"Stuck" playing 4e (i.e. unwilling converts)

[SHARK]

Greetings!

PREACH ON, BROTHER!!!

Totally. Dragonblade hit it right on the head. I know--from DMing so much--and dealing with uber-powered wizards and sorcerers--they weren't *invincible*--but just *ONE* of them required a Panzer Division*! to properly shut down, so that not only the rest of the party could actually *do something*--but more importantly, so that some sense of story framework could be supported and maintained.

Wizards/Sorcerers in previous editions were indeed over-powered, especially after say, lvl 16 and above. They needed to be brought down to earth, with the rest of the classes so as to better ensure a better long-term playability--for both the group of players, and the *DM*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

*Or, a regiment of lvl 40 Fire Giant Fighters, armed with a golf-bag of uber magic longbows, uber magic arrows, and other goodies.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The stumbling block I've seen personally with people I game with is power. I have a player who liked wielding immense power. Immense power like what the Wizard, Cleric and Druid used to throw around just doesn't exist in 4E. Even non-spellcaster things like an Ubercharger, TWF sneak attacker, or magic items like Ring of Invisibility just don't exist in 4E.

Its all little chess moves, with nothing that lets you win in one shot.

 

[Dragonblade]

Well, here is a new one for you. I don't like 4e. It doesn't have elements that I like my games to have in them. I played it for several months and the only reason I liked it is because of who I was playing it with. The rules themselves bored me.

My "maturity" had nothing to do with it, 4E simply does not excite me, and other games do. So I play them.

I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.

I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.

What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.

I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.

What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.

I don't think that everyone who dislikes the way 4E handles wizards does so because of a denial of game breaking power. Wizards didn't break the game for everyone. As a matter of fact 3E wizards were a bit weak when comparing them to spellcasters of earlier editions.

 

[Dragonblade]

*Or, a regiment of lvl 40 Fire Giant Fighters, armed with a golf-bag of uber magic longbows, uber magic arrows, and other goodies.

Hehe. Yeah, I definitely knew how to "break" wizards with the Epic Level Handbook. But those Fire Giants were nasty! Though the Winter Wights were the worst. I still wake up in a cold sweat thinking about that squad of Winter Wights.

 

[Treebore]

I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.

I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.

What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.

Well, I am also of the "school", "thought", whatever you want to call it, where Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, Necromancers, etc... are the world rocking stars of the show, at high level. Still, ask my group what class rocks most after our non 4E (or 3E) game last night and it was the Fighter. In the 3E games where I DMed games up to 22nd level and played in one game that went to 48th, and another that went to 58th or 68th level, and the fighters were the stars in all those games.

So I guess a lot of it comes down to how the group plays and runs with the rules. Spell casters are capable of a lot, but when it came down to actual pain and destruction it was the fighter who was devastating. At least in the games I ran or played in, and I also know everyone was very game savvy.

So what made our experiences so different is something I would like to find out.

 

[Oni]

The stumbling block I've seen personally with people I game with is power. I have a player who liked wielding immense power. Immense power like what the Wizard, Cleric and Druid used to throw around just doesn't exist in 4E. Even non-spellcaster things like an Ubercharger, TWF sneak attacker, or magic items like Ring of Invisibility just don't exist in 4E.

Its all little chess moves, with nothing that lets you win in one shot.

I dunno, go check out the Charop boards, it might not be as immediately obvious but there is certainly the potential to nova and really lay down the smack with the right sorts of builds.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I dunno, go check out the Charop boards, it might not be as immediately obvious but there is certainly the potential to nova and really lay down the smack with the right sorts of builds.

And at the same time miss the subtler points. The most powerful thing in 4E is control, not laying down the smack. Or more specifically, control followed by or combined with the smack.

The Fighter class using all the stupid plus stacking to damage rolls 4E gives them while targeting bursts or making multiple attacks while marking all of the enemies with combat challenge and combat superiority comes to mind.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has been "forcibly" converted to 4e. By that, I mean you were skeptical, but your group converted and you went along.

That's close to how I came to be DMing 4e right now, yeah. Another DM started a 4e game and became unable to keep it up, so I stepped up, giving it a go. I'm still very skeptical and critical, though they've become more specific.

Does the move from Vancian magic (or other subsystem changes, like fighter powers) "grow" on you? Do you still have the same issues you had when you started out? Do you have different issues, especially any that surprised you? How long did it take for your opinion to change/cement? Did anyone else in your group have a change of heart (in either direction)?

One of my bigger pet peeves is the greater emphasis on minis. They haven't grown on me, they still seem artificial, I still have that issue, and 4e doesn't effectively address my major concern about it (that minis just aren't enjoyable for me).

But it really depends on the issue and WHY I have that issue -- what I think is fun and what 4e does to deliver to me what is actually fun for me.

In the case of your player, it seems like it's a case of "maths is fun" for him. Using his mastery and his knowledge to game the system and eke a little bit more out of his character was fun for him, and 4e has most definitely put the kibosh on that. You might encourage him to look for it in different places (character/team synergies, for instance) to get the same kind of rush, but it could be that 4e just won't provide the enjoyment that he's looking for.

Then it's a question of, if 4e still does its job mostly okay, maybe finding a bone or two two to throw him, rather than finding a totally new system. If it's a few different problems with many players, then maybe a new game is in order, but it sounds more like this guy just kind of misses something. It's possible to maybe find something that's still as fiddly as before (4e does have fiddly bits), or reward him for gaming the numbers a little bit...it's all in the interest of fun, after all.

In my experience there are two types of people who like to play arcane casters in prior editions of D&D. Those who like casters because they have a plethora of options, a golf bag of spells for every occasion. And those who like wizards because they are the class with the most power, the class with the power to bend reality to their will, and potentially alter the course of a game in dramatic fashion in a way that no other class can match.

The world is not that binary, and even if it was, gaining elements of this shouldn't be badwrongfun.

 

[Imaro]

I think you missed what I was trying to say. There are lots of very good reasons why one would not like 4e. Its over-reliance on miniatures is one that immediately comes to mind.

I was specifically addressing the issue of wizard power in 4e as brought up by the OP and Wisdom Penalty.

What I am saying is that I think it is an immature position to hate the game because wizards aren't the uber gamebreaking class they once were.

Okay, before we start making sweeping generalizations about people's maturity levels based on their preference for how powerful Wizards in D&D are...maybe you should consider for a moment that the uber-realitybreaking wizard is actually one of, if not the, archetype that is most familiar with people... that in fact when presented with the word wizard this is what most people (familiar with fantasy) think of. I mean from Gandalf to Pug/Milamber, and Merlin... they all do reality bending uber magic that is not "balanced" on the abilities of everyone else around them.

In other words it could easily be a preference..in the same way that some don't like playing High Fantasy or wuxia rpg's...but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "maturity". This is like saying, not liking a fantasy game because there's no magic in it is immature...no, it's a preference.