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

[phloog]

There is no thunderstealing at the moment. But the cantrips did make things a bit easier.

Mage hand use: The opening doors was for an unlocked door, but they were afraid of a trap. If the trap was there, a rogue could have disarmed it, which is much better than having it go off and alert the dungeon to the parties presence. The mage hand just helps reduce the chance of someone getting hurt.

The comprehend languages was the most dangrous use. It took 10 minutes to accomplish the ritual. Durring that time they holed up in a small room. I rolled for 'Random encounters' about 5 times, which is honestly more than I would have done if they kept moving, but I think I was subconsciously trying to let them know that rituals in the enemies lair is risky.


JesterOC

Thanks, Jester...that doesn't sound too bad - that Comprehend Languages was a ritual means that it wasn't wizard exclusive...seems pretty reasonable.

(I would like to apologize for this post, in which I acknowledge a conflicting viewpoint without spouting a bunch of venom...we now return you to the internet)

 

[JesterOC]

Disenchanting to reduce to generic stuff to use to enchant: Check (Actually, WoW was first here, has better variety too)

Eberon did it first.

 

[JesterOC]

Thanks, Jester...that doesn't sound too bad - that Comprehend Languages was a ritual means that it wasn't wizard exclusive...seems pretty reasonable.

Oops yeah I forgot about rituals not being exclusive. But of course the wizard gets them handed to them at start.

(I would like to apologize for this post, in which I acknowledge a conflicting viewpoint without spouting a bunch of venom...we now return you to the internet)

Yeah wow, a simple exchange of ideas without ego.. Dang is this web 3.0?

 

[phloog]

BINGO!

back in 2E, we house ruled that wizards and clerics didn't have to memorize, but were still constrained by number of spell castings per day (just like Sorcerors in 3E). Intant fix, for the same problem.

4E simply has a different solution.

That exchange, though, is again that weird phenomenon where some claim that wizards were too powerful because they had so many 'utility' spells, and others claim that they were not powerful because that huge list of options was meaningless in practice. Which is why, in the experience of my group, wizards in earlier editions were neither too tough or too weak, they were just different.

 

[LostSoul]

Is it not 'reasonable and appropriate' to want to disarm AND damage someone if you know how to do that?

So you have listed as an example a reasonable and appropriate thing to want to do in combat (disarm AND damage simultaneously)...if it is not a magical attack or does not have some other non-mundane limits, why would you not use it twice in the same encounter, if it's something you know how to do?

It is reasonable and appropriate to want to stab a guy in the eye each round, killing him instantly. You can't do that - you're just not good enough. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes things line up just right, sometimes the bad guy makes a mistake, etc.

The same thing goes with trying to stab him while disarming him, or comboing a trip with an attack. You're just not good enough.

edit: Didn't see this post!

the point was only that you have to do a bit of leaping and hand waving to explain away how sometimes you can do this mundane thing, and sometimes you can't...

Yeah, I think that is the problem. I think it's a question of personal taste; how you feel about having to take that extra step to describe how the mechanics are reflected in the gameworld.

...and I think for me this is another revolutionary, not evolutionary bit of the game that probably rubs me the wrong way. It feels like WOTC has given us a form of 'Plot Cards'...not sure if there's an official term for these, but those little cards that are intended to give players more control over the plot "I play this card and it turns out the bandit chieftain and I are friends from way back!". It's well-intentioned but always in practice ends up a bit goofy.

I think they only end up a bit goofy if you don't really like the contributions of your fellow players - but that's a different topic!

But yeah, they hand more control over what's going on in the gameworld to the group, leaving the players & DM having to describe more in order to immerse themselves in the gameworld.

• What happens when someone loses hit points?
• What happens when someone uses a healing surge?
• What happens when someone is dropped to 0 hp?
• What happens when someone succesfully uses a power?

You need to think about what just happened in the gameworld, because you can't assume that losing hit points means that character is cut open and bleeding. I think that process of having to pay attention to the fiction helps me get into the game. The guy loses hit points - what does that mean? I am forced to visualize it so I can describe it. (I always liked describing hit points like that.)

I mean, I've had players do damage with Intimidate checks, "killing" minions! If I don't keep my head in the gameworld, that will make no sense.

 

[Imaro]

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.

This makes no sense. If D&D has always done this... the why the paradigm change? Second it's not necessarily an either/or answer. If dailies represent something you can do only once in awhile... then mathematically this can be represented by a lesser/greater chance to accomplish said maneuver...right? Thus it could be modeled by having a lower chance to accomplish it instead of the binary available/non-available math that D&D 4e uses. Is this right or wrong?

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?

It is still limited, plain and simple. Whether you model it on Vance's fire and forget or Earthsea's "balance of things". What makes one choice better than the other? The point is that magic=limited resource is a generally accepted trope of the genre. 4e still doesn't subscribe to any literary system of magic.

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...

And it still doen't... now it's modeled more off of videogames.

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

Fine with me, but it is crazy how the 3e spell caster was look at in so many conflicting ways.

 

[phloog]

It is reasonable and appropriate to want to stab a guy in the eye each round, killing him instantly. You can't do that - you're just not good enough. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes things line up just right, sometimes the bad guy makes a mistake, etc.

The same thing goes with trying to stab him while disarming him, or comboing a trip with an attack. You're just not good enough.

It's just a bit jarring that either A) you ARE good enough to do it exactly when you think you'll need it the most (a bit odd), or B) as you say you aren't good enough, but you have taken control of the fiction in a way similar to the Plot Cards. Not saying this is bad, but it is a radical change in the way the game worked.

 

[The Cardinal]

i feel the same way. I will be playing 3E and true 20 now.

welcome to the club

 

[phloog]

welcome to the club

it is interesting that 4E WAS successful in getting me to think about things I didn't like about 3.x (there are many things, believe it or not), but the unexpected result is I looked around and found True20 (which admittedly has its own warts).

I would be more than willing to try to play (rather than DM - tried that already) a 4E game, but no one in my circle is going to bother with 4E.

Back to the subject....it wasn't until today that I realized that in their effort to get rid of Vancian casting they added Vancian Everything Else.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is reasonable and appropriate to want to stab a guy in the eye each round, killing him instantly. You can't do that - you're just not good enough. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes things line up just right, sometimes the bad guy makes a mistake, etc.

The same thing goes with trying to stab him while disarming him, or comboing a trip with an attack. You're just not good enough.

Generally, a maneuver that is difficult to pull off will be just that, a good chance of not working when you attempt it. Being an expert at the move 1/day and so bad you can't even try otherwise has nothing to do with difficulty. A martial power source limiting uses per encounter/ day is a form of magic. Since powers for all classes have replaced traditional magic it works fine. Just realize that with 4E you are playing a supers game with the heroes in fantasy garb instead of tights and everything fits fine.