D&D 4E So I cornered a 4e playtester...
- Thread starter Spinachcat
- Start date
Tarril Wolfeye
First Post
Spinachcat
First Post
Sphyre said:
I deeply disagree, but I am very glad that you and others found a way to enjoy 3e without minis.
I have run 3e / D20 with and without the grid and they are different games. Many feats, abilities, spells and game balancers depend on the measurements. Without the grid, these balancers are removed. Now, that's totally cool, but you are off the rules reservation.
If the whole table doesn't care about the balancers or being on/off the rules reservation, then you are 100% yippy skippy and all is good. The issue I have found is THAT ONE GUY (or more than one) who is attached to RAW and plays 3e because of the balance factors.
For reasons I do not know, I have found many more gamers are attached to RAW with 3e than with any other RPG. If you can avoid those players, then yeah, no problemo.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
No, no, waterboarding is a skill challenge. First you have Intimidate or Diplomacy. This is followed by a check to secure the target to the board (Survival? Dungeoneering? I don't know where Rope Use ended up.). You then need a Healing check to not kill the target, followed by another Intimidate or Diplomacy check.neceros said:It would be Bluff vs Insight.
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Great post!
Pshaw, I say. Even if 4e requires a battlemat/minis, there are much cheaper options out there. You can make your own counters with cardboard and paper, and a reusable battlemap is something like $20. Of course they'd like you to buy their miniatures when you buy their roleplaying game. That's just good business. But, as a consumer, you're not doing yourself any favors if you eat everything that's fed to ya!
Spinachcat said:
Pshaw, I say. Even if 4e requires a battlemat/minis, there are much cheaper options out there. You can make your own counters with cardboard and paper, and a reusable battlemap is something like $20. Of course they'd like you to buy their miniatures when you buy their roleplaying game. That's just good business. But, as a consumer, you're not doing yourself any favors if you eat everything that's fed to ya!
I would like to give kudos to the intent of the 4e designers...
The OP mentioned the comparison to C&C (which is my preferred system), and in one big respect, at least at what is beginning to emerge, there is an apt comparison here.
D&D 4e is attempting a hybridization between "old school" gamist philosophies (the adaptability and less rule-specific mechanics) and the "new school" desires for what the OP refers to in character builds, powers, options etc. (which also focuses away from the traditional archetypes of classes and races to a broader spectrum).
Like C&C, this hybrid approach will likely please some, antagonize others (as it clearly has on these boards). Still, I am not being flip when I say kudos... it takes a bit of risk to go this way, and quite honestly I am somewhat impressed that the larger corporate entity backed what is not as sure a course with the design (of course that may be granting Hasbro execs with more understanding of RPGs than is reality). The fact that TPKs are occurring in playtesting is, for me, a sign that some portions of the game are more like OD&D, B/X, etc.
As I said, I already found my niche with C&C. I've never begrudged those who tried it and didn't like it because a.) It was still too much like d20 in universal mechanics or b.) it is "too" rules-lite --- each to his own niche, I say.
I also think the discussion about battle-maps and minis is very relevent - many on other threads have mentioned the question of "need." While one can make the argument that neither 3.x nor 4e "need" battlemats, from what I've seen the use of "squares" as primary movement indicator shows that 4e is certainly DESIGNED for it. Again, not my cup of tea as it fits more with the "new school" influence of the hybrid here, but for many this may end up being their particular niche.
Of course, the big question that comes up then is -- can we gamers be happy with our system as just a "niche," or are we wanting it to be an "industry standard?"
Since I already play in a niche system, the answer for me is easy.
The OP mentioned the comparison to C&C (which is my preferred system), and in one big respect, at least at what is beginning to emerge, there is an apt comparison here.
D&D 4e is attempting a hybridization between "old school" gamist philosophies (the adaptability and less rule-specific mechanics) and the "new school" desires for what the OP refers to in character builds, powers, options etc. (which also focuses away from the traditional archetypes of classes and races to a broader spectrum).
Like C&C, this hybrid approach will likely please some, antagonize others (as it clearly has on these boards). Still, I am not being flip when I say kudos... it takes a bit of risk to go this way, and quite honestly I am somewhat impressed that the larger corporate entity backed what is not as sure a course with the design (of course that may be granting Hasbro execs with more understanding of RPGs than is reality). The fact that TPKs are occurring in playtesting is, for me, a sign that some portions of the game are more like OD&D, B/X, etc.
As I said, I already found my niche with C&C. I've never begrudged those who tried it and didn't like it because a.) It was still too much like d20 in universal mechanics or b.) it is "too" rules-lite --- each to his own niche, I say.
I also think the discussion about battle-maps and minis is very relevent - many on other threads have mentioned the question of "need." While one can make the argument that neither 3.x nor 4e "need" battlemats, from what I've seen the use of "squares" as primary movement indicator shows that 4e is certainly DESIGNED for it. Again, not my cup of tea as it fits more with the "new school" influence of the hybrid here, but for many this may end up being their particular niche.
Of course, the big question that comes up then is -- can we gamers be happy with our system as just a "niche," or are we wanting it to be an "industry standard?"
Since I already play in a niche system, the answer for me is easy.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
GoodKingJayIII said:
You can get some great, durable gridded mats that are "supposed" to be used as sewing mats, for around $10. Like these:
http://www.createforless.com/Fiskar....aspx?SI=61f73d07-b32e-445c-b405-228fb8945bac
Heck if you have a large group willing to go in on a case, you can get heavy-duty, self-healing, rubber mats that are 10" square with 1" grid markings and 1/4" graduations, for about $1.00 each!
http://www.dollarnights.com/i295833-wholesale-10x10-cutting-mat.html
Last edited:
inkmonkeys
First Post
Contrary Playtester Level 3 Soldier
Medium natural humanoid (gamer) XP 150
Initiative +4 Senses Perception +3; low-light vision
HP 44; Bloodied 22
AC 17; Fort 12, Ref 14, Will 13
Immune temptation to spill the beans; Resist 5 financial incentive
Weakness waterboarding
Speed 5
Deceive Interrogator (standard; at-will)
Range 5; +6 vs. Will; target believes the contrary playtester knows nothing about 4th Edition until the end of the encounter.
Internet Anonymity
When the contrary playtester is within 5 of another creature, its Stealth checks can hide it regardless of having cover or concealment.
Str 11 (+1) Dex 13 (+2) Wis 14 (+3)
Con 12 (+2) Int 16 (+4) Cha 10 (+1)
Medium natural humanoid (gamer) XP 150
Initiative +4 Senses Perception +3; low-light vision
HP 44; Bloodied 22
AC 17; Fort 12, Ref 14, Will 13
Immune temptation to spill the beans; Resist 5 financial incentive
Weakness waterboarding
Speed 5
Deceive Interrogator (standard; at-will)
Range 5; +6 vs. Will; target believes the contrary playtester knows nothing about 4th Edition until the end of the encounter.
Internet Anonymity
When the contrary playtester is within 5 of another creature, its Stealth checks can hide it regardless of having cover or concealment.
Str 11 (+1) Dex 13 (+2) Wis 14 (+3)
Con 12 (+2) Int 16 (+4) Cha 10 (+1)
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Mistwell said:
See, there you go. I also suck at being a consumer!
