ritual takes 10 minutes, higher level 30 minutes, highest lvl 1 hour without bothering to think about their effect or how they might be used in a game.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

Wow, what a lot of debate I've generated. My work here is done...

Actually it isn't. Let me respond to some of the comments and clarify a few positions...

• PLAYS LIKE A VIDEO GAME:

I stand by my comment, but I understand why people might disagree.
The reason I say this is because a great many aspects of the new rules seem uncannily similar, by co-incidence or design, to certain MMOs and other RPG video games. Healing, for instance, but also the 'powers at will' and the like which look to me (and I'm giving my opinion, remember) like 'special moves' in platform games. Not so much the skill set - the gag about the holding of button B was just that - a gag. But certainly the whole game seems designed around what a character can do in combat. There's more to D&D than just combat, but the new rules seem very combat-focused. Maybe 'video game' was a poor choice of analogy. I agree with the poster who suggested it is akin to a tabletop miniatures game - the measurement of distance in 'squares' is your evidence of that.

• NERFING OF CLASSES (ESP WIZARDS)

Even if the Wizard is more versatile than other classes, it's nowhere near as versatile as it used to be. And I totally refute that wizards dominated or could mimic other classes under 3E/3.5- I never once found that.

• WHETHER OR NOT I'M ALLOWED TO DIS 4th EDITION

I can if I want to. I agree with the sentiment of Bump2daWiza, namely that everybody was bound to have an opinion and that some of those opinions would always differ from others. I just wish he hadn't used the exact phrase he used.

• OUR GROUP DYNAMIC

In response to Blargney's question, we had 3 PCs - a human paladin (me), a human cleric and a tiefling warlock. And if anybody mentions that with only 3 PCs the DM should have scaled the adventure, let me say that you are dead right and we told him so. However, I maintain that if the rules are such that you need all character types (you'll note we had only 1 meat shield) to do well, something's gone wrong.

• STORYTELLING

A few posters put their fingers on this, and for my money they're spot on. The old rules felt more 'realistic', insofar as you can have realism when you're talking about fire-breathing reptiles and turning people into monkeys. The old rules had a kind of pseudo-science you could inject. Wizards got their spells per day. Every day they prepared spells and those were the ones they cast. Ditto clerics and everybody else (except sorcerers). Easy to understand and to base your storytelling around. But now, some abilities are 'per encounter'. How do you storytell that? Whats the pseudo-science there? I know that for some people that won't matter, but it matters to me. I like to be able to tell coherent stories with my roleplaying, be I the DM or the player, and I feel my ability to do that in 4E has sufferred.
In fact, I should have mentioned this in relation to the 'video game' debate. Basically, the gist of my point is that 4E feels much more like roll-playing than role-playing. More thought is given to what a character can do than what a character is. For instance, someone mentioned that elves didn't make good wizards before. I dispute that claim regardless, but what's more important is not whether the character was 'good' by game dynamics (ie. min-maxed or 'munchkinned') but whether they were a good character. The feel of 4E seems very munchkin to me - character is less important than stats.

Also, it's far too hard to die. Characters ought to be able to be killed occasionally. Not often, just...occasionally. Keeps everybody on their toes.

 

[AllisterH]

re: Wizards

No, I do believe wizards were fundamentally broken from the outset. When they took off the limiters from 1e/2e had on magic (couldn't easily bypass the slot system, only got spells the DM) the underlying mechanic was busted wide open.

For example, if you used the same spells that 3.x released in splatbooks in a 1e/2e game, you wouldn't see as large a problem if ANY.

re: Videogame terms

This is where I disagree and why as a 4e fan I scratch my head. Things like Per Encounter make absolutely NO sense in terms a videogame would understand. Per encounter makes sense from a literary standpoint and is much more easily translated to the written page than to a videogame

Seriously, name a videogame that uses Healing Surges/Second wind or a PER Encounter time frame basis.

4E is the WORST set of rules if you wanted to make a MMORPG. I'm not kidding at ALL. You would have to actually change the terminology into concrete discrete components to make 4E work.

3.x was straight forward easy in that there was pretty much a rule for anything. This is EASY to code and you can make a videogame pretty easily.

Seriously, what videogames are you guys referring to?

 

[Celtavian]

Ah, but you don't see "spamming" either in literary books or movies. Sure, the protoganist can do any move at any time but he doesn't. Either the opponent is dead or the move is unsuccessful and the hero doesn't use it again.

For example, can you point out a scene or a character who uses say Tripping all the time round after round? Combat doesn't work like that in novels. Take the classic D&D nerd movie, the Princess Bride. It's much easier to ratinalize the fights on a per encounter/daily basis than it is to do the reverse.

I didn't have someone tripping every round in my DnD game either. So not sure where this comes from.

But if you mean the improved trip of the monk, I have seen plenty of kung fu moves where the monk trips a ton of people in a single fight whether he is rolling on the ground tripping or doing a leg sweep. So it depends on what fiction you read or watch.

That's one of the things about DnD. It comes from so many different fictional sources that few people if any have read or watched all the sources.

I think the difference is that in novels,movies the writer insures that the "situation" where the move is effective will only come up once in a while. Conversely, this is almost impossible for a DM to setup properly in a game, which makes it hard to balance.

True.

Whirlwind attack is a classic example of the problem. You can do it every time it comes up, but the expenditure of feats and the number of times that it shows up at the actual game table means that the feat tree is much less taken than the Power Attack line of feats.

True. It's still a learned technique though rather than a once a day or encounter.

The above is one of the reasons why I do agree that the 4E is more gamist n that it actually considers what happens at the table than a theoretical model.

I agree.

It's one of the things I think makes 4E play better than it reads. A standard encounter is totally doable without the use of your big gun daily. You leave that for the climatic encounter (the level +4 battle) which admittedly makes it more cinematic.

I have been able to mostly win with encounter powers. I have yet to hit an encounter where I had to use my daily.

In a lot of ways, I do think 4E models cinematic action/anime heroes than previous editions but I also think earlier editions modelled combat in a decidely D&D manner that didn't harken to either novels or cinema so when the claim is that 4E is more videogamey I wonder more videogamey in what fashion since earlier editions didn't model novels at all.

I think of anime as well when I think of 4th edition.

3.5 did take into account alot of the fighting styles of traditional fictional characters whether it was two weapon fighting or big gun cleaving through the masses 2 hander or 1 hander style. I mean this specifically relating to fighting styles.

As far as overall combat, DnD is its own thing and always has been. Even the DnD novels never read like a DnD combat. Dnd Combat was unique type of simulation with its own flavor.

4th edition has elements that seem like books such as its healing method. It has elements that seem like video games such as the daily and encounter powers. And elements that seem like DnD such as all the monsters and the need for a balanced party rather than one bad to the bone dude with a few weak dudes and a few bad to the flesh dudes mixed in a party. Everyone is tough enough to carry their weight. It is of course a game.

Truth is there is no perfect game system. There probably never will be. 4th edition has some glaring flaws I don't like, but so does 3.5. I don't which edition will be easier to hybridize at this point in time until I get more experience with 4th edition. I just know I don't like the feel of the combat styles in 4th edition on a per class basis, while at the same time I enjoy the feel of group combat. It's very strange.

I don't like the use of actual rituals, but I like the idea of rituals.

I don't like the idea of kobolds being as tough as they are, but I like the play of kobolds being dangerous again.

That's kind of 4th edition for me. A series of mixed feelings. It's not the edition of DnD that I wanted, but it still seems like a fun game to play with some friends here and there.

 

[phloog]

This has probably been mentioned, but I think that most video game comparisons stem from (whether you think this is valid or not):

1) Recharge/Cooldown - rather than being able to use anything in your arsenal any time you'd like, you have to wait until it is ready again (whether another encounter, after a rest, etc.) -- this has been seen in many video games - - RTS games where you can't build another of troop type XYZ until so much time has passed, City of Heroes and other MMOs where you have to wait for the Blazing Attack O Doom to light up again before you can click on it, etc.

2) Roles - Tank, Striker, Controller, etc. are straight out of WOW and other MMOs. (again, not a value judgement, just the basis for the comparison)...frankly, you could even say that the idea of a close-up attacker, a ranged attacker, a magic attacker, etc. is taken directly from Gauntlet

3) Combat emphasis (again, you might disagree with this) - the idea that all classes must do well equally in combat - - so wizards can spam magic missile....this is very similar to again, oddly enough, Gauntlet and of course many other videogames.

Having said that, I still assert that 4E is a lot closer to a miniatures skirmish game or CCG than a video game.

I should also point out that the biggest fan of 4E that I personally know is the manager of a Gamestop, and at the same time that he will tell me how much he loves playing 4E he will also tell me that it is absolutely a lot like an MMO, and that's what he likes about it.

 

[AllisterH]

2) Roles - Tank, Striker, Controller, etc. are straight out of WOW and other MMOs. (again, not a value judgement, just the basis for the comparison)...frankly, you could even say that the idea of a close-up attacker, a ranged attacker, a magic attacker, etc. is taken directly from Gauntlet
.

Heh.

This is the one part that I think causes most of the friction between pro-4e Supporters and those with legitimate criticisms.

What came first.

D&D and its roles or the videogames and its roles. Naturally, as a pro-4E person, my response of course, is "Um, what was 1e/2e's class breakdown then?"

re: Tripping

Hmm?

That is an interesting interpretation of Improved Trip but still doesnt model the problem of tripping the exact same person multiple times in a combat.

 

[Gundark]

snip...double post