The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Spatula]

In certain combat games (sometimes limited to only a few characters), it is possible to heal yourself in combat...assuming, of course, you avoid taking hits while you're taking the necessary actions (joystick wiggling, button mashing, whatever). In addition, there is no damage carryover from combat to combat.

Admittedly, the 4Ed version of this inherent healing ability is more limited as a resource and yet more flexible (you can use it to do more than heal), but the parallel is there.

Its a simple change, but it radically alters the game dynamics. Parties in previous editions were somewhat like naval carrier groups- each unit type had its unique capabilities, and they depended upon each other to cover each others' weaknesses.

The healing surge somewhat weakens that interdependence.

I think you can blame SWSE (that is, the game that many people say they wish 4e was more like...) for the second wind mechanic, rather than particular moves restricted to a handful of characters in fighting games.

I don't agree that the mechanic weakens the need for a balanced party, or at least not any moreso than UMD + healing scrolls & wands does in 3e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a new edition. By not offering a new set of concepts and ideas, they'd be basically just selling me everything I already had. That pissed me off when they did it with 3.5

I think its more like babies & bathwater.

I would have been fine with 4Ed if it were fundamentally like 3.5, but with the clunkier subsystems reworked, and the ambiguous terminology clarified. For instance, if 4Ed was a 30 level system with 30 levels of magic where 1st lvl PCs get 1st level powers, 4th lvl PCs get 4th level powers, etc....but it was still substantially the same spells & mechanics as in 3.5 (moving spells up and down the chart for internal balance), that would have been more intuitive.

Instead, they changed things that, in many people's opinions, didn't need changing. 4Ed gave us the 30 levels of powers available at the level of the same nomenclature...but they gave them to every class. And the mechanics of the spells were quite different.

Some people didn't like Gnomes because they felt they didn't have a distinct identity. The 4Ed response: ditch 'em from the PHB! And while we're at it, add extra elves, scaly-folk and hornheads!

Couldn't they have just given gnomes a distinct identity? Made elves (or gnomes) a bit more fey or something?

And even when the change was interesting, it often begged questions. I can understand (though I don't agree with) the assertion that the 9 point alignment system wasn't good. But the 4Ed system looks like someone just broke off some points. A simple Good-Unaligned-Evil spectrum would have been cleaner and less puzzling.

I can understand bringing in Tieflings as a PC race...but I hate the idea that there are no Aasimar (or equivalents by any other name)- however rare they might have been- as a playable counterpart in the PHB.

As I read the 4Ed pre-release "leaks," such decisions left me scratching my head.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you can blame SWSE (that is, the game that many people say they wish 4e was more like...) for the second wind mechanic, rather than particular moves restricted to a handful of characters in fighting games.

The second-wind mechanic in fighting games predates SWSE by at least a decade.

I personally think that it is inevitable for RPGS and computer games to cross-pollinate each other, but I don't have to like it when I find the resultant hybrid breaking my willing suspension of disbelief.

I don't agree that the mechanic weakens the need for a balanced party, or at least not any moreso than UMD + healing scrolls & wands does in 3e.

Except the scrolls and wands are in the hands of spellcasters and someone with UMD- healing surges are available to every PC in 4Ed.

 

[Harlekin]

In certain combat games (sometimes limited to only a few characters), it is possible to heal yourself in combat...assuming, of course, you avoid taking hits while you're taking the necessary actions (joystick wiggling, button mashing, whatever). In addition, there is no damage carryover from combat to combat.

Admittedly, the 4Ed version of this inherent healing ability is more limited as a resource and yet more flexible (you can use it to do more than heal), but the parallel is there.

Its a simple change, but it radically alters the game dynamics. Parties in previous editions were somewhat like naval carrier groups- each unit type had its unique capabilities, and they depended upon each other to cover each others' weaknesses.

The healing surge somewhat weakens that interdependence.

An other example of an irrational argument fathered by an emotional reaction to the new edition.

Ask yourself: How often do characters in RAW 3.x go into fights without being fully healed, or at least at 90% hp? Given that usually the first purchase is a wand of CLW (which can be used by more than half of all character classes) you observe exactly the same hp trajectory in both games. The only difference is the fluff. And I prefer "the heroes gather their breath, bind their wounds grit their teeth and press on" to "the bard touches each of you with his wand and everyone is right as rain again." But tastes differ.

The idea that PCs in 4th are less interdependent than PCs in 3.x is even less based on facts. If you scan these boards you will find multiple reports of groups in 4th that only succeed because they work together. In my experience, most of the cooperation in 3.x is in the buffing before combat, while most of the cooperation in 4th is during the action. And outside of combat, the idea of skill challenges is exactly designed to increase cooperation between players.

 

[Scribble]

I think its more like babies & bathwater.

I would have been fine with 4Ed if it were fundamentally like 3.5, but with the clunkier subsystems reworked, and the ambiguous terminology clarified. For instance, if 4Ed was a 30 level system with 30 levels of magic where 1st lvl PCs get 1st level powers, 4th lvl PCs get 4th level powers, etc....but it was still substantially the same spells & mechanics as in 3.5 (moving spells up and down the chart for internal balance), that would have been more intuitive.

Instead, they changed things that, in many people's opinions, didn't need changing. 4Ed gave us the 30 levels of powers available at the level of the same nomenclature...but they gave them to every class. And the mechanics of the spells were quite different.

Yeah, I think this came out of the idea of how does one balance characters if they're not on the same page to begin with. It ends up leading to weird results.

IE if the fighter gets most of it's "extra power" from feats, how do you balance a feat with a spell? (Especially when another class else can also take that feat in addition to a spell?)

Or skills? If you are the skill monkey, how do we then balance you to another class? Are extra skill points as good as a spell or a feat?

Also when you add a new feat, can you really reliably have a way to tell how powerful this would be in the hands of the various classes all opperating through different mechanics?

I think they decided the answer was no. Just make all classes build similariliy, and allow their unique powers and options to differentiate them. (A similar idea thats been used in other games to great sucess.)

To me it's kind of similar to saying you know what, lets just make all classes use the same XP table, and find other ways to balance them out rather then rate of XP.

Some people didn't like Gnomes because they felt they didn't have a distinct identity. The 4Ed response: ditch 'em from the PHB! And while we're at it, add extra elves, scaly-folk and hornheads!

Couldn't they have just given gnomes a distinct identity? Made elves (or gnomes) a bit more fey or something?

I talked to Darrin about this earlier. I don't think it was just about getting rid of the gnome. I think that was part of it, but a large part of it was informing which class/race combos to put in the PHB.

And even when the change was interesting, it often begged questions. I can understand (though I don't agree with) the assertion that the 9 point alignment system wasn't good. But the 4Ed system looks like someone just broke off some points. A simple Good-Unaligned-Evil spectrum would have been cleaner and less puzzling.

Eh... I kind of see where they were going with it. They wanted to show the difference between someone who's generally good or eveil and a fanatic of either ideal... But eh, I could take the new alignment system or leave it really.

I can understand bringing in Tieflings as a PC race...but I hate the idea that there are no Aasimar (or equivalents by any other name)- however rare they might have been- as a playable counterpart in the PHB.

I think the idea that tiefling and dragonborn should be the new races is slightly the result of 1/2 dragon and 1/2 demon being so popular.

But again I think a lot of the reasons for the race/class drops was based on the idea of power sources. (see my post to darrin if you care. )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

An other example of an irrational argument fathered by an emotional reaction to the new edition.

Seriously, watch the directing of the words "irrational" and "emotional" at your fellow posters. Someone less even tempered than myself might report you for that.

Ask yourself: How often do characters in RAW 3.x go into fights without being fully healed, or at least at 90% hp?

This is clearly a playstyle issue.

In the years I've been playing 3.X, with the possible exception of the initial combat of a given session, PCs rarely go into battle with 90%+ of their HP. Sometimes, we even start the next session all scratched up. Substantial healing may not be available for 6+ combats.

Why?

Wand of CLW is almost nonexistent in our games. Ditto scrolls. If we have healing items, its most likely potions. Our casters almost never take the Item Creation feats. In addition, the magic available for sale is not the entire laundry list of items in the DMG or MIC, but rather it is what was either randomly determined or is part of a set encounter.

And no, we don't have the "15 minute day" problem, either.

The idea that PCs in 4th are less interdependent than PCs in 3.x is even less based on facts. If you scan these boards you will find multiple reports of groups in 4th that only succeed because they work together. In my experience, most of the cooperation in 3.x is in the buffing before combat, while most of the cooperation in 4th is during the action. And outside of combat, the idea of skill challenges is exactly designed to increase cooperation between players.

In 3Ed, if your healers go down, you're in trouble. Thus, it behooves you to act- carrier strike group like- to protect most fiercely those healers who are in trouble.

4Ed PCs, OTOH, almost always have at least one innate heal available to them per day.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think they decided the answer was no. Just make all classes build similariliy, and allow their unique powers and options to differentiate them. (A similar idea thats been used in other games to great sucess.)

To me it's kind of similar to saying you know what, lets just make all classes use the same XP table, and find other ways to balance them out rather then rate of XP.

My top 3 all time favorite RPGs are- in order- HERO, M&M, and 3.5Ed. So I'm not only familiar with using essentially identical building blocks to design a wide variety of characters, I LOVE it.

I just don't think that 4Ed does it well.

If you look at a host of 250pt HERO PCs, you're not going to see them all with X many daily powers, Y encounter powers, and Z at will powers.

Instead, some of them will have nothing but a suite of at-will powers. Some will have a few HUGE powers and some minor, limited-use powers. Some will have a pool of raw potential they can shift on the fly (subject to restrictions). Some may be virtually impervious to the damage the world can throw at them, while the guy standing right beside him might be as brittle as crystal, but a danger nonetheless.

M&M is substantially the same, but with a little bit of mathematical simplification and a tiny loss of flexibility.

4Ed PCs? They're "fill-in-the-blank" balanced. Basically, if you know the level, know the number of dailies, encounters, and at will abilities the PC will have, regardless of class and race.

 

[Harlekin]

Seriously, watch the directing of the words "irrational" and "emotional" at your fellow posters. Someone less even tempered than myself might report you for that.

I don't mean to insult, I'm just using posts in this discussion to illustrate the original point of the OP, and how the pattern he describes can be seen in this discussion.

Btw, for a social scientist, this thread would probably be a very interesting read .

This is clearly a playstyle issue.

In the years I've been playing 3.X, with the possible exception of the initial combat of a given session, PCs rarely go into battle with 90%+ of their HP. Sometimes, we even start the next session all scratched up. Substantial healing may not be available for 6+ combats.

Why?

Wand of CLW is almost nonexistent in our games. Ditto scrolls. If we have healing items, its most likely potions. Our casters almost never take the Item Creation feats. In addition, the magic available for sale is not the entire laundry list of items in the DMG or MIC, but rather it is what was either randomly determined or is part of a set encounter.

And no, we don't have the "15 minute day" problem, either.

Yep we seem to be having the same playstyle. My 3.x games ran the same way. Which means we both ignored a substantial part of the rules as written.

I am curious if you are running into some of the same issues I did (But that is a different topic).

In 3Ed, if your healers go down, you're in trouble. Thus, it behooves you to act- carrier strike group like- to protect most fiercely those healers who are in trouble.

4Ed PCs, OTOH, almost always have at least one innate heal available to them per day.

So the extent of the cooperation in 3.x is that you want to protect the healer? How is that more cooperation than 4th edition?

I'm not arguing whether a group in 4th can survive better with a healer than a 3rd edition group (Because I'm not sure about this). However the idea that such dependence makes cooperation for 3.x parties more important than for 4th parties is false (maybe based on lack of experience with 4th edition play).

 

[Spatula]

The second-wind mechanic in fighting games predates SWSE by at least a decade.

I personally think that it is inevitable for RPGS and computer games to cross-pollinate each other, but I don't have to like it when I find the resultant hybrid breaking my willing suspension of disbelief.

...but the second wind is an attempt to emulte action-adventure fiction (most notably in film & tv), not Mortal Kombat.

Except the scrolls and wands are in the hands of spellcasters and someone with UMD- healing surges are available to every PC in 4Ed.

Everyone in 4e has UMD. *shrug* I don't see what the distinction has to do with anything - is a fighter with UMD a spellcaster? No? Then what does being a spellcaster have to do with anything? How do you train at randomly "tricking" magic items into working? (UMD being another good example of ExploderWizard's BS game elements that don't make much sense.)

Wand of CLW is almost nonexistent in our games. Ditto scrolls.

That's cool and all, but it's not the standard 3e game or the standard experience.

4Ed PCs? They're "fill-in-the-blank" balanced. Basically, if you know the level, know the number of dailies, encounters, and at will abilities the PC will have, regardless of class and race.

...and? I know how many spells a caster has at a particular level in previous editions. What does that matter? You're just complaining about random surface elements that mean nothing, it seems to me.

 

[Azgulor]

See now this is kind of what I was talking about.

At heart is simply a mechanic for allowing a player to take his licks, and then get back into the action.

If you don't like the mechanic fair enough, but what difference does it make what inspired that mechanic?

What about the fact that it's used in a number of computer games has any relevance whatsoever?

Personally, I could give a rat's behind. However, the video game comparison came up again and the question was asked what video games had a similar mechanic. I provided a list of video games. Personally, I could care less where the mechanic came from even though I can see where a video-game-influence conclusion can be drawn.

I really don't wish to single you out, but I'd like to use your post as an example of the "edition debate" that drives me nuts. Someone on the pro-4e side says "I don't see X", someone provides information to illustrate and all of a sudden motives are being assigned to that person. And while I'm sure the anti-4e side does it, too, that was a prime reason I abandoned ENWorld for 2 mos.

Personally, from a game perspective, I'm not fond of healing surges and it's one of the 4e turnoffs for me. If others think it enhaces their game, great.

If you don't see video game influences in 4e, nothing posted by anyone on these boards will likely change your mind. In my mind, some influences can be good, others should be left on the PC/console, but they're definitely there.

Side Note: I vaguely recall a WotC admission that the DDI subscription model was an acknowledgement of the success of WoW and a desire to tap into that kind of revenue stream. I could be totally misremembering and perhaps it was pure speculation by posters here. If I'm remembering wrong, you have my sincere apologies.

And while it can argued who influenced what first from now to Armageddon, it's pretty darn obvious that 4e was trying to tap into popular fantasy tropes like WoW (Tiefling = Drenai, I'm looking at you). 3E got slammed for tapping into the Dungeonpunk/anime aspects so it's hardly a new concept. Only this time around, suggesting that it was done is far more trouble than it's worth.