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

[Dice4Hire]

I'm not sure if I am an unwilling 4E player in my Fact to Face game, but I would prefer to be doing 3.5, despite its faults. I am still ok with 4E.

The reasons vary. First of all, even in 3.5 I was in love with tactical combat, and 4E has vastly improved that, plus the monsters, with their different abilities, all feel so much more real, and varied than ever before. In 3.5, monsters were differentiated mostly by resistances, SR, and cosmetic effects. In 4E, the monsters play very differently.

But the suspension of disbelief is what is killing me in regards to 4E. Spells disappear from wizard's books, everyone finds EXACTLY what magic item they like, and the whole gmae is balanced on a knife's edge all the time. It is just a bit much for me to swallow. I'll play 4E as long as my friends want me to, and enjoy myself, but I don't se myself running a 4E game for he forseeable future.

 

[Treebore]

I wish mages/druids were as powerful as some say. I threw whole groups of them at the party, even used some of the parties favorite tricks, and the party still won. Know why? The fighter types. Their high HP, high AC, hi attack values, high damage, etc... count for a lot more than people seem to realize.

Then throw in their magic items and they are even more powerful. Lets see, in 3E Ghost touch weapons and armor was popular. So was the ability to True See, or at least See Invisibility, something that increased their movement, belts of strength to up their attack and damage value, etc...

The only time I have ever seen spell casters over power a game is when the DM failed to give enough magic to the fighter types to balance things out.

Then as the game got higher level the opponents were immune or had SR 30 against everything dealing with fire, electricity, acid, etc... making mages nothing but buff and transportation machines, and even buffing was rarely needed since the fighter types likely already had an item that gave a better buff bonus, or just as good, since the caster probably made it for them.

Disjunction and Disintegration had two major problems, as do all other spells, the target had to fail for it to be of real use, and the caster had to get the spell off. Casters were target number one, so it was hard for them to do.

 

[The Little Raven]

so I guess that means something is wrong with all systems.

Correct. This is why there is no One-System-To-Rule-Them-All.

if they can't perhaps then they really do need to play games with more restrictions

Or maybe games can designed to not focus power into the hands of a single archetype to the extent that it is a long-running complaint through the 30 year lifespan of the game.

Especially when abusing a system can mean something as mundane as "plays a Druid".

Exactly. When the solution is presented as "Well, don't do everything the book says you can do." it strikes me as a cop-out to excuse lopsided role distribution. It's like giving one of your three children a hundred more toys than the other two, then telling him that he can't play with all of them because it'll make the other two upset (and if he does, it's his fault for being a dick, not your fault for favoring one significantly over the others).

 

[Imaro]

Correct. This is why there is no One-System-To-Rule-Them-All.



Or maybe games can designed to not focus power into the hands of a single archetype to the extent that it is a long-running complaint through the 30 year lifespan of the game.



Exactly. When the solution is presented as "Well, don't do everything the book says you can do." it strikes me as a cop-out to excuse lopsided role distribution. It's like giving one of your three children a hundred more toys than the other two, then telling him that he can't play with all of them because it'll make the other two upset (and if he does, it's his fault for being a dick, not your fault for favoring one significantly over the others).

Eh, this is a simplistic view and again is a matter of preference and taste not fact. For those who can, and want, to run a game where mages/wizards/casters start out weaker and grow more powerful than other classes it's not a problem, especially if they can handle it. Because some can't may mean the game should change...or it might mean these people need a different game, only time will make apparent which one was the correct choice.

One of the things 4e has done in this quest for "balance" is distance some of those who just want to roll some dice and clobber things. My brother, who use to play with us occasionally in 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5 could grab a fighter or barbarian and jump in without knowing and understanding tactics, or the rules of the game, or what different powers do, etc....4e isn't like that anymore, especially since what you choose to do has an even more profound effect on everyone else now. Just as a side note... the last time he played with us was the first time we tried 4e. Different strokes for different folks I guess...But IMHO 3.5 catered to alot more styles of play than 4e does, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen...especially with the stricter nature of the GSL and less 3PP to cater to the other desires of D&D players.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

... and another that went to 58th or 68th level, and the fighters were the stars in all those games.

Treebore - you rock! 68th friggin' level? If we hit 18th (back in the 3E days) I was grasping for air at such altitudes.

And about my player who prefers 3e wizards: He's not immature or power hungry. Far from it. And I feel badly if my post seemed to convey that. When we played 3e, he very much was willing to take a back seat and let other characters shine in the appropriate situations. He just...I don't know - he just liked (likes) the 3e spellcaster archetype. He likes metamagic. He likes a satchel filled with scrolls. He likes fly, teleport, scry, and unending buffs.

He pretty much likes everything I, as his DM, learned to loathe.

I'm eternally grateful he hasn't done what one of Henry's players has done - slap down an ultimatum. I'm fearful that may happen at some point, and then I'm not sure what we'd do. If I catered to him and went back to 3E, I'd probably get served five other ultimatums telling me the other players will leave if we go that route. Woe is me.

He's giving it the ol' college try. What more can anyone ask? He knows he's one guy of twelve that prefers an older edition. When faced with that reality, he's doing the best he can.

WP

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Eh, this is a simplistic view and again is a matter of preference and taste not fact. For those who can, and want, to run a game where mages/wizards/casters start out weaker and grow more powerful than other classes it's not a problem, especially if they can handle it. Because some can't may mean the game should change...or it might mean these people need a different game, only time will make apparent which one was the correct choice.

Except that it isn't entirely true. Druids and Clerics(only if you go all out) are A+ powerhouses starting at level 1. A 1st level Wizard can cast Color Spray twice per day(3x for illusionist). A 4th level Wizard has four Color Sprays and three Glitterdusts before specialization. A 1st level Sorcerer gets 4 Color Sprays, and a 4th level one gets 7 Color Sprays and 4 Glitterdusts. At these levels, these spells kill.

One of the things 4e has done in this quest for "balance" is distance some of those who just want to roll some dice and clobber things. My brother, who use to play with us occasionally in 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5 could grab a fighter or barbarian and jump in without knowing and understanding tactics, or the rules of the game, or what different powers do, etc....4e isn't like that anymore, especially since what you choose to do has an even more profound effect on everyone else now. Just as a side note... the last time he played with us was the first time we tried 4e. Different strokes for different folks I guess...But IMHO 3.5 catered to alot more styles of play than 4e does, whether that's good or bad remains to be seen...especially with the stricter nature of the GSL and less 3PP to cater to the other desires of D&D players.

4E still has newbie characters. You can play a Wand Wizard who goes full-on blaster and deals nothing but damage(and this concept works better than you'd think), a "Stand and Fight" Str-based Paladin, or a "Stand Back and Shoot" Ranger and these easily provide the newbie experience that the Barbarian class did for 3E.

As for catering to more styles, I truly believe that 3.5E tried to cater to too many styles, and watered down the core D&D experience(which was very robust during the AD&D days) in doing so.

 

[Treebore]

Treebore - you rock! 68th friggin' level? If we hit 18th (back in the 3E days) I was grasping for air at such altitudes.

And about my player who prefers 3e wizards: He's not immature or power hungry. Far from it. And I feel badly if my post seemed to convey that. When we played 3e, he very much was willing to take a back seat and let other characters shine in the appropriate situations. He just...I don't know - he just liked (likes) the 3e spellcaster archetype. He likes metamagic. He likes a satchel filled with scrolls. He likes fly, teleport, scry, and unending buffs.

He pretty much likes everything I, as his DM, learned to loathe.

I'm eternally grateful he hasn't done what one of Henry's players has done - slap down an ultimatum. I'm fearful that may happen at some point, and then I'm not sure what we'd do. If I catered to him and went back to 3E, I'd probably get served five other ultimatums telling me the other players will leave if we go that route. Woe is me.

He's giving it the ol' college try. What more can anyone ask? He knows he's one guy of twelve that prefers an older edition. When faced with that reality, he's doing the best he can.

WP

Yeah, I was the fighter in that game too. My fighter definitely rocked and was god like.

I didn't play to a high level in 4E, only 3rd level, but it had none of the trappings I like in other games. I like mages being all about magic, creating magical stuff, from potions and scrolls to staves and other items.

I also like fighters with high HP's, High AC's and hitting often for lots of damage. I like the challenge of either getting custom made items or figuring out effective strategies with which to use randomly acquired items, etc... I just didn't feel the same thing with 4E and its magic items.

 

[Rel]

I didn't play to a high level in 4E, only 3rd level, but it had none of the trappings I like in other games. I like mages being all about magic, creating magical stuff, from potions and scrolls to staves and other items.

I find this to be a curious criticism of 4e as compared to 3.x. Item creation seems even more easy than ever considering that you need only a couple Rituals rather hand several feats in order to make any item you want. They no longer cost the Wizard any XP either.

And as for "mages being all about magic", most every 3.x game I played involving a Wizard saw them hanging back and not doing something "magical" during a lot of rounds because they were limited by their spells per day. At low levels this was exemplified by a lot of crossbow use.

To me, the 4e Wizard feels more "magical" by virtue of being able to continuously use magical effects in every round of the combat. And out of combat he's got free use of his cantrips to do all manner of minor magics that never ran out. In 3.x if the Wizard was going to put on a magic show for the village children, it would last exactly 24 seconds before he was having to pull out scrolls.

I'm certainly not calling your preference for other systems wrong by any means. This just strikes me as an odd point on which to base it.

 

[Tuft]

To me, the 4e Wizard feels more "magical" by virtue of being able to continuously use magical effects in every round of the combat.

Unfortunately, attacks that are indistinguishable from any other attacks (the same push-n-pull mash as everything else) just doesn't "feel very magical" (TM) to me. It's not about how much damage you deal, it's not about how frequently you do it, it's all about how "weird and wonderful" magic effects feel.

I played a wizard in the Dragonstar universe (Fantasy Flight Games - fantasy/SF mix), where the fighter types ran around with laser guns and hand grenades that dwarfed my attack spells... and I absolutely loved it when I did not have to stock up on attack spells but could concentrate on the fun spells....

And out of combat he's got free use of his cantrips to do all manner of minor magics that never ran out. In 3.x if the Wizard was going to put on a magic show for the village children, it would last exactly 24 seconds before he was having to pull out scrolls.

Um, the 3.5 cantrip Prestidigitation allowed you to do the effects you describe above for an hour, which is a bit more than 24 seconds....

 

[Treebore]

I find this to be a curious criticism of 4e as compared to 3.x. Item creation seems even more easy than ever considering that you need only a couple Rituals rather hand several feats in order to make any item you want. They no longer cost the Wizard any XP either.

And as for "mages being all about magic", most every 3.x game I played involving a Wizard saw them hanging back and not doing something "magical" during a lot of rounds because they were limited by their spells per day. At low levels this was exemplified by a lot of crossbow use.

To me, the 4e Wizard feels more "magical" by virtue of being able to continuously use magical effects in every round of the combat. And out of combat he's got free use of his cantrips to do all manner of minor magics that never ran out. In 3.x if the Wizard was going to put on a magic show for the village children, it would last exactly 24 seconds before he was having to pull out scrolls.

I'm certainly not calling your preference for other systems wrong by any means. This just strikes me as an odd point on which to base it.

I'm not sure. From a pure mechanics point of view 4E looks to be as solid as you could ask for. All I know is in the weeks I played I didn't get any of the "feel" I get while playing my normal game. Which I also find strange, since its C&C and is more 1E/2E like, which others have claimed 4E felt like. I didn't see that either. I just write that off to my actually having been playing with the old rules for the last 3 years and the others just going on distant memories. Thats because I thought I remembered 1E and especially 2E ( I did run 2E for over 10 years), but when I went back to actually playing it I found I had forgotten a lot of details, plus there are rules I used to dislike/ignore that I now like.

All I can say is that 4E did not get me excited. Even 3E managed to do that for a while. The only thing I even found worth stealing from 4E was the idea of casting a spell every round. I do it in my games as an "Eldritch Bolt", which is an magic attack they can do every other round, or each round with a check/save rolled successfully. They also need to roll a to hit against unarmored AC.

So all I can say is 4E felt flat to me.