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

[balard]

There is an staff in AV that allows you switch a wizard power as a minor action. Its a low level staff(2nd IIRC), and can be used as a basis to wizard-swapping rules. Let me say that if I would roll a wizard(thing I will never do, I only DM since OD&D), I would aways have some of then with me. Specially at higher levels.

 

[I'm A Banana]

People abusing a system is a sign that something is wrong with that system.

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

No complex system is immune to abuse. Not all druid players were automatically system abusers. A system should, ideally, not be so precariously balanced that it can't handle a certain degree of abuse without falling apart. 3e, for all that I love it, certainly has the possibility of falling apart with a little bit of abuse. 4e tries its best to be abuse-proof, but it's not, either

But abuse isn't what is fun anyway. What is fun is the fiddly bits that maximize your potential. In 4e, that has more to do with sliding and pushing and pulling and positioning and flanking and combat advantage than it did in previous editions. Pbartender's point about group synergies is pretty important -- 4e is still very fiddly, it's just fiddly in a different way.

If the OP's wizard can be encouraged to look for fiddly bits in other places, maybe he'll be happier with 4e.

I'm "stuck" DMing 4e, and I do everything I can to ignore the system whenever I can while still giving the people in the group who ADORE 4e (and there's one of them, I think..) their due.

Can't wait until I can get them into FFZ again.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No complex system is immune to abuse. Not all druid players were automatically system abusers.

Yep. A buddy of mine played a half orc druid in one of my campaigns ( 3.0) He had a 20 STR in his normal form and could only shapechange into animals weaker than he was.

 

[Altalazar]

I have two regular groups. My main regular group wasn't thrilled about 4E, but they were willing to give it a try. At first, I was upset when it came out, then I heard things about it I liked, and finally, I decided to try it out.

I ran the Keep to the end. It fell flat. Every combat was a slag, taking a long time. But that really wasn't it. I was actually at first looking forward to lots of exciting, but balanced combats.

What really sealed it was no one was spending any time with their characters between games. No one cared. I think everyone I play with (including me) are tweakers - we like to fiddle and plan and exploit the rules for interesting character concepts. We like to try all sorts of strange and interesting things - we've been playing a long time now - almost 20 years. And it just doesn't seem like you can do that in 4E - you are on the rails and you can't get off.

I know the reason for this - it is all about game balance. Yes, 3E and earlier editions had balance issues, particularly at higher levels. But at the same time, that was part of the charm, seeing just what you could do. I once made a character with godly jump and climb skills and had all sorts of fun with that. You simply can't do that in 4E. Every character in every class is on the rails. Same number of powers per level. No prestige classes. No real multiclassing. No real options but what is on the rails.

4E was sure easier to run as DM. And at the same time, even I as DM was ultimately bored and just wanted to get it over with, though we played it out to the end anyway, to give it a chance. This was despite being excited to try it out and see how it went. The balance is so tight it feels like a straight jacket. It makes me think of the move The Incredibles - if everybody is special, then no one is. No one can shine. No one can get off the rails.

It also just did not "feel" like D&D anymore, perhaps because it was so tightly balanced and D&D never really was. That modularity, that freedom, that feeling you can do anything, just is lacking.

So in a sense, we all were "forced" to try it - by ourselves. And we did not even need to discuss it by the time we ran the last session. Without saying anything, we all knew the next game we ran would be 3.5E, and that we'd not be returning to 4E. I cancelled my preorders of 4E books on amazon. I've been in the habit of just preordering everything to be releasd every six months - I'm a book whore, I admit it. But no more. I also will not be going to D&D online because that is all for 4E and I simply won't be playing it. Wizards has probably lost me as a customer for any of their new material forever. Though I still will probably get minis if I like them (I have a lot) for use in my game, since obviously those are usable with any system. But if they start tailoring them with new monsters that are only in 4E books, I'll stop buying them as well.

I was sad when Dragon and Dungeon ended. Now I'm sad that it feels like D&D has ended as far as anything "new".

 

[Treebore]

I have two regular groups. My main regular group wasn't thrilled about 4E, but they were willing to give it a try. At first, I was upset when it came out, then I heard things about it I liked, and finally, I decided to try it out.

I ran the Keep to the end. It fell flat. Every combat was a slag, taking a long time. But that really wasn't it. I was actually at first looking forward to lots of exciting, but balanced combats.

What really sealed it was no one was spending any time with their characters between games. No one cared. I think everyone I play with (including me) are tweakers - we like to fiddle and plan and exploit the rules for interesting character concepts. We like to try all sorts of strange and interesting things - we've been playing a long time now - almost 20 years. And it just doesn't seem like you can do that in 4E - you are on the rails and you can't get off.

I know the reason for this - it is all about game balance. Yes, 3E and earlier editions had balance issues, particularly at higher levels. But at the same time, that was part of the charm, seeing just what you could do. I once made a character with godly jump and climb skills and had all sorts of fun with that. You simply can't do that in 4E. Every character in every class is on the rails. Same number of powers per level. No prestige classes. No real multiclassing. No real options but what is on the rails.

4E was sure easier to run as DM. And at the same time, even I as DM was ultimately bored and just wanted to get it over with, though we played it out to the end anyway, to give it a chance. This was despite being excited to try it out and see how it went. The balance is so tight it feels like a straight jacket. It makes me think of the move The Incredibles - if everybody is special, then no one is. No one can shine. No one can get off the rails.

It also just did not "feel" like D&D anymore, perhaps because it was so tightly balanced and D&D never really was. That modularity, that freedom, that feeling you can do anything, just is lacking.

So in a sense, we all were "forced" to try it - by ourselves. And we did not even need to discuss it by the time we ran the last session. Without saying anything, we all knew the next game we ran would be 3.5E, and that we'd not be returning to 4E. I cancelled my preorders of 4E books on amazon. I've been in the habit of just preordering everything to be releasd every six months - I'm a book whore, I admit it. But no more. I also will not be going to D&D online because that is all for 4E and I simply won't be playing it. Wizards has probably lost me as a customer for any of their new material forever. Though I still will probably get minis if I like them (I have a lot) for use in my game, since obviously those are usable with any system. But if they start tailoring them with new monsters that are only in 4E books, I'll stop buying them as well.

I was sad when Dragon and Dungeon ended. Now I'm sad that it feels like D&D has ended as far as anything "new".

Were you my DM?

Actually, my group felt much the same. We still had fun, but that was far more because we are simply a good fun group. We could play "Go Fish" and have a good time. We even role played, and had fun doing that.

4E is a good set of rules, it just doesn't give me/us the whole package like our current RPG does. So we left 4E too. We went back to our RPG, but it isn't 3E.

So similar, but not identical.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Please remember everyone - no edition bashing in this thread.

Thanks

 

[Mercule]

It also just did not "feel" like D&D anymore, perhaps because it was so tightly balanced and D&D never really was. That modularity, that freedom, that feeling you can do anything, just is lacking.

Thanks for the input, Altalazar. I thought it was a good expression of displeasure with 4e without being a bash -- you had reasons and related them to your group's preferences.

I've got to say the bit I quoted is relevant to me. One of the reasons I grew to dislike 3e was because everything was so interdependent, I felt like I couldn't deviate from the formula without really screwing something up. I played 1e and 2e very ad hoc, with many characters having no magic until 5th level, then getting a +4 weapon. It was a lot of fun and I was able to manage the rest of the game so that things were not unbalanced, just "special". 3e didn't allow me to do that with any confidence.

I look at 4e and see less mechanical dependencies (in a way), but more balance dependencies. The magic items are sterile feeling, but the rest of the system looks workable. It also looks more like 1e where I could blatantly ignore the reward guidelines and have an enjoyable game.

Still, what you say speaks to my own concerns w/ 4e, if not my player's.

Actually, I suspect that his concerns are pretty similar, at the core. A wizard should have some just plain bizarre capabilities. At one time, I would have labeled him as a power-gamer who was objecting to the loss of the potential trumping a wizard has always been able to pull off. I don't think that's the case, though. He's also very fond of sneaks. I think the real concern is that wizards should be surprising and need the ability to make people say, "Well, I didn't see that coming." If that stays in place in 4e, I really don't see the power shift being an issue.

 

[Pbartender]

A wizard should have some just plain bizarre capabilities.

Bizarre as in gives special benefits with regards to game rules? Or bizarre as is something that simply looks weird and magical?

In 4E, every class does the former to one degree or another. Wizards, and especially Warlocks still do the latter, and can take to any extreme, given a DM who is willing to take some latitude with fluffy special effects description.

Of course, that's really nothing new to 4E.

I think the real concern is that wizards should be surprising and need the ability to make people say, "Well, I didn't see that coming." If that stays in place in 4e, I really don't see the power shift being an issue.

Wizards can still do that. Just the other week, my party's Wizard caught me off guard during a fight with a half dozen pterodactyls (shadowhunter bats) that took place on a rope bridge over a thousand foot deep gorge... He readied an action to smack several of them with Icy Terrain in mid-air (he described it as a miniature blizzard). He hit two of them, knocking them prone and causing them to fall -- in effect killing them in a single shot when they hit bottom.

The difference I'm finding with 4E is that now the other classes have the opportunity to do the same.

 

[Mercule]

Bizarre as in gives special benefits with regards to game rules? Or bizarre as is something that simply looks weird and magical?

Bizarre as in "that's... different" or "unexpected". I think we both really like the creative image of magic. Even though I prefer to play martial characters and view them more as the "main characters" of the story, I still like to see wizards have more tricks up their sleeves than others. I think my player is similar, though I know he tilts further toward the arcanists being the "primaries".

Looking at the rest of your post, maybe the answer is to allow wizards (and warlocks, etc.) a bit more leeway with their fluff. We've both played a lot of Hero and Mage: the Ascension, so the idea of an underlying mechanic being overlayed with creative fluff isn't new. I could see where that would add the "magic" back to wizards, depending on exactly how re-fluffable the mechanics are in play.

That could also bring back one of the funnest things of 1e/2e play, which was the off-the-wall uses and combos of spells and abilities.

 

[pawsplay]

I've sort of progressed from, "What have they done to D&D???" to thinking of 4e as just another D&D-inspired fantasy game that doesn't do it for me, like HARP or Earthdawn or whatever. It's even remotely possible I could be badgered into playing it. I have a very similar feeling about it that I had about AD&D 2e in my college days... I considered the design goals a strange mix of the antique and the contrary, and I had mostly moved from AD&D at that point. Of course there are plenty of people who love 2e or who love 4e and that's great, but it's clear to me it's not a game designed with my interests in mind.

I'm still enjoying 3.5, but I've been feeling the twitch you get when a system becomes familiar enough to you that its problems become irritations rather than just obstacles. Pathfinder is probably not designed with me in mind, either, but as long as it remains close to 3.5 in most respects it's at least an avenue for publication.

So in conclusion, I would not be eager to play 4e, but if it was the only game in town I would make the most of it. I would probably purposefully avoid wizards and their spellbooks and anything else I felt was sort of suspension-of-disbelief-breaking and try to find something in the new system I found appealing on its own merits. Trying to recreate older character concepts, even fairly archetypal ones, seems like a recipe for heartbreak. So I might try a dwarf fighter and take a look at what weapons seemed optimal for strategies I enjoy, or maybe try a tiefling rogue and go with what seems to be supported for that in the new edition. I have a soft spot for Eldritch Wizards but I haven't seen anything in 4e that really matches up with what was appealing about them; maybe a Swordmage with Wizard multiclassing who used a lot of rituals, but that's really just too much work to recreate a character who just basically doesn't exist in 4e the same way, just as 3e did away with the skills-based rogue who did not fight on the front lines unless forced to, and might spend several rounds in hiding waiting for an opportunity to backstab, and just as AD&D did away with a cleric who started off as a toned down fighter who could turn undead and only started casting spells at 2nd level. Trying to play an AD&D bard in AD&D 2e would be an exercise in frustration, as they went from a dual-classed druid variant with special abilities at higher levels to a rogue sub-class. In 3e, bards remained arcane spellcasters and did not make a return to their original form until someone sneaked in the Fochlucan lyricist.