My first 4E game...

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is it going to be my "new D&D"? Pretty sure its not.

I have no doubt 4E is a solid game. The game design department at WOTC does know what they are doing. I just doubt that its going to be the great game, for me, that it apparently is for so many others.

So I have a lot to look at and observe about how things actually play, but I have yet to start thinking 4E is going to be the "go to" game for me. So far I still feel I am far happier with the system I do use.

That why, even if I don't fall in love with 4E, I will be stealing the ideas I like for my C&C game.

Treebore, I find it interesting that both of us have come to essentially the same conclusion from opposite perspectives of the game continuum- you from "rules-light," I from "rules-heavy.*"

*Not that I'm "rules-light" averse- I just don't want D&D to be one of my "rules-light" games.

 

[Stalker0]

The only thing I'll add to the discussion is if people think the cleric is "useless" in 4e, I honestly think you may be reading the rules wrong.

Here's the thing about the cleric, in combat, a character only has 1 thing they can do to heal normally...that's a second wind. And unless you have some other power that heals, that's all you get, once per encounter you can heal. From my experience that is simply not enough. The cleric has the ability twice per encounter to allow people to heal more....and there's just no substitute for that. If you don't see any value in the cleric, make sure your running the heal rules right, and make sure you are throwing proper encounters at your party. I'm not saying a 4e party can't play without a cleric, but there is a night and day difference in how that party has to play imo.

I will also say that the homogeneous play of classes is definitely an "on paper" problem. When I first looked at the classes I also concluded that the classes seemed very similar. But that has not turned out in play.

In one fight we had our paladin survive 3 rounds of combat with 9 (yes 9) creatures attacking him, our rogue killed one of the major bad guys by himself, and my wizard killed 5 minions with one shot. These are things that the other classes just can't do as well. The differences in 4e are smaller (for example there is no longer a huge disparity in AC between the fighter and the wizard for example) but those differences are no less important and class defining.

All that said, the OP's points are well taken. For example, I definitely feel 4e's combat is as complicated as 3e, and there is definitely more to track. Combats are also taking just as long in 4e as they were in 3e, at least at levels 1-3 where I'm playing now. Now...I'm enjoying the combats greatly, but it is not a quick and simple system for sure.

 

[Jhaelen]

I tear down mechanics to mechanics, The names are just window dressing. They all roll a d20 and do certain ranges of damage that are within 2 points of each other. They are homogenous.

You're correct that the mechanics are now identical for all classes. But how does that equate to the classes all playing identically?

Or did you mean something else when use the word 'homogenous'?

Did you feel that the 3E classes were homogenous, as well?
What if you let spellcasters roll the saving throws for their targets?

If I'm rolling a d20 to decide how far I jump, is that identical to rolling a d20 to determine if I intimidate someone? Are the skill names just window dressing?

Would you feel the classes wouldn't be 'homogenous' if each used a different mechanic?
Would it make a difference if wizards had to draw a card, numbered from 1 to 20, rogues would use 3d6 and fighters 2d10 to decide if one of their powers worked?

Or did you mean 'homogenous' as in equally powerful or balanced? That would be correct then. Though, I'd have to wonder why you dislike that.

 

[BryonD]

You're correct that the mechanics are now identical for all classes. But how does that equate to the classes all playing identically?

Or did you mean something else when use the word 'homogenous'?

Did you feel that the 3E classes were homogenous, as well?
What if you let spellcasters roll the saving throws for their targets?

I think you are making it an all or nothing thing and that is a really bad assessement method.

There are differences, just not enough.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You're correct that the mechanics are now identical for all classes. But how does that equate to the classes all playing identically?

Or did you mean something else when use the word 'homogenous'?

Did you feel that the 3E classes were homogenous, as well?
What if you let spellcasters roll the saving throws for their targets?

If I'm rolling a d20 to decide how far I jump, is that identical to rolling a d20 to determine if I intimidate someone? Are the skill names just window dressing?

Would you feel the classes wouldn't be 'homogenous' if each used a different mechanic?
Would it make a difference if wizards had to draw a card, numbered from 1 to 20, rogues would use 3d6 and fighters 2d10 to decide if one of their powers worked?

Or did you mean 'homogenous' as in equally powerful or balanced? That would be correct then. Though, I'd have to wonder why you dislike that.

Every class uses power X do deal Y damage with effect Z added (in some cases) The method of delivery changes, such as a beam of light, a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, ect. but in function its all just the same type of gizmo from the Batman utility belt.

Different mechanics to achieve the same results wouldn't really change anything.

For a game thats all about a series of combat encounters it works fine. Not every game has to be run that way. The school of thought that claims that all classes have to have the same raw combative power is a competitive one and not really required for an rpg. The whole situation reminds me of the little kid at a birthday party that has to get a gift because the birthday kid got one. Assuming that every player involved in combat needs to be able to deal the same damage or the situation becomes "unfun" is essentially designing a game for that little kid.

 

[Mallus]

For a game thats all about a series of combat encounters it works fine.

Why wouldn't it work fine for other kinds of games?

Not every game has to be run that way.

Certainly not.

The school of thought that claims that all classes have to have the same raw combative power is a competitive one and not really required for an rpg.

This isn't neccessarily true. The 4e design choices reflect the recognition that most D&D are combat-heavy and therefore all the classes should have the means to effectively participate in the game's central activity (ie combat). Note that this in no way offers any hindrance to playing a less combat focused game. The balance is simply there if you need it.

The whole situation reminds me of the little kid at a birthday party that has to get a gift because the birthday kid got one.

A D&D campaign is every player's birthday...

 

[ExploderWizard]

This isn't neccessarily true. The 4e design choices reflect the recognition that most D&D are combat-heavy and therefore all the classes should have the means to effectively participate in the game's central activity (ie combat). Note that this in no way offers any hindrance to playing a less combat focused game. The balance is simply there if you need it.

Exactly. With that balance comes the feeling of sameness. Its up the players to decide if thats an acceptable trade off.

A D&D campaign is every player's birthday...

Yes indeed. The 4E design principle goes to the lengths to ensure that every encounter is every player's birthday, thats the difference. Again this can be a feature, and not a bug depending on the group.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Every class uses power X do deal Y damage with effect Z added (in some cases) The method of delivery changes, such as a beam of light, a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, ect. but in function its all just the same type of gizmo from the Batman utility belt.

This is what I didn't like about M&M (only played a little of first edition). Every Attack and Resist was the same, same values, same system. So, same roll every time for a random result. Once I focused on that, it was hard to suspend it and see past it.

Different mechanics to achieve the same results wouldn't really change anything.

It does help a little, but with 4e it seems to have tightened the focus too much on the combat aspect and it'll still come down to 2-3 At Will powers every combat, IMO.

The whole situation reminds me of the little kid at a birthday party that has to get a gift because the birthday kid got one. Assuming that every player involved in combat needs to be able to deal the same damage or the situation becomes "unfun" is essentially designing a game for that little kid.

I can see that, and extend it to "everyone gets the same gift", or close to it.

 

[VanRichten]

To answer the Homogenous statement. I am referring to Wikipedia for the answer.

Homogeneity means "being the same throughout".
Homogeneity may also refer to:

• Homogeneous (mathematics), a variety of meanings
• In statistics homogeneity can refer to
  • Homogeneity of variance: Homoscedasticity
  • Logically consistent data matrices: homogeneity (statistics)
• Homogeneity (physics), in physics, two particular meanings: On one hand, translational invariance. On the other, homogeneity of units in equations, related to dimensional analysis
• Homogenetic or homoplastic, in biology, applied both to animals and plants, of having a resemblance in structure, due to descent from a common progenitor with subsequent modification
• Homogenization is intensive mixing of mutually insoluble phases (sometimes with addition of surfactants) to obtain a soluble suspension or emulsion, for example homogenizing milk so that the cream doesn't separate out
• In physical chemistry, homogeneous describes a single-phase system as opposed to a heterogeneous system. See also phase diagrams and the classification of catalysts
• In the context of procurement/purchasing, homogeneous is used to describe goods that do not vary in their essential characteristic irrespective of the source of supply

I am to think the last part applies to what the OP was stating. Opinions differ.

 

[Treebore]

I was not saying the cleric is not effective, just not needed. Not anywhere to the degree of "needed" they were in the previous editions. I am sure there are those who are glad of that, I am not one of them. I like the cleric being needed. I like parties having to be much more careful about their decisions because they don't have the cleric there to patch them up.


I also understand the advantages of "leveling the playing field" by making the classes to similar in combat effectiveness. I'm just fine, and so far prefer, the old way of doing it.

IE:

You don't like how whimpy thieves or wizards are, don't play them. Play a fighter, or fighter type, if you want to be tough in combat.

Thieves, wizards, etc... are "specialty" classes. Now they are "common". I like how they had/have their own unique challenges to effectively play. I love thieves and mages, always have. I have always loved the challenge of playing them, and how differently you have to play them from every other class to be successful with them. That challenge appears to be gone.

I have only played one session, so I am most likely missing things, but right now, thats how I see it.