Pramas on 4E and New Gamers
- Thread starter CaptainChaos
- Start date
TheLe was referencing the actual order of character creation as laid out in the PHB (hence the page reference in the post). So it's accurate from the point of view of the books themselves, which apparently are not aware of how brilliant they are.Dr. Strangemonkey said:
Last edited:
Voadam
Legend
Ydars said:
Obviously no one wants to play a lame concept. But mechanically simple does not equal lame.
I prefer less resource management intensive characters.
I'm having great fun with my soulknife character in a RHoD game. Jumps into combat and uses the on/off mechanics of psychic strike and psionic focus with no daily power issues to track.
I think the 3e warlock is a great mechanically simple magic class with always available magic that does not need to be tracked. I would prefer the 3e type warlock to be a core option.
My rogue characters are easy to keep track of, I maneuver for flanking position and try to hit enemies hard in the guts.
My high level druid with lots of wildshape options and summonable critters and companion options and full access to Spell Compendium has not been as fun for me. I can do tons of things but it is better to plan things out and consider my tons of options for each in game day and round of combat. It slows things down.
I've been playing and DMing for over 20 years in multiple editions of the game. Mechanically simple options is good for both new players and a certain set of playstyles.
I played a lot of shadowrun but never mechanically mastered it or got my head around the specifics of their action resolution systems. I read and enjoyed a lot of the world stuff and adapted the flavor of a bunch of the magic theory into my D&D games but never played a spellcaster in SR. I played a cybered up gun and melee combatant who was good despite my not mastering the mechanics of the SR system. I got very into the world and RPing my combat heavy character but the nuts and bolts mechanics dice pool targeting never interested me beyond getting my skills high and getting good guns and combat cyberware so I'd roll a lot of dice. I had a good time playing lots of Shadowrun but would have enjoyed it less if I had to master the spell drain system as well to play my archetype bodyguard, and I had no desire to GM it (despite really liking the xp and advancement system).
Scribble
First Post
Imaro said:
I'm seeign a few things they've done to the game that makes it a good entry for new players.
First off, I think a lot of peple are confusing a complex amount of things you can do in the game, with the game being complex.
These are two different concepts. I'd argue that the first one is actually what makes the game fun.
The basic rules of 4e are standardized, and thus easier to learn.
You only need to learn how to make a character once.
You only need to learn how powers work once.
You only need to learn how skills work once.
You only need to learn how to attack things once.
Once you have that down, you know how to make a character, and how to interact in the game world for ANY character.
It's also made selecting powers easier in that they've tried to make any power a viable option. There's no hidden gems, and fools gold skunks.
Now you get to have fun figuring out how best to use that knowledge in the game. (Like someone who learned the rules of chess, discovering how certain strategies work)
Now in a non-rpg game, when you lose, no biggie. Start over, play again try harder.
In an RPG "losing" has a bit more of a consequence. You need to make a new character.
The game has made this easier to do. (also a factor of standardizing.)
Granted, it's been easier in some prior editions, but without as many in game options. People like options.
The game has also made surviving the first few "critical" levels less reliant on luck. This allows the player to get out of trouble when they see it, as opposed to a scenario where a lucky hit/crit/damage combo kills them in one shot. "I did all that work for what now? This game sucks!"
delericho
Legend
Cadfan said:
I disagree. Over the years, I have had many players who, despite not being newbies, preferred to play simpler classes because they didn't want the hassle of learning lots of fiddly spells.
For these players, classes like the 3e Fighter, Barbarian or Sorcerer (if the DM would help select the spells) were very useful. For these players, 4e is a step backwards.
delericho
Legend
CharlesRyan said:
The thing is, it is always possible to add complexity, by adding supplements with additional rules, options and subsystems. Removing complexity almost invariably requires a new edition.
That being the case, the core rules should aim to be fairly complexity-light, with a view to adding these things in later.
It seems to me that playing any 4e character is going to be less complex at an equivalent level than playing a 3e Barbarian or Sorcerer. This might even be the case for some builds of the 3e Fighter (TWF, AoO specialist, grappler, etc.). If the 3e Sorcerer is going to be used as an iconic example of the "newb" class, then every class in 4e is newb friendly as far as I can see, because they're all pretty much like a 3e Sorcerer (a limited number of abilities that can be used quite a few times per day with expanding choice as you advance in levels).delericho said:
Doug McCrae
Legend
If the DM chooses the powers for a 4e character and the player decides which ones he uses in combat, isn't that much the same as running a 3e sorcerer?delericho said:
In 4e, a 1st level PC has 4 powers, a 1st level 3e sorcerer knows 2 spells, plus 4 cantrips. An 8th level PC has 9 powers, a 5th level (analogous to 4e's 8th) sorcerer knows 6 spells. At 15th level, the 4e char has 13 powers, a 10th level sorcerer knows 15 spells.
The learning curve is a bit steeper with 3e, but the two progressions aren't very different.
Last edited:
