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

[Brennin Magalus]

So yeah, just because you don't like the current edition, please stop lying to the boards and spreading this "it’s not D&D" rubbish – we're all sick of it.

Please stop using pluralis majestatis. He (or she) is not lying; it is not D&D to him. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it.

 

[Scribble]

"It's fun" is a lazy cliche, too......

Eh... that's questionable. I mean It's fun, is a pretty established term. It means it's pleasing to take part in. It amuses someone. But what the heck does videogamey mean?

I'm not saying a person doesn't have the right to say it, but you might as well be saying it feels purple, or it feels too paper cuppy...

I'm still going to say "huh?"

 

[Imp]

First up when I got the PHB and paged through it, I was not jazzed in the least. I find it uninspiring and frankly a bit ugly. I can't place myself in the mind of a person who has never gamed before but I have a suspicion that if I were, and if I picked up a 4e PHB and paged through it, I'd put it back down and walk away.

Having now played the game and gotten more familiar with it, I have a greater understanding of why this is. The 4e PHB is almost the complete ruleset. In fact I ran my first couple 4e games using ONLY the PHB and had no difficulties. It reads more like a textbook than a "portal to adventure!" Even though I kinda like the game, I don't think the PHB makes a very good first impression.

Actually this is currently my number one problem, not minions or martial powers or whatever. Most of that I can deal with. But I look at the book and can't get excited about starting a game. Let alone running one. I mean, if people I knew were playing a 4e game, I'd join in happily enough, so long as I didn't have to keep reading the book.

The sort of functionality-vs.-allure decision that was made there reminds me a bit of the 3.5e Spell Compendium, a handy book that a lot of people around here seemed to really like, and it is useful, but terribly dull & uninspiring reading, page after page of "spell does 1d6/level of sonic damage in a cone", and if that book were my introduction to 3rd edition I'd have the exact same problem.

 

[AllisterH]

Actually this is currently my number one problem, not minions or martial powers or whatever. Most of that I can deal with. But I look at the book and can't get excited about starting a game. Let alone running one. I mean, if people I knew were playing a 4e game, I'd join in happily enough, so long as I didn't have to keep reading the book.

The sort of functionality-vs.-allure decision that was made there reminds me a bit of the 3.5e Spell Compendium, a handy book that a lot of people around here seemed to really like, and it is useful, but terribly dull & uninspiring reading, page after page of "spell does 1d6/level of sonic damage in a cone", and if that book were my introduction to 3rd edition I'd have the exact same problem.

Heh...Where were you during the fluff vs no fluff debate months ago?

 

[Celtavian]

Again, I am not familiar with editions before 3rd, but the whole CR/Encounter Level system of 3E for me was genius - a system that allowed me to gauge how hard an encounter will be for my PCs? I hadn't seen that before, nor I have seen something after. 4E is clearly a refinement of that prinicple. It is probably also an ultimate expression of "gamist" concepts in D&D, only existing to facilitate the "kill people and take their stuff" trope, but, well, I think it is a very powerful and important tool for DMs. Expanding the system to handle "skill challenge" and quests just seems logical.

The problem with 3E and the entire CR/EL system is that it was easy to break. It was fairly effective at low levels, but very ineffective at high levels. It was like 3E was tested to about level 10, but wasn't tested much past level 10.

Let me give you a few examples:

1. A Beholder: In concept a beholder is supposed to be a single tough encounter for a group of four level 13 characters. In play a beholder dies in roughly a round or two unless the DM was very careful in what magic items he handed out or how the characters were built.

A lvl 13 fighter backed up by a fly spell from a wizard could annhilate a beholder.If the beholder used his anti-magic eye to keep the fighter from getting to him, he couldn't use his own powers on the fighter or party standing in the anti-magic ray.

Then if you had a well-built archer in the group he could practically kill the beholder by himself in a round or two with moderate protection from the cleric. Once again the beholder's antimagic ray could stop the magic, but at the same time rendered his own power inert.

Now that makes a fight against this epic level aberration that is supposed to be a fearsome monster of legend a joke. His own antimagic ray eye has to be used to prevent the party's magic from making him easy to kill, but his own antimagic ray eye also renders his own powers useless. He doesn't have enough AC and hit points to stand toe to toe once engaged.

This won't happen in 4th Edition unless that beholder is designed to be a fairly weak kill. I find that monster design philosophy better illustrates a battle against groups of creatures or epic creatures.

I don't have to design an NPC that has a huge spell list anymore just to match the wizard and cleric. I don't have to stack a ton of magic items on my evil NPCs just to keep up with the fighters AC. I don't have to have the cleric carry around wands of healing just to keep the encounters progressing. I don't have to worry about creatures being one-shotted to a crit if I design them to be an epic encounter that requires everything the players have to win.

Alot more thought was put into encounter design and challenge. It may have started with 3E. But 4th edition did a much, much better job of creating challenging encounters without the oddiity of requiring magic item inflation on the part of both the monsters and the players. I find that refreshing.

Everything in 4E seems to scale better.

 

[Celtavian]

double post.

 

[Celtavian]

Again, I am not familiar with editions before 3rd, but the whole CR/Encounter Level system of 3E for me was genius - a system that allowed me to gauge how hard an encounter will be for my PCs? I hadn't seen that before, nor I have seen something after. 4E is clearly a refinement of that prinicple. It is probably also an ultimate expression of "gamist" concepts in D&D, only existing to facilitate the "kill people and take their stuff" trope, but, well, I think it is a very powerful and important tool for DMs. Expanding the system to handle "skill challenge" and quests just seems logical.

The problem with 3E and the entire CR/EL system is that it was easy to break. It was fairly effective at high levels, but very ineffective at low levels. It was like 3E was tested to about level 10, but wasn't tested much past level 10.

Let me give you a few examples:

1. A Beholder: In concept a beholder is supposed to be a single tough encounter for a group of four level 13 characters. In play a beholder dies in roughly a round or two unless the DM was very careful in what magic items he handed out or how the characters were built.

A lvl 13 fighter backed up by a fly spell from a wizard could annhilate a beholder.If the beholder used his anti-magic eye to keep the fighter from getting to him, he couldn't use his own powers on the fighter or party standing in the anti-magic ray.

Then if you had a well-built archer in the group he could practically kill the beholder by himself in a round or two with moderate protection from the cleric. Once again the beholder's antimagic ray could stop the magic, but at the same time rendered his own power inert.

Now that makes a fight against this epic level aberration that is supposed to be a fearsome monster of legend a joke. His own antimagic ray eye has to be used to prevent the party's magic from making him easy to kill, but his own antimagic ray eye also renders his own powers useless. He doesn't have enough AC and hit points to stand toe to toe once engaged.

This won't happen in 4th Edition unless that beholder is designed to be a fairly weak kill. I find that monster design philosophy better illustrates a battle against groups of creatures or epic creatures.

I don't have to design an NPC that has a huge spell list anymore just to match the wizard and cleric. I don't have to stack a ton of magic items on my evil NPCs just to keep up with the fighters AC. I don't have to have the cleric carry around wands of healing just to keep the encounters progressing. I don't have to worry about creatures being one-shotted to a crit if I design them to be an epic encounter that requires everything the players have to win.

Alot more thought was put into encounter design and challenge. It may have started with 3E. But 4th edition did a much, much better job of creating challenging encounters without the oddiity of requiring magic item inflation on the part of both the monsters and the players. I find that refreshing.

Everything in 4E seems to scale better.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

double post.

Triple Post, my friend! Triple post! Mr. Trigger-Happy, eh?


And sure 4E scaling and encounter building works better then 3E ones. But 3E definitely created a good starting point and showed what worked and what not.

As a side note, 3E CR system and 4E XP/Role/"Weight" system utilize the advantages of a level-based system. I am not sure it would be that easy in a game like Shadowrun or Torg. But I still wonder what other level-based systems have such a concept? I know "The Dark Eye" (when it still had "real" levels) didn't seem to have such a system. What ever level-based games are out there?

 

[Imp]

Heh...Where were you during the fluff vs no fluff debate months ago?

Would it have mattered?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Would it have mattered?

Considering that there are no Golden Wyverns and Emerald Frosts around - I think it might. Maybe not you alone, but more of you, and maybe the vocal "No-Fluff-In-My-Feats" group wouldn't have appeared that important. I cannot doubt that this was a contributor to the decision.

But maybe "more-fluff-in-core-books" is a minority position among gamer. I really don't know.