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

[DandD]

Not a problem, but encounter design gets easier, in my opinion, when all PCs have specials, and "charge full attack full attack full attack" is not as needed by the fighters to keep up. And of course, a number of the powers can counter a few of the "too good" spells as well.

The higher-level ToB powers however still lead to 1-round-kills. Can be cool, but can also lead to anti-climatic battles. And gets annoying if the enemy uses them to kill the heroic player characters, unless you play a standart-game with all-time ressurecting clerics.

 

[Raven Crowking]

if you want, you're allowed to change the narration of a power to better suite your style. And you can choose to use the narration for one power for some other ability (or a regular attack).

True. But you are missing the point -- changing the narration of what actions mean isn't necessary in previous editions, IMHO, at all. If the intended action is "I jump the chasm" then all that needs to be determined is whether or not you succeed or fail. Having to repeatedly say "I am attempting to disarm and damage him, but since I used that (mundane) power already, I'm really just going to roll to hit" is a real deal-breaker for me.

It is exactly like, when playing a video game, one has to say "I'd like to try to get into one of these houses and fortify it against zombie attacks, but since the Silent Hill engine doesn't allow that here, what I'll do is just run and hit anything that comes near me....at least until the game sends me a Quest Card to tell me what to do next."

That really happens in video games? I know games that don't let you kill somenone, but that's it. Switching between something like Minion/Regular state seems unusual, except maybe in cut scenes (where stats really don't matter any thing).

You've never played any of the Zelda games, where a big bad might have different qualities in the build-up scenes than in the big battle scenes?



RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True. But you are missing the point -- changing the narration of what actions mean isn't necessary in previous editions, IMHO, at all. If the intended action is "I jump the chasm" then all that needs to be determined is whether or not you succeed or fail. Having to repeatedly say "I am attempting to disarm and damage him, but since I used that (mundane) power already, I'm really just going to roll to hit" is a real deal-breaker for me.

You say changing the narration was never necessary, but I say it was never allowed! I wasn't supposed to narrate my trip-attempts or regular attacks with such a degree of freedom. Way too often, the rules felt more restrictive on my narration - don't have feat X, don't perform the maneuver described in it! Not that you couldn't use the 4E mindset in 3E, too, but it was not encouraged and many wouldn't fly with that...

It is exactly like, when playing a video game, one has to say "I'd like to try to get into one of these houses and fortify it against zombie attacks, but since the Silent Hill engine doesn't allow that here, what I'll do is just run and hit anything that comes near me....at least until the game sends me a Quest Card to tell me what to do next."

That's because Silent Hill doesn't have a DM and a handy page with rules for adjudicating stunts and skill challenges!

You've never played any of the Zelda games, where a big bad might have different qualities in the build-up scenes than in the big battle scenes?

RC

In fact, I did not. Never owned a gaming console or gameboy (and derivatives) - Zelda wasn't for PC, right?
Very few games could motivate me to change that, either. (GTA IV, the Wii in general, and a decent - not the one that actually exists - Shadowrun game might be able to do that - so far, I resisted all temptations.)

 

[timbannock]

If all your PC's classes and prestige classes are not represented well or at all (Blade dancer, duelist/swashbuckler, weapon master, barbarian, sorcerer) then it0s not so much about having unused options, it's about not having the options to run the game you like. I don't really care that much about tons of classes I'll never use, but it's kind of telling that with one expection, between two groups, I can only cover one PC concept with a 4E core class so far, and that's a cleric..<snip>

That's the point. I don't feel like reinventing all the stuff again. At this point, 4E looks really limited to me. Once we get all the missing classes (bard and sorcerer, monk and barbarian for starters) I'll take another look.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080711a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080704a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080702
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080627a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080620a

4e's been out a short time and they've already done some work for you. I'd say this shows 4e's versatility and WOTC's happiness to provide. There are some good ideas in there.

 

[LostSoul]

(crap, first reply was eaten... trying again!)

Thanks for replying, RC!

Again, the "reasonable person" standard.

If it is impossible to do the same stunt twice in the same encounter, a reasonable person is likely to have noticed this. If the PCs make decisions based upon a knowledge of how the world works, it is just as reasonable that the NPCs do.

PCs and NPCs don't make decisions, only players do! We can decide what they know and what they don't know. We can decide that they have an Order of the Stick-level of knowledge about the game mechanics. We cna also decide that they treat the world just as we treat our own.

Again, why would you decide that characters know the game rules - unless you want them to, and if that creates a problem for you, why would you want them to?

Or would you argue that the PCs shouldn't know the game rules? "Sorry, Joe, but your fighter doesn't know that he can use his Kewl Powerz only once a day. Really, you should be trying to use your best ability this round. And next round. And next round......."

I would not tell another player how to play his PC. I'd say, "Look, Joe, this 4e thing is messing with my brane. Your fighter doesn't know he can only use Comeback Strike once per day. Tell me why he doesn't use it this round."

"Simple - he can only use it when he gets really pissed off. And he's not that pissed off."

"Who says?"

"I do. He has no control over his unquenchable rage - only I do."

"I see. He's kinda like a powderkeg and you're the match. I see why you named him Mr. Furious. But that still doesn't do it for me. What if you decide he gets really pissed off, but he's already used his Daily power?"

"Then I spend an Action point and duplicate the effect."

"And if you don't have one?"

"Then I describe him getting really pissed off, and if anyone misses him I describe it as a hit! Or, he's already pushed to his limit and he get smacked around anyway - no juice left in the tank. Really, let's just play and see if there's a problem in what I describe."

 

[Fenes]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080711a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080704a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080702
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080627a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080620a

4e's been out a short time and they've already done some work for you. I'd say this shows 4e's versatility and WOTC's happiness to provide. There are some good ideas in there.

Until they have a perform skill, I can't really call that "versatile". It's just a a bit lengthy "just house rule it" piece of advice.

 

[DandD]

Will probably be included in the PHB II, when bards and other classes will make their appearance. Can't just have PHBs without any new skills, magic items and proposed rules, after all.

As for the first PHB, if you want to do dancing and other body-performing arts, acrobatics is more than enough for that. In fact, that's how it should have been in the first place.

Playing with a fiddle or a violin is problematic for now, but really only the bard had ever usage for that.

 

[DandD]

Will probably be included in the PHB II, when bards and other classes will make their appearance. Can't just have PHBs without any new skills, magic items and proposed rules, after all.

As for the first PHB, if you want to do dancing and other body-performing arts, acrobatics is more than enough for that. In fact, that's how it should have been in the first place.

Playing with a fiddle or a violin is problematic for now, but really only the bard had ever usage for that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

PCs and NPCs don't make decisions, only players do!

See, that is exactly the kind of thing that violates the "reasonable person" standard. That is a well put and concise description of why 4e feels video-gamey to me.

Thank you.


RC

 

[Waldorf]

There are a number of things about 4e that I am unhappy about, but I don't tell people that they cannot be happy about them. Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective, but it seems to me that a lot of folks are offended that some people don't like 4e, whereas those who don't like 4e don't seem to be particularly offended that others do.

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. Often by the very same people. Often the very same people denied problems with 3e existed that now they are crowing that 4e fixed.

And 4e did fix some of those problems. Some it fixed well, and others at too high a cost (IMHO). Other problems they put a coat of glossy paint on and hoped that the shininess would make us think the problems were solved (an effective gambit, at least in the short term, apparently).

These problems people are talking about with 4e? My bet is that, when 5e is coming out, WotC is going to claim that they are obvious.......and so are a lot of the folks claiming that they don't exist right now.


RC

This is most intelligent post I've seen in weeks.