D&D 4E Thoughts on 4E from an "Outsider"...

[Stormtalon]

Aye, I'm thinking of ditching the squares myself when it comes to 4E and going with straight inches and more fluid movement. Heck, maybe I'll go crazy and have some lengths of string cut to standard movement distances for handy and quick measurement.

Only things I think I'd have to worry about are 1) making sure each size of critter has a standardized base and 2) the effects of size on combat; after all, you'll be able to get more small creatures surrounding a medium critter when not using the grid....

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I've played 3e both with and without the minis and battlemap. I find I like parts of both.

I enjoy the speed and more laid back feel that can come from a game without the minis, but it takes a good DM and group to pull it off without frequently breaking down into quibbles over who was where and can do what.

I enjoy the tactics of minis and squares, and the fact that you know everyone has the "vision" of what is happening since you can actually see the situation. If 4e can pull off using minis and keeping the game flowing smoothly, I will be thrilled.

 

[Wepwawet]

Very good point you raised there, Grossout!
This thread was really helpful for me. Some really good suggestions.
I'll probably try playing combat without a grid, and if me and my players feel confortable with it, stop using it
The tactical movement is important (specially with all the rules governing it), but it's possible to do it without grids. Just some minis or tokens to visualize the scenario.
I just hope in 4E it will be even simpler

Thanks everyone

 

[DarkWhite]

Any thoughts?

You might find the following Maximising your Minis article on the Wizards site useful, particularly the section regarding Range Bands:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20061123a

It's rather brief on detail, but the general idea is you only represent the distance between your group and the enemy group for purposes of things such as ranged and area attacks, distance to move to engage in melee, etc. Basically, the encounter is represented in 1D (line/distance), not 2D (grid/area).

You'll need to figure what consequence this has on various rules for yourself (house-rule), but it would seem to simplify some movement, area, squares factors within the game, while still retaining some accountability, such as who closes with the enemy in the first initiative round, who is in range of a fireball etc, to eliminate some of the disagreements/miscommunications in the game, and retain some tactical elements without things getting too unwieldy.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've found in my games that the use of minis greatly speeds up play, because it eliminates disagreements, interpretations and arguments of who's where and how far away. It also makes the DM's job easier since he doesn't have to make constant judgment calls.

Which is a good thing, because at higher levels 3E D&D gets bogged down in terms of the length of time required in combat due to iterative attacks, wizard players flipping through books to pick a spell every round, etc.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess that's kinda my complaint as well.

My group has played dozens of different RPG systems over the years---most of them combat-intensive. The two games that *really* drag in combat are D&D 3e and Champions---both games where we use a battlemat and count out squares/hexes.

While I am smitten with the design philosophy that I'm seeing in 4e, I am increasingly dissatisfied with battlemat gaming.

It's a long time ago, but I think Shadowrun 3rd edition was worse, at least if you were adamant about applying all the modifiers the game "provided". The problem was that the Gamemaster had to announce the final DC, and this meant that usually it was him who added all the modifiers up. And every PC could have different modifiers applying for his DC.
At least in D&D, most people have to calculate just their own modifiers.

But I agree, D&D combat takes long. Since it is often interesting with offering many options, I can live with it, but I'd prefer it the play time between two actions of my characters were shorter.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Any thoughts?

Sure; I've been where you've been, and tried to work through all these issues myself. I don't even play 3E right now because of those issues.

I got pretty seriously into C&C for a while. I bought all the books, participated heavily in the baords at Dragonsfoot and TLG, and got involved as a playtester in their 'high level' rules for levels 10+. It was fun, but in the end I concluded C&C was a step backwards in game design. 3E has its problems, but I think TLG threw the baby out with the bathwater, if you know what I mean. That's just my opinion obviously; there's a lot of people here who like C&C a lot. I don't want this thread to be a C&C vs. D&D thread; besides that it would be a threadjack, this is the wrong forum and no one wins those anyway. If you go with C&C, you'll have fun.

I feel the same way about Basic Fantasy.

Personally, I think the easiest thing to do between now and 4E is to play 3E, but simply the most annoying/slow parts of it.

1. Get rid of Attacks of Opportunity. Just ignore them.
2. Get rid of iterative attacks. Just give everyone +2 dmg for every +5 of BAB. (Or, if you want to get fancy, give them a +1, +2 or +4 dmg, depending on whether they're using a light, medium or 2-handed weapon).
3. Use minis or not, as you please. I find them useful. Without AOO's the game doesn't get bogged down nearly as much in arguing over 5' steps.
4. Replace the skill system with something a little simpler. I like Star Wars Saga, but if you don't have access to those rules, I'd just give everyone max ranks in a number of skills equal to the number of skill points/level they normally get, and 1/2 level + Stat mod in all other class skills.
5. Retire the PC's at 12th level.

Lastly, just adjust player expectations for treasure and play style. Feel free to ignore the wealth guidelines, eyeball the CR adjustments, and have fun.

As for 4e, I think a lot of the above concerns will be alleviated, and it will be even easier to play without being too precise about standing or movement. If 3E, with all its problems, can be played without minis, 4E certainly can.

But I like using a map and squares because it avoids misunderstandings between players and dm's, or having to ret-con things ("I wouldn't have done that if I'd know Bob was within the Fireball's blast radius!")

You should try a simplified combat using minis. It's like a game within a game (a tactical battle game within a larger role-playing game). It's like any video/computer game RPG that has different points-of-view and interfaces for combat and non-combat. Anyone who has played The Awesomest Computer Game EVER (aka, Betrayal at Krondor) knows that having two interfaces like that is not at all a bad thing, and still allows for an amazing roleplaying game.

 

[Saint&Sinner]

I'm personally excited about the launch of 4e. Since I haven't played since AD&D, I plan on using an abstract positioning system found in Agon (a Greek hero's version of fight monsters and take their stuff) and Burning Wheel (an interesting take on the fantasy genre, a little hard to run though). Basically characters and creatures are either in optimal range for their weapon (which varies depending on weapon reach), in suboptimal range or out of range. Positioning tests allow you to set your position and hopefully place your opponent in a bad postition. I'll let you know if it works but I'm anticipating this will speed up and simplify play.

 

[Nebulous]

The other thing about minis that is kind of a tangent: creating adventures was always hard with minis because I only had so many and there were creatures or whatever I wanted use, but had no minis for. After going mini-less, I realized it didn't matter at all. Coins would do. it made adventure design much easier and more organic than it had been during my "must have the right mini" phase.

As to 4E: expect more of the same.

Well, over the years i have both bought and created such a huge baseline of miniatures i have enough to cover virtually any situation, although there are still some "use your imagination here guys, the ogre mini is really a demon" moments.

Point being that i personally love miniatures, although i loathe the artificial inflation of their worth. I mean, the crap is just painted plastic. Anyway, 3e is certainly playable without the use of a grid and/or minis, but like others have said, it requires an agreement between players and DM ahead of time that he'll be making some case-by-case judgment calls.

 

[BASHMAN]

Anyway… what am I getting at? It’s funny, but I couldn’t be more excited for 4E! I keep reading that the goal is to make it much easier to learn and run. Sounds like a great idea. The problem is, I still see that a lot of the concepts that turned me off about 3E are resurfacing (the rogue’s new “three step shift” move?). Ugh.

What I’m hoping for is a game that is completely playable without minis or stand-ins of any kind. A game I can play completely with my imagination. I thought that was the point in the first place? I’m not saying that the “chess-like” parts of the game should be removed, as they’re obviously not going to be. I would just like to play the game minus that stuff without throwing off the balance of the game. After all, if you take away all those moves, what fun would it be to play a rogue?

QFT and bravo!