D&D 4E Let's Talk About 4E On Its Own Terms [+]

[AbdulAlhazred]

Now I'm just thread busting for no reason, but... Have you shared an alpha or beta version of your game yet? Would love to read, it sounds good

https://www.giantelectronicbrain.com/homl.html has the rules. I've been working on some online character management and such, though that's not in a very polished state.

 

[Zeromaru X]

They prefer the old school approach of the Wizard being weak and cautious. They dislike being able to just spew magic whenever. Playing a Wizard is meant to be a challenge, only good players need apply.

Of course, in fairness, I've encountered those with this opinion who totally want magic to be all powerful at high levels. Think of the quote from Aladdin.

"PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!!!! ....teeny little living space."

Well, I don't see how having infinite cantrips and having cosmic power are mutually exclusive. 4e arcane casters are proof of that in epic levels.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, I don't see how having infinite cantrips and having cosmic power are mutually exclusive. 4e arcane casters are proof of that in epic levels.

Different sensibilities, I guess. I can't really explain it well because it's a position I don't really understand- I feel that magic users being able to use magic in place of mundane activities adds to the class fantasy- a Wizard shouldn't have to carry around a crossbow or a flint and steel or a torch- he has magic for that!

However, here's a few common complaints that might shed light on things:

1- infinite, hands-free source of light. In old school play, carrying around torches and lanterns has an opportunity cost. You need to have a free hand occupied, and you run the risk of running out of light in a dangerous place if you don't carry enough torches and/or fuel. Magical light used to take a spell slot, so again, opportunity cost. If you're running an exploration-heavy game, having every caster able to provide infinite light sources is a major paradigm shift.

2- in a similar vein, if you want ranged attacks, you have to carry around the weapons to make them. Range penalties and ammunition are issues to consider as well. Along comes Mr. Sorcerer with his infinite fire bolts, which deal elemental damage (often superior to regular damage) that also scale as they level up to being better than weapon damage! Not to mention the obvious advantages of always having fire on tap. An old school encounter with a troll, where a character might have to give up their normal attack to hit a troll with a torch becomes a much more simple affair as the caster lights it on fire every turn. And there's always that one guy who complains if you can keep hitting a normally difficult to destroy obstacle with limitless damage with the DM unable to say things like "keep doing that and your weapon might break or you'll get tired from swinging it", etc..

3- the classic balance point of casters vs. martials is that martials can do their thing all day long, and casters run out of magic, so it's a powerful resource that must be conserved. At-will cantrips massively disrupt this paradigm.

How you approach the game fundamentally shifts, and if your gaming experience consists of slowly creeping through dark tunnels, wondering how far your resources can stretch before you have to flee, at-will magic will probably feel quite jarring.

 

[Red Castle]

Well, I don't see how having infinite cantrips and having cosmic power are mutually exclusive. 4e arcane casters are proof of that in epic levels.

But the problem was also that they wanted to feel special. So if everybody is a demi-god in epic level, that doesn’t set them apart.

Being more powerful in high level was the reward for having it tough in low level. Some players want that kind of power curve.

And also, some players felt cheated that the wizard was not a striker. To them, wizards are suppose to do a lot of damage. Fireball doing only 4d6 in a shorter burst was a big letdown for some.

Me, I love the 4e wizard. I love that he follow the same powercurve as everybody else. I love that he never has to fight with a weapon (magic missile even being considered a basic attack… I love that magic missile could miss!). And I love its role as a controller with a lot of area attacks.

 

[Mannahnin]

Different sensibilities, I guess. I can't really explain it well because it's a position I don't really understand- I feel that magic users being able to use magic in place of mundane activities adds to the class fantasy- a Wizard shouldn't have to carry around a crossbow or a flint and steel or a torch- he has magic for that!

However, here's a few common complaints that might shed light on things:

1- infinite, hands-free source of light. In old school play, carrying around torches and lanterns has an opportunity cost. You need to have a free hand occupied, and you run the risk of running out of light in a dangerous place if you don't carry enough torches and/or fuel. Magical light used to take a spell slot, so again, opportunity cost. If you're running an exploration-heavy game, having every caster able to provide infinite light sources is a major paradigm shift.

2- in a similar vein, if you want ranged attacks, you have to carry around the weapons to make them. Range penalties and ammunition are issues to consider as well. Along comes Mr. Sorcerer with his infinite fire bolts, which deal elemental damage (often superior to regular damage) that also scale as they level up to being better than weapon damage! Not to mention the obvious advantages of always having fire on tap. An old school encounter with a troll, where a character might have to give up their normal attack to hit a troll with a torch becomes a much more simple affair as the caster lights it on fire every turn. And there's always that one guy who complains if you can keep hitting a normally difficult to destroy obstacle with limitless damage with the DM unable to say things like "keep doing that and your weapon might break or you'll get tired from swinging it", etc..

3- the classic balance point of casters vs. martials is that martials can do their thing all day long, and casters run out of magic, so it's a powerful resource that must be conserved. At-will cantrips massively disrupt this paradigm.

How you approach the game fundamentally shifts, and if your gaming experience consists of slowly creeping through dark tunnels, wondering how far your resources can stretch before you have to flee, at-will magic will probably feel quite jarring.

And also, some players felt cheated that the wizard was not a striker. To them, wizards are suppose to do a lot of damage. Fireball doing only 4d6 in a shorter burst was a big letdown for some.

Me, I love the 4e wizard. I love that he follow the same powercurve as everybody else. I love that he never has to fight with a weapon (magic missile even being considered a basic attack… I love that magic missile could miss!). And I love its role as a controller with a lot of area attacks.

Both of these.

This is part of why I usually say that B/X and 4E are probably my two favorite editions overall. They provide different play experiences, emphasizing different parts of D&D (exploration and risk management vs set piece tactical combat and a different kind of resource management), but both give you monsters and magic and excitement.

A B/X Magic-user doesn't get cantrips/at-will magic (although it's easy to house rule them some minor stuff to feel more magical), but their spells are individually more powerful and decisive in impact, as a rule. It's a different experience to play a Magic-User who mostly stays out of fights except when they need to deploy a room-clearer like Sleep or Fireball and often END or decide a combat right then and there, but if the game in question isn't centered on large numbers of long, set-piece fights, that can still be quite a fun play experience.

 

[deganawida]

Both of these.

This is part of why I usually say that B/X and 4E are probably my two favorite editions overall. They provide different play experiences, emphasizing different parts of D&D (exploration and risk management vs set piece tactical combat and a different kind of resource management), but both give you monsters and magic and excitement.

A B/X Magic-user doesn't get cantrips/at-will magic (although it's easy to house rule them some minor stuff to feel more magical), but their spells are individually more powerful and decisive in impact, as a rule. It's a different experience to play a Magic-User who mostly stays out of fights except when they need to deploy a room-clearer like Sleep or Fireball and often END or decide a combat right then and there, but if the game in question isn't centered on large numbers of long, set-piece fights, that can still be quite a fun play experience.

I’m not alone! Those are my two favorites, too!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Different sensibilities, I guess. I can't really explain it well because it's a position I don't really understand- I feel that magic users being able to use magic in place of mundane activities adds to the class fantasy- a Wizard shouldn't have to carry around a crossbow or a flint and steel or a torch- he has magic for that!

However, here's a few common complaints that might shed light on things:

1- infinite, hands-free source of light. In old school play, carrying around torches and lanterns has an opportunity cost. You need to have a free hand occupied, and you run the risk of running out of light in a dangerous place if you don't carry enough torches and/or fuel. Magical light used to take a spell slot, so again, opportunity cost. If you're running an exploration-heavy game, having every caster able to provide infinite light sources is a major paradigm shift.

I'd just point out that there ARE good answers for this. So, for instance Dungeon World spell casting always involves risk. The Wizard has a light cantrip which acts like a pretty-much-ever-burning torch, BUT you have to cast it! On a 7-9 there's a consequence. Now, with a +3 INT you will get 10+ on a 7, so it isn't THAT dangerous, and the 'forget this spell until you rememorize' is often going to be no consequence at all, but in that game the GM is always free to say "well, hard move, I take away your light!" so its not a 100% reliable source of light. 6- isn't specified for spell casting, so that's also GM hard move territory.

2- in a similar vein, if you want ranged attacks, you have to carry around the weapons to make them. Range penalties and ammunition are issues to consider as well. Along comes Mr. Sorcerer with his infinite fire bolts, which deal elemental damage (often superior to regular damage) that also scale as they level up to being better than weapon damage! Not to mention the obvious advantages of always having fire on tap. An old school encounter with a troll, where a character might have to give up their normal attack to hit a troll with a torch becomes a much more simple affair as the caster lights it on fire every turn. And there's always that one guy who complains if you can keep hitting a normally difficult to destroy obstacle with limitless damage with the DM unable to say things like "keep doing that and your weapon might break or you'll get tired from swinging it", etc..

Again, this has been pretty much dealt with by DW in the same way. In 4e at-wills are OK, and you can get by with them most of the time, but if you want a large effect, you will need to cast encounter or daily spells, or even delve into rituals. Sure, you can always have Fire Bolt on hand, but then you don't have Cloud of Daggers, or one of the other useful at-wills. Everything is a trade off...

3- the classic balance point of casters vs. martials is that martials can do their thing all day long, and casters run out of magic, so it's a powerful resource that must be conserved. At-will cantrips massively disrupt this paradigm.

That's just a balance that EGG/DA struck in their early play. It isn't even the only paradigm in classic D&D, let alone modern D&D.

How you approach the game fundamentally shifts, and if your gaming experience consists of slowly creeping through dark tunnels, wondering how far your resources can stretch before you have to flee, at-will magic will probably feel quite jarring.

Yet the same people who complain about 4e powers don't generally complain about the same perpetual light problem in 5e, where it is at least equally acute. Now, 4e indeed makes it easy to get permanent light sources, you can JUST BUY ONE, but again that same item, Sun Rod, was equipment in 3e also. I think the point is, modern D&D just isn't really about old school dungeon crawling. I tend to like the idea of problematic light myself, it can have atmospheric and tactical fun uses, but it isn't like its the big stick in my bag of tricks. 4e is not, nor was 3e, nor is 5e, a good game for running OSR-style DC. Every one of those games inherently assumes PCs can mostly take care of the mundane stuff. I mean, food, 4e has a rudimentary starvation rule which the GM can choose to employ, probably as an SC failure consequence or as a 'stick' to put pressure on the PCs. Its not like 1e where ration use is carefully documented and hunger/thirst kick in at specific points, etc. MAYBE you could play 4e that way, possibly. The rules don't really abolish older-style challenge play of that sort, but it probably won't be the most fun way to do it in 4e. 5e is sadly lost here, it lacks both the framework to do it old-school, but nor does it have 4e's more story-driven infrastructure with things like SCs. Effectively in 5e starvation is just an annoyance that the GM could impose on the players!

 

[Zeromaru X]

Different sensibilities, I guess. I can't really explain it well because it's a position I don't really understand- I feel that magic users being able to use magic in place of mundane activities adds to the class fantasy- a Wizard shouldn't have to carry around a crossbow or a flint and steel or a torch- he has magic for that!

However, here's a few common complaints that might shed light on things:

1- infinite, hands-free source of light. In old school play, carrying around torches and lanterns has an opportunity cost. You need to have a free hand occupied, and you run the risk of running out of light in a dangerous place if you don't carry enough torches and/or fuel. Magical light used to take a spell slot, so again, opportunity cost. If you're running an exploration-heavy game, having every caster able to provide infinite light sources is a major paradigm shift.

2- in a similar vein, if you want ranged attacks, you have to carry around the weapons to make them. Range penalties and ammunition are issues to consider as well. Along comes Mr. Sorcerer with his infinite fire bolts, which deal elemental damage (often superior to regular damage) that also scale as they level up to being better than weapon damage! Not to mention the obvious advantages of always having fire on tap. An old school encounter with a troll, where a character might have to give up their normal attack to hit a troll with a torch becomes a much more simple affair as the caster lights it on fire every turn. And there's always that one guy who complains if you can keep hitting a normally difficult to destroy obstacle with limitless damage with the DM unable to say things like "keep doing that and your weapon might break or you'll get tired from swinging it", etc..

3- the classic balance point of casters vs. martials is that martials can do their thing all day long, and casters run out of magic, so it's a powerful resource that must be conserved. At-will cantrips massively disrupt this paradigm.

How you approach the game fundamentally shifts, and if your gaming experience consists of slowly creeping through dark tunnels, wondering how far your resources can stretch before you have to flee, at-will magic will probably feel quite jarring.

So, people is just masochistic?

 

[Mannahnin]

So, people is just masochistic?

Do you think that people play, say, the arcade game Centipede because they're masochists? Or play horror RPGs because they're masochists? Or climb sheer cliff faces because they're masochists? Or the computer game Dark Souls? Or Rogue-likes?

I'll tell you that playing a game like the one James described there is FUN, for me. Part of the fun is the challenge.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Do you think that people play, say, the arcade game Centipede because they're masochists? Or play horror RPGs because they're masochists? Or climb sheer cliff faces because they're masochists? Or the computer game Dark Souls? Or Rogue-likes?

I'll tell you that playing a game like the one James described there is FUN, for me. Part of the fun is the challenge.

I don't see any fun no challenge in playing a crossbow-user who can occasionally cast some spells. For me, a magic user should be using magic as his main trick. If I wanted to play a crossbow-user, I would play a fighter instead, perhaps multiclassing it with wizard if I want occasional spells. That would be challenging and rewarding. To play just for the challenge alone is not my idea of fun.

But, perhaps I'm just not wired that way. After all, I started D&D with 4e (actually, very late 3.5, but not enough to consider the experience meaningful to me). Never experienced old school RPG, but the idea that these posts are giving me is that this kind of game would be very stressful for me.