D&D 4E Switching to 4e?

[Sunseeker]

If you have a chance to try D&D Encounters at your FLGS I would highly recommend it. You don't need to buy anything and it will give you a good chance to find out if it "feels" right to you.

Not to mention if your DM is good, it's pretty darn fun too.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I am a big fan of 4e, both as a player and as a DM. I played a fair bit of 3e, but never DMed - I felt I just didn't have the system mastery to do it.

One thing I do agree with, though, is that it is really easy to make 4e very heavily combat focused. Coming from a having been a pretty avid table top wargammer, I find it a real struggle to not let my story sink to the background and simply get lost in the mechanics of combat - as, at its core, 4e combat is an excellent table top skirmish system.

So I do agree that, due to the strength of the combat system, it is very easy to let that part of the game overshadow the rest.

That said, I still love 4e (even when I feel I'm DMing it wrong), and have no interest in going back - haven't had this much fun gaming since I GMed 2ed Shadowrun.

Additionally, I've tried the new essentials, and I like some of the classes - the knight (which I played) and the thief (which I didn't) are both quite interesting, but I wasn't really sold by the others. That said, I would be happy to invite any of them into my own campaign - they would fit in right beside the non-essential characters, and simply offer a simpler playstyle for those who want that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One big complaint that people have coming from other editions, Fighters have daily powers. People who played other editions really don't like to accept the fact that a martial character has an artificial limitation on something they can do.

That's a very nice way of putting it. Daily powers have a fairly arbitrary limitation, and are compensated by being more powerful. They're the glory-grabbing, tide-of-battle-shifting moments of awesome. And the people who complain it 'doesn't make sense' aren't really talking about the arbitrary limitation, they're talking about the power.

Nobody honestly thinks Fighters should be getting Thicket of Blades or Rain of Steel as at-wills. There are those who think fighters should get cool, flashy, powerful abilities, and those who think they should be lowly meatshields while the casters do all the important stuff. The latter sort hate 4e - and hate Essentials a little less since it caters to that prejudice.

 

[Imaro]

That's a very nice way of putting it. Daily powers have a fairly arbitrary limitation, and are compensated by being more powerful. They're the glory-grabbing, tide-of-battle-shifting moments of awesome. And the people who complain it 'doesn't make sense' aren't really talking about the arbitrary limitation, they're talking about the power.

Nobody honestly thinks Fighters should be getting Thicket of Blades or Rain of Steel as at-wills. There are those who think fighters should get cool, flashy, powerful abilities, and those who think they should be lowly meatshields while the casters do all the important stuff. The latter sort hate 4e - and hate Essentials a little less since it caters to that prejudice.

Wow, you've got every person who doesn't like Dailies and does like essentials figured out... I guess there's no possible way that the reasons people feel this way about these two things could be...oh I don't know... particular to that individual... no, that can't be it... this broad genralization must hold true for everyone...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wow, you've got every person who doesn't like Dailies and does like essentials figured out... I guess there's no possible way that the reasons people feel this way about these two things could be...oh I don't know... particular to that individual... no, that can't be it... this broad genralization must hold true for everyone...

I think there's a combination of reasons. I also doubt it is that clear cut for most people as far as loving or hating it. There are plenty of things that I think are positive about Essentials. It certainly presents a cleaned up version of the game with less useless feats and whatnot. OTOH if I look at Essentials on its own I find the classes far too pigeonholed and dragging around a lot of unnecessary hard coded features. I'd never be satisfied with it as a complete stand-alone game. I also don't think much of the no-daily martial silliness. All it does is take tools out of the player's hands they can use to have fun and help set the pacing of the game.

OTOH as a supplement to existing 4e none of the annoyances really mean much since you have a considerably more flexible set of content to fall back on. I'd still rather see the martial classes with daily power options, but I'd be the last to complain about what any particular player WANTS to play and if that is a Slayer then they'll just have to live with the lack of a high impact option. Presumably they will know what they like.

So all the hate vs love stuff, overblown really IMHO. There are reasons to both like and dislike Essentials, just like any new stuff. I mean I wouldn't have designed 4e EXACTLY the way it is now from the start either. I really like it, but nothing is perfect. I don't think generalization gets you far either.

 

[Imaro]

I think there's a combination of reasons. I also doubt it is that clear cut for most people as far as loving or hating it. There are plenty of things that I think are positive about Essentials. It certainly presents a cleaned up version of the game with less useless feats and whatnot. OTOH if I look at Essentials on its own I find the classes far too pigeonholed and dragging around a lot of unnecessary hard coded features. I'd never be satisfied with it as a complete stand-alone game. I also don't think much of the no-daily martial silliness. All it does is take tools out of the player's hands they can use to have fun and help set the pacing of the game.

I definitely agree with your first statement. As far as the dailies/martial thing goes... I think that I actually, overall, like the essentials design better... not because I think wizards should rule (and honestly I would have rather seen this particular point addressed in the fighters access and number of skills, but that's another can of worms that everybody seems ok with for some reason.)... but because some of my players do not find the tactical combat to be the most enjoyable part of the game.

They want to contribute sure, but that doesn't mean they feel like playing D&D chess every time combat rolls around. I am finding in actual play that the essentials martial classes are pretty well designed and do not in any way lag behind the wizard or anybody else and that for some the limited options allow them to both build a better character and play it more effectively than a plethora of options would do. I know I find it much easier to explain and help a new player or younger player deal with and track the Knight's aura than the classic fighter's marking + combat superitority... this in turn creates a smoother and more enjoyable experience for both of us. Different strokes and all I guess.

Side Note: From a personal PoV I don't like the aesthetics or simplistic implementation of Daily martial powers. I would have rather had a system where a player had a chance to pull off a "Daily" more than once in a day (perhaps some type of random recharge mechanic) but might not be able to pull it off at all on a different day... The way they are designed now just feels artificial to me and I don't really like it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I definitely agree with your first statement. As far as the dailies/martial thing goes... I think that I actually, overall, like the essentials design better... not because I think wizards should rule (and honestly I would have rather seen this particular point addressed in the fighters access and number of skills, but that's another can of worms that everybody seems ok with for some reason.)... but because some of my players do not find the tactical combat to be the most enjoyable part of the game.

I agree that the whole situation where fighters got the short end of the stick on skills makes little sense. Honestly if it had been up to me all classes would get something like 3 skill choices plus one automatic free skill. The rogue would be cramped somewhat by this (they really need Thievery, Stealth, and Acrobatics, which doesn't leave much in the way of options). 4e certainly didn't get everything EXACTLY right. Oddly Essentials entirely failed to address that particular issue, which I find perplexing.

They want to contribute sure, but that doesn't mean they feel like playing D&D chess every time combat rolls around. I am finding in actual play that the essentials martial classes are pretty well designed and do not in any way lag behind the wizard or anybody else and that for some the limited options allow them to both build a better character and play it more effectively than a plethora of options would do. I know I find it much easier to explain and help a new player or younger player deal with and track the Knight's aura than the classic fighter's marking + combat superitority... this in turn creates a smoother and more enjoyable experience for both of us. Different strokes and all I guess.

I know what you mean about "D&D chess". I'm not sure Essentials really does much to address that. Doing away with ENCOUNTER powers in favor of the Power Attack mechanism helped a bit though. Still, if you are going to be maximally effective you still need the same level of teamwork, flanking, etc. On top of that you now need to think about what stances you're going to be toggling in and out of. I seriously doubt playing at a reasonably high level of tactical competency is any easier for a Knight than it is for an FWT fighter.

Side Note: From a personal PoV I don't like the aesthetics or simplistic implementation of Daily martial powers. I would have rather had a system where a player had a chance to pull off a "Daily" more than once in a day (perhaps some type of random recharge mechanic) but might not be able to pull it off at all on a different day... The way they are designed now just feels artificial to me and I don't really like it.

I think there are 2 considerations that make these kinds of mechanics less desirable. First of all it is just plain even more complex. Secondly an essentially unreliable ability is just not a desirable feature. If you can't count on being able to do your big move when the time comes then you can't rely on it at all. It basically destroys the justification for having them in the first place, which was to give the player some control of pacing and more significant input to the course of the combat narrative. I guess the third reason would be symmetry. It is just harder to make disparate class mechanics have equivalent utility. Essentials shows that last point isn't an insurmountable objection, though we still have to really see the ultimate effects.

Basically I just don't think a fully 4e compatible tweak to the system is ever going to be enough to really address the most serious complaints. 4e combat is ALWAYS going to be highly tactical. There are always going to be a lot of fiddly things to track and pay attention to. The basic design concepts of the game are quite solid, but really making significant improvements isn't going to happen without making fundamentally incompatible changes. So it seems to me Essentials is basically tilting at windmills.

 

[Imaro]

I agree that the whole situation where fighters got the short end of the stick on skills makes little sense. Honestly if it had been up to me all classes would get something like 3 skill choices plus one automatic free skill. The rogue would be cramped somewhat by this (they really need Thievery, Stealth, and Acrobatics, which doesn't leave much in the way of options). 4e certainly didn't get everything EXACTLY right. Oddly Essentials entirely failed to address that particular issue, which I find perplexing.

Yeah, this was more of a side point, I just remember the "dumb fighter" being decried just as loudly as the "too powerful wizard" yet 4e has still failed to address this issue... I think it is less glaring in essentials because wizards and clerics don't get free access to rituals but it is definitely still there.

I know what you mean about "D&D chess". I'm not sure Essentials really does much to address that. Doing away with ENCOUNTER powers in favor of the Power Attack mechanism helped a bit though. Still, if you are going to be maximally effective you still need the same level of teamwork, flanking, etc. On top of that you now need to think about what stances you're going to be toggling in and out of. I seriously doubt playing at a reasonably high level of tactical competency is any easier for a Knight than it is for an FWT fighter.

Well I disagree here... let's look at how the two detain enemies...

Classic 4e fighter uses Combat Challlenge; where every time he hits an enemy he has to decide whether to mark it or not. Said mark then only lasts until the end of his next turn and can be knocked off by another mark. So you need to keep up with each individual you have marked, every turn as well as whether they shift or make an attack that doesn't include you... oh yeah and you also have to keep up with whether someone else marked themin the meantime.

The Knight's Aura/Battle Guardian affects anyone in a 1 square aura... so no having to keep track of individuals. If a monster is next to you and moves... you try and whack him... or if he attacks someone without an aura the monster gets a -2 to hit and you try and whack it. Oh yeah, and it doesn't matter if there are two auras going on because he is still affected by yours.

I don't know the Knight just seems simpler to keep track of and play with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I disagree here... let's look at how the two detain enemies...

Classic 4e fighter uses Combat Challlenge; where every time he hits an enemy he has to decide whether to mark it or not. Said mark then only lasts until the end of his next turn and can be knocked off by another mark. So you need to keep up with each individual you have marked, every turn as well as whether they shift or make an attack that doesn't include you... oh yeah and you also have to keep up with whether someone else marked themin the meantime.

The Knight's Aura/Battle Guardian affects anyone in a 1 square aura... so no having to keep track of individuals. If a monster is next to you and moves... you try and whack him... or if he attacks someone without an aura the monster gets a -2 to hit and you try and whack it. Oh yeah, and it doesn't matter if there are two auras going on because he is still affected by yours.

I don't know the Knight just seems simpler to keep track of and play with.

Except it really actually makes practically no difference. Say you have a level 11 party, there's going to be in a typical battle 2-3 or maybe even more conditions dropped on top of monsters per turn. Typically you'll have at least EIGHT of them running at a time, of which maybe 2-3 are marks. The fighter's mark is pretty mindless, you attack you mark. It MIGHT be a decision if you have several marking defenders in your party.

OTOH the Knight has to keep track of which stance he's in, AND anticipate the future situation in order to decide if he say needs to switch after his attack etc. He's GOT to keep track of which stance he's in. In theory this could be tracking less things, but it is an item that always has to be tracked and for which at least one and possibly two decisions per round need to be made. I'm really not seeing the increased simplicity here at all.

Overall if you have an all Essentials party with mostly martial characters the total tracking load probably is less beyond mid-heroic. The total tracking and decision load on a given defender? It will be pretty much the same and at low heroic possibly more. At best I'm seeing little difference here at all for any reasonably likely party configuration (which pretty well HAS to include a Warpriest and is unlikely not to include a Mage). You still have all the other regular considerations too, flanking, etc. Nothing really wrong about the Essentials martial classes, but they are going to do very little to reduce tracking. Someone playing a Slayer may well get away with not having to be responsible for any conditions beyond their own stance and AP status, so that could be nice for some people, but I don't think it will make the overall issue less.