Pramas on 4E and New Gamers

[delericho]

In 4e, a 1st level PC has 4 powers, a 1st level 3e sorcerer knows 2 spells, plus 4 cantrips.

In 3e, that's two pools of powers, both of which work the same way (0 and 1st level). In 4e, it's three pools of powers, each working differently (at-will, encounter, daily).

Additionally, in the 3e spells were mostly auto-hit or saving throws (which the DM dealt with), and where attacks did have to be rolled, it was one of two attack numbers printed dead-centre on the character sheet (melee, ranged).

In 4e, powers are a roll of one of eight attack numbers scattered around the sheet (melee, ranged, Str, Dex, Con...) against a variety of defences.

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.

Again, that 5th level 3e Sorcerer is casting spells from 3 pools, all of which work the same way. The 8th level Sorcerer has 5 pools, 10th level has 6 pools, and the 15th level Sorcerer has 8 pools, but these all work the same way.

 

[Maggan]

Explain this better please.

Btw, interesting stuff to know. Thanks for the info

PS -is this the rpg illustrated by Paul Bonner?

In reverse order:

1. Yes, it is the game that is currently graced with fabulous covers by Paul Bonner!

2. I've seen people claim that D&D rules the rpg world (well, America) because of the game design paradigm; levels, hit points, dungeons, Vancian magic, the lot. DoD (as Drakar och Demoner is abbreviated in Sweden) has a different paradigm (skills, spell points, etc.) and ruled the Swedish market, and blocked D&D from enter the mainstream until 3rd edition, which shows that the game design paradigm was less important than first mover advantage in the local market.

But that's OT.

 

[xechnao]

2. I've seen people claim that D&D rules the rpg world (well, America) because of the game design paradigm; levels, hit points, dungeons, Vancian magic, the lot. DoD (as Drakar och Demoner is abbreviated in Sweden) has a different paradigm (skills, spell points, etc.) and ruled the Swedish market, and blocked D&D from enter the mainstream until 3rd edition, which shows that the game design paradigm was less important than first mover advantage in the local market.

But that's OT.

I share your opinion 100&.

 

[Voadam]

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).

Sorcerer is easier than wizard, its a comparison, not an icon of the ideal. I think 3e warlocks are simpler and more newby friendly than sorcerers.

Fighters and rogues with their always on powers and no resource tracking are the stand alone core example classes.

Barbarians have one 1/day power that modifies their stats. They are more complicated mechanically than fighters or rogues.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

I don't really know that this is true. A lot of the 4E classes are pretty simple: wizard and ranger in particular; and most of the rest are only slightly more complex than the simplest 3E classes and far less complex than the more complex 3E classes.

 

[Skywalker]

In 4e, powers are a roll of one of eight attack numbers scattered around the sheet (melee, ranged, Str, Dex, Con...) against a variety of defences.

FWIW it is only 6 Attack numbers against 4 Def. However, what is more important is that each Attack works the same way in 4e. You don't have auto success attacks, Attack roll attacks and resisted by Saving Throws attacks. This is one reason why 4e is very streamlined in comparison to its predecessors.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Pramas' points resonate with me strongly. I stopped playing RPGs nearly immediately after 4e was announced. I felt like I was a newb when I grabbed the 4e core books.

The organization of the books made me want to toss them across the room and give up coming back to D&D. Trying to make a character without someone else to guide me has been an awful experience.

The game does not need to be dumbed down to make it more appealing for newbs, it really needed someone in control of how it was presented in the book! It is a total mess of organizational layout.


And now for my rant on Intro rules . . .

And the matter of an intro set coming in November, if it is like the 3e Basic sets, it will be a fail as badly as the 3x were. The 3e sets were like disposable gateway drugs. If you liked the basic game, surprise!, what you saw must be chucked in the bin because nothing in the 3e Basic sets was reusable in the Core game except the minis, dice, and tiles. Use of money FAIL.

The 3e Basic sets were functionally NOT the same game as the Core rules and thus an entirely extra cost burden and system burden upon new gamers who desired to move up to the Core books.

A 4e basic set should present fewer options than the Core books, but what the 4e Intro presents MUST be the exact same rules as the Core books. It also needs to be organized much better.

 

[Harr]

Such a weird and strange thing that there are so many differing viewpoints on the ease of layout.

I mean, I do believe people who complain about it are being perfectly geniune and honest about their opinion, but, well, my little sister made a character in 20 minutes with nothing but the book. I read the book cover to cover front to back and was delighted at it (of course the secret to the supposed 'great wall' is that I skipped reading almost all the powers that I wasn't interested in like a normal person would for godsakes). I had one player who began playing one day turn around that same day and explain to another new player how to make a character to perfection.

Strange that neither my sister nor any of my new players felt any compulsion to read chapter 4 entirely page by page. It was weird really, almost as if some sort of 'logic' or 'common sense' were invisibly telling them that it wasn't necessary

In all seriousness it strikes me as lunacy that someone would state that the normal way for a person to read the list of spells/powers of any rpg ever printed ever is to just read them all one by one as if they were a novel. Seriously. Wth. Your eyes glazed over?? No! really?? What an unexpected thing to happen! And you had so much fun reading the dictionary cover to cover last week!

I agree that more examples of the rules in action would have been nice, though.

 

[CharlesRyan]

In all seriousness it strikes me as lunacy that someone would state that the normal way for a person to read the list of spells/powers of any rpg ever printed ever is to just read them all one by one as if they were a novel.

Gotta go with Harr here. If the 4E PHB has a "great wall" at the powers sections, the 3E PHB had the same wall at the spells chapter. I've never heard anyone suggest the need to read the 3E spell chapter cover-to-cover as part of learning to play 3E.

I've seen a couple of new or newish (long-time lapsed or played-once-or-twice) players reenter D&D through 4E, and not one of them exhibited an urge to read the powers section all the way through. Most of them didn't even seem to read the powers for their own class more than one level in advance--at least not until they started to really get into their characters and began to think ahead about the future of the game. . . .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorcerer is easier than wizard, its a comparison, not an icon of the ideal. I think 3e warlocks are simpler and more newby friendly than sorcerers.

Fighters and rogues with their always on powers and no resource tracking are the stand alone core example classes.

Barbarians have one 1/day power that modifies their stats. They are more complicated mechanically than fighters or rogues.

Warlocks and Sorcerers both suffer from the problem that they are not forgiving on bad choices. This can be a problem if you're unwilling to rebuild a character.

What actually helps in 3E is if you just use the sample build provided at the end of each class description. Pick your skills and you're done.
That's very similar to the 4E builds.