D&D 4E Some Thoughts on 4e

[Al'Kelhar]

IME:

1st and 2nd edition D&D rewarded the player who planned and used their limited resources wisely. These players tended to play wizards, because planing and resource management were fun. In these editions, there was not the breadth of spells available in 3E, and spellcasters had fewer of them. Because of this, players of all classes got to contribute and had fun in the combats.

3rd edition D&D rewarded the player who knew most about the rules and the options available to them in those rules. Many of these players played wizards because flexibility and power were fun. Other classes, at higher levels, got shafted.

4th edition rewards no-one. Everyone's on a level playing field. A first-time player of 4th edition is as capable in combat as a long-time grognard. Combat is simplified, dumbed down, and as interesting as chess.

I am a planner. I like harbouring my limited resources for the situations where they can be used to best effect. I like being an expert in the rules. I play wizards. I have been playing a wizard in 4E since the edition came out. I don't like the 4E wizard; it has none of the attractive characteristics of wizards from previous editions.

I agree with the poster who said that, in their experience, the players who liked playing "simple" classes in 3E like 4E, and the players who liked playing "complex" classes in 3E don't like 4E. This has been my experience, too.

And further, the wizard gets doubly-shafted in 4E - it's no longer a glass cannon, it's a glass pistol. Its powers are no greater than any other class (viz. the laser cleric) but it has the least hit points and the worst armour and weapon proficiencies of any class.

I'mnot a 4E hater. It's just that, in 4E, I'm no longer special. I'm forced to mix with the hoi polloi. And that irks me.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[mattdm]

(Re: potential house rule doubling number of utility powers a character gets)

Good luck ever hitting a ranger or rogue ever again.

There'd have to be some sort of mechanism in place to keep the combat power from going up, of course. Perhaps make the additional ones work like Channel Divinity (or like 3E spontaneous-caster slots), where you have more options but not more uses. They'd reset per day, but if you use one you don't get to use the other that day.

 

[FireLance]

Combat is simplified, dumbed down, and as interesting as chess.

Since I'm fairly sure that chess players outnumber D&D players, maybe we should make D&D more like chess. After we also make it more like video games, MMORPGs and card games, of course.

It's just that, in 4E, I'm no longer special. I'm forced to mix with the hoi polloi. And that irks me.

Ah, but when nobody is special, everyone is! Or something like that, anyway.

 

[James McMurray]

4th edition rewards no-one. Everyone's on a level playing field. A first-time player of 4th edition is as capable in combat as a long-time grognard.

I can only assume that you have not played in a group of players with mixed capabilities, or you would not be making silly claims. In our game we have a player who makes his combat and character creation decisions based on what will be fun for him. We have a couple of players who almost always focus on the most tactically optimal build and actions. The others are somewhere in the middle.

They are far from being as numerically effective as one another in a fight, though they all seem to enjoy themselves, so I guess in that regard they're all on the same playing field because they are all allowed to have fun. But I don't get the impression that's what you meant.

 

[Allister]

It should be noted that 3.x allowed spellcasters to make out like bandits. You guys do realize how many improvements spellcasters got when moving from old 1e/2e to 3e right?

 

[HighTemplar]

Everything they say about 4e dumbed down combat is true. It was simplified ! no kidding, no more grappling, no more subdual damage, less then half the attacks of opportunity. Combat is more simple.

Dosen't mean it has to be less fun.

If thats the way they did 4e, and you wanna play 4e, live with it, find some other fun stuff in there that suit you. Check out my signature and you'll see what I think of 4e 's new rules, but that dosent mean thyey're no fun at all. I play 4e, I like 4e, I was feeling for something new, different and I'm fortunate enough to be able to bend some rules and still keep good balance in my game. I need nothing more than a Player's handbook and a coupple of character sheets, friends and dice to have a good night's worth of fun.

I never had that much fun as last week when we bought styrofoam and paint and made doodads, rocks, trees and walls for our map. Now even tho combats are very simple, it's an opportunity to exploit some stuff that I'd overlooked in the past, like difficult terrain, and zones, battle standards, walls.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

4th edition rewards no-one. Everyone's on a level playing field. A first-time player of 4th edition is as capable in combat as a long-time grognard. Combat is simplified, dumbed down, and as interesting as chess.

First of all, wrong. First time players still make bad characters and poor choices. My buddy's first fighter had 15 str and 16 dex starting off, and used an axe. "Dumbed down" is what people say when they're just trying to be insulting. It's as interesting as chess if chess pieces had backstories, character, and a myriad of attack, movement, and utility powers. Also, they can leave the chess board and do whatever they want.

I am a planner. I like harbouring my limited resources for the situations where they can be used to best effect. I like being an expert in the rules. I play wizards. I have been playing a wizard in 4E since the edition came out. I don't like the 4E wizard; it has none of the attractive characteristics of wizards from previous editions.

Limited resources? Bigtime lols. 15 minute workday, right?

I agree with the poster who said that, in their experience, the players who liked playing "simple" classes in 3E like 4E, and the players who liked playing "complex" classes in 3E don't like 4E. This has been my experience, too.

And, strangely enough, your experience doesn't match up to other people. I played wizards, clerics, and druids in 3e because they were the best classes. In 4e, I play all classes because all classes are balanced; and people sit around lambasting this feature like that's a bad thing? Ha.

And further, the wizard gets doubly-shafted in 4E - it's no longer a glass cannon, it's a glass pistol. Its powers are no greater than any other class (viz. the laser cleric) but it has the least hit points and the worst armour and weapon proficiencies of any class.

Worst armor? Play past level 1. Even at level 1, a wizard can equal the AC of a fighter with 1 feat, and he'll likely have superior reflex and will defenses, too. And as a player of both a wizard and laser cleric, the laser cleric is NOT all that. It's theorycraft. My wizard destroys, my laser cleric plinks. No, wizards can't deal more damage than anyone in the party to multiple foes anymore. Now they're actually balanced, and more of a challenge to play (!!!!) since you don't get to press multiple "I win" buttons ala 3e and solve any problem with no thought whatsoever.

I'mnot a 4E hater. It's just that, in 4E, I'm no longer special. I'm forced to mix with the hoi polloi. And that irks me.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

Aw, you poor guy. =( I'm sure your mom still thinks you're special.

 

[WalterKovacs]

And further, the wizard gets doubly-shafted in 4E - it's no longer a glass cannon, it's a glass pistol. Its powers are no greater than any other class (viz. the laser cleric) but it has the least hit points and the worst armour and weapon proficiencies of any class.

I'mnot a 4E hater. It's just that, in 4E, I'm no longer special. I'm forced to mix with the hoi polloi. And that irks me.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

The warlock and cleric may have some solid ranged/magic attack powers with effects that do interesting things. The Cleric may have some area attacks, zones and conjurations ... but nowhere near the ammount the wizard does. Clerics already had some of those in 3.5, and in both cases, the wizard was better at those types of things. Also, wizards gets free rituals more so than anyone else. They are in the only controller in the first book [and even spoiled so far, we've seen the barbarian [striker combo'd with defender/leader], the swordmage [defender] and the artificer [leader]. Wizards are still "unique" as they are the only ones that specifically fill their class role as controller [as opposed to warlock/swordmage/cleric that dabble in controller elements]. It's not a glass cannon of doing the most damage, but you are the best at spread shots, either hitting lots of targets, or creating dangerous places for the baddies to be. You aren't a cannon, your a missle launcher/mine layer.