D&D 4E Two Camps of 4e Players (a rant)

[CovertOps]

Actually, this is a bad example to try and show that 4E (specifically) doesn't make sense. It may be that D&D doesn't make sense for double weapons, but this particular issue spans across 3.X and 4E. I'm not sure if CovertOps's 20-year RPG veterans account for this. i.e. if the one guy who left was a 3.x veteran, he not only wouldn't have made the mistake, he would've been surprised that an issue could've possibly existed.

The difference I think is that in 3e if you had a weapon that did extra damage per swing you would apply it to every swing. Double weapons have their own rules in 4e and they diverge from how they worked in 3e in this regard IIRC.

Saying that someone is a 3e veteren and therefore would not make a mistake is disingenuous. People make mistakes all the time no matter who they are. What I was trying to point out is that 4e has specific rules on double weapons in PHB2 that interact with magic item properties and daily powers and that if you don't read them you wind up with his position of reading the magic item "Property" and coming to the conclusion that the damage applies to every attack which in his case wasn't true. It would be kind of like looking at the movement rules to see you can spend a move action to "Shift" one square and not consulting the rules on shifting to see if there are any limitations like not shifting while prone or through difficult terrain.

Exception based design is what gives us this "layered" rules set which I think is what makes this rule set so much more complex than previous editions. It is both the boon and bane of our existence.

 

[Deverash]

The difference I think is that in 3e if you had a weapon that did extra damage per swing you would apply it to every swing. Double weapons have their own rules in 4e and they diverge from how they worked in 3e in this regard IIRC.

In 3e, though, you had to enchant each end of the weapon separately. If even the plus on the weapon isn't going to migrate to the other end, why would any other effect of the enchantment do so?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think 4E is more complex than people think. Probably just as complex as 3E in some ways.

Either that, or it is so different from 3E that people who have played earlier versions might have more difficult times with it.

In our group, if a player is missing, someone else plays their PC. I never remember this being an issue in earlier versions (course, memory is a tricky thing).

This is an issue for 4E, at least for our group. It is fairly difficult for people to quickly grasp how to play a PC that is not theirs, even if they have seen that PC in action for many months. And, it's a bit daunting when you hand over a character sheet from Character Builder that is 6 or more pages long.

Even as DM, I have read all of my player's PC character sheets and every once in a while, I have to ask a player how the PC is doing what s/he is doing.


For years, just about anyone at a table could remember that a 7th level Wizard did 7D6 with a Fireball or a Lightning Bolt. Now, the player of the Wizard has to have a little Fireball cheat sheet. Or at least it seems that way for many spells. Is the target pushed 3 squares, or 2? Is the effect only if you hit, or if you miss as well? Do you target AC or Reflex or Fort or Will? Is the range 5 or 10? Mods + 1D6 or 2D6 or 3D6 or 1D8 or 2D8 or 3D8 or weapon or some other damage? Is the effect instantaneous, or does the effect last until save, until the end of the encounter, until the start of the caster's next turn, until the end of the caster's next turn, until the start of the target's next turn, or until the end of the target's next turn?

There seems to be a lot of rules involved in many powers, forcing players to have little cheat sheets for each power. And unlike 3E where it was mostly the complex spells (like Confusion), it's many spells / powers now. And, it's also class features. The ones that auto add to something on the character sheet are not so bad, but the conditional ones can be.

As a simple example, doing double damage on a critical is a lot easier rule to remember than "max+1D6, max+1D8, or max, or max+1D12, etc." depending on which weapon or implement is being used.

So yes, I think that Character Builder is practically essential to playing the game. One player in our group has designed his own spreadsheet, but it's still so complex that I modify a CB version of his PC, just to make sure the math is fine.

 

[cmbarona]

Huh... it sounds like your'e complicating things for yourself. So what if you need to write down the text of your powers? Is memorizing Xd6 for Fireball, where X equals your level, any more difficult than simply figuring it out before the session and writing it down? It sounds like your group is trying to memorize class powers; to turn things around, I'd ask why you feel such an effort is necessary.

I think 3.X and 4E are both complex, but they're complex in entirely different ways. I think 4E has more to do with learning interchangeable parts and applying those parts where necessary. One shouldn't endeavor to learn more of thse parts than they need. Why should I memorize a Wizard's Fireball damage at all? The Wizard will take care of that. I just need to memorize that my Warlord grants him bonus HP and a saving throw whenever he spends an action point, or even just write down a series of "Action Point Bonuses" somewhere and memorize that it exists. Whenever the Wizard spends an action point, I simply remind him of the bonuses he gets.

I'd also argue that the crits aren't any more complex than before (I actually find them less difficult to grasp). How is max+XdY+misc. effects more complex than confirm+x2/3/4+misc. effects?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Saying that someone is a 3e veteren and therefore would not make a mistake is disingenuous. People make mistakes all the time no matter who they are.

True, but you're exaggerating. I didn't say or imply that people who are veterans are perfect. I was only referring to the one example.

What I was trying to point out is that 4e has specific rules on double weapons in PHB2 that interact with magic item properties and daily powers and that if you don't read them you wind up with his position of reading the magic item "Property" and coming to the conclusion that the damage applies to every attack which in his case wasn't true.

And 4E works just like 3.x, as Deverash pointed out. Actually, 4E is even less restrictive I think. The point, however, is that a 3.x veteran (if he is a 3.x veteran) who is complaining about 4E double weapons should also be familiar with 3.x double weapons, which are at least as restrictive. Maybe that's an invalid assumption for this case, but it's certainly not disingenuous and I would wager it to be true.

It would be kind of like looking at the movement rules to see you can spend a move action to "Shift" one square and not consulting the rules on shifting to see if there are any limitations like not shifting while prone or through difficult terrain.

I don't think it would be like that at all because Shifting is almost an entirely new concept. Veteran or not, if you don't read the rules on it, you won't know the rules. A veteran might complain about the loss of a 5ft-step, but can't really use that to put blame on the 4E Shifting rules he hasn't read.

 

[KarinsDad]

Huh... it sounds like your'e complicating things for yourself. So what if you need to write down the text of your powers? Is memorizing Xd6 for Fireball, where X equals your level, any more difficult than simply figuring it out before the session and writing it down? It sounds like your group is trying to memorize class powers; to turn things around, I'd ask why you feel such an effort is necessary.

No, we are not memorizing the powers. But, it takes a while for player #1 to look through 4 sheets of player #2's powers and figure out which might be appropriate.


Part of the issue is the fluidity of 4E.

Every single round, we place tokens on the minatures to indicate bloodied, stunned, dazed, blinded, taking ongoing damage, etc. And every single round, we are also taking some of these tokens off.

Nearly every single round, PCs and/or NPCs are being shifted or pushed.

Because each round of combat is so much more fluid, I sometimes hear the phrase "Well, that screws up what I was going to do". This from a player playing his own PC. Now imagine how much more difficult it is to play some other player's PC and suddenly the plan you had is gone. Opps. You were prepared for that PC's next turn, but now you have to go back and look through the 4 sheets of powers and items and come up with a new plan.


In 3E, a buff power worked for minutes or hours. There are some buff powers that almost do this in 4E like Bless (which works until the end of the encounter), but they tend to be few and far between. If my AC got buffed in 3E by 2 for an hour, I could write in on my character sheet and mostly forget about it and just use the new number.

In 4E, my AC is typically buffed for a round. So, I could write it on my character sheet, just to erase it again 5 minutes later when initiative got back to me. If I forget to erase it, I might play the game for several rounds before I forget to correct it. Or, I could rely on group memory (or tokens or some other system) to remember that PC #4 is buffed. But, the bookkeeping is more intrusive regardless.

So again, a part of the system, bookkeeping in this case, is more complex and intrusive than in 3E.


People either read the rules and get familiar with them, or they do not. Either way, the game is complex enough that not doing so can result in an impression that DMs and players are not really learning the rules. As to the OPs question as to whether this is human nature or rules complexity, I think it is a little of both.

 

[Garthanos]

I think 4E is more complex than people think. Probably just as complex as 3E in some ways.

Either that, or it is so different from 3E that people who have played earlier versions might have more difficult times with it.

In our group, if a player is missing, someone else plays their PC. I never remember this being an issue in earlier versions (course, memory is a tricky thing).

I cant say much about 3e having skipped over it.

I think one had to be looking through odd lenses for in order for somebody elses wizard of even moderate level in AD&D was easier in general to play... and clerics didnt have the heal fall back then.. but
Oh yeah next to no tactics in AD&D so the whole game was easier to play..

Strip 4e of tactical postioning and the conditions that make fighter and companies attacks something other than loose x hitpoints... yeah that made game play easier.(ZZZZZZZ..... snort snort "I hit it with my sword").

I agree there are complexities in 4e not sure I even want it to be easy to
play a missing players character...

 

[Blackbrrd]

It is really easy to teach somebody to play a 4e character compared to a 3e caster. It is harder to teach somebody to play any 4e character than any 3e non-caster.

(And don't get me started on the 3e druid where you had to learn all the animals in the MM - or the shifter where you basically had to learn all the monsters in the MM... Or the Polymorph spell... or the Shapechange spell... gaaaaaahhhhh)

A 4e character sheet where you don't put anything but the names of your powers, feats, racial and class features takes exactly one A4 page. This is what you usually did in 3e and earlier...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ADnD was getting very complex if you are an illusionist wizard: you can do everything whith just one spell, can use it creatively to do nearly everything... even double up as a fireball when needed...

so taking over a wizard could be really challenging...

But: usually the DM knows every spell the wizard has, so when a player knows what the wizard does in certain situations, the DM knows what to do. (In fact I usually play not attending players PCs myself when I DM)

And as NPCs i either play them myself too, or I only let them have fighters which are easily used. 2 lines and you know what he can do in combat.

Statement: ADnD was not boring... it was only boring to play fighters... (for me)

 

[Garthanos]

Statement: ADnD was not boring... it was only boring to play fighters... (for me)

and low level magic users.