What do you think so far?

[KarinsDad]

Thats where the relativity of the term "simplicity" comes in. I may be totally off, but I think that when the designers speak of simplicity, often they mean that a given thing is in itself relatively easy to use, straightforward and uncomplicated.

You seem to be speaking of simplicity in terms of sheer number of options and/or amount of rules. Again, I may be totally misinterpreting you, but you seem to be afraid that people will be overwhelmed by having too many choices of actions to take and/or too many things to learn how they work.

I think they are touting the first type of simplicity I mentioned...and may or may not be living up to it, since as of now we have essentially no real details on the mechanics. But you see them as not living up to the type of simplicity you are seeking. Correct my if I am wrong, but thats what I am getting.

I agree with you.

The simplicity they are adding is: Turn Undead is now easy to do. Grapple is now easy to do. Picking skills for your next level is easy to do (add one to all skills on even levels, adding nothing on odd levels).

The complexity they are adding is: Every Fighter has as many powers and maneuvers now as spell casters. He chooses which to use. Every PC can boost the abilities of allies and still do an attack during the same round. PCs can do multiple attacks in a round, even at low level. The sweet spot is every level, hence, there are dozens of options for every player every single round.


Trading off one level of complexity for another is not making the game system simpler. It's moving the complexity from one area to another.

Good for some players. Bad for others.


And, it is not just having more options and hence having more rules. It is the synergy of how this increase in the number of options work together. I foresee a LOT of errata. An increase in the number of options in the core rules by definition means an increase in the amount of synergy and the potential for abuse. People did not create a lot of Codzilla-like PCs with just core 3.5 rules. They created them with core 3.5 plus Complete books plus Psionics plus PHBII plus Bo9S plus BoED plus SC, etc. The more options there are, the more places for the game to fall apart. It's simple mathematics of complex systems.

 

[Szatany]

I can agree somewhat with having a tiny bit of power creep concern, overall. However as someone else pointed out, the fact that they have stated that they will reduce magic item dependency, and DM workload, I wouldnt worry to much about those things.

It's not power creep, it's power redistribution, just like they promised. 1st level characters are visibly more powerful because high-level characters are going to be weaker than their 3e counterparts.

 

[Merlion]

I agree with you.

The simplicity they are adding is: Turn Undead is now easy to do. Grapple is now easy to do. Picking skills for your next level is easy to do (add one to all skills on even levels, adding nothing on odd levels).

The complexity they are adding is: Every Fighter has as many powers and maneuvers now as spell casters. He chooses which to use. Every PC can boost the abilities of allies and still do an attack during the same round. PCs can do multiple attacks in a round, even at low level. The sweet spot is every level, hence, there are dozens of options for every player every single round.


Trading off one level of complexity for another is not making the game system simpler. It's moving the complexity from one area to another.

.

I think this is another matter of definitions. To me, what you describe isnt complexity, its simply amount or volume. Its more stuff, but more doesnt equal complex, at least as I understand the word.

However, I understand what you mean. Its not something that bothers me personally however, and I dont see it as a rejection or failure to live up to their statements about reducing complexity.

And, it is not just having more options and hence having more rules. It is the synergy of how this increase in the number of options work together. I foresee a LOT of errata. An increase in the number of options in the core rules by definition means an increase in the amount of synergy and the potential for abuse. People did not create a lot of Codzilla-like PCs with just core 3.5 rules. They created them with core 3.5 plus Complete books plus Psionics plus PHBII plus Bo9S plus BoED plus SC, etc. The more options there are, the more places for the game to fall apart. It's simple mathematics of complex systems.

Of course. but this is a given, and almost certainly going to be the case no matter what. It was the case with 3.0 and 3.5, and will be the case with 4e.

It's not power creep, it's power redistribution, just like they promised. 1st level characters are visibly more powerful because high-level characters are going to be weaker than their 3e counterparts.

In theory at least. We don't really know at this point. Characters do seem to be getting more options and versatility, which equals more power. My hope and assumption is that the reduction of magic items, and the re-thinking of the encounter system will balance this out.

 

[Szatany]

In theory at least. We don't really know at this point. Characters do seem to be getting more options and versatility, which equals more power. My hope and assumption is that the reduction of magic items, and the re-thinking of the encounter system will balance this out.

Did you just call me Sztany?

Anyway, I know that we don't know, but I'm hoping for that because it would fit nicely. We don't have all pieces of the puzzle, but the ones we have fit so far.

 

[Grog]

And winning a fight without breaking a sweat.

You seem to be talking about this playtest example, so I have to ask, how is a fight where two characters get knocked down to negative HP "winning without breaking a sweat?"

 

[Sunderstone]

So far my list of things to NOT like about 4E grows daily, the latest is the Demon/Devil changes.


What I like about 4e....
The possible folding of scout into the Ranger class. If there still is a Ranger class.


What I dont like....
Everything else.

 

[KarinsDad]

You seem to be talking about this playtest example, so I have to ask, how is a fight where two characters get knocked down to negative HP "winning without breaking a sweat?"

I was talking about all of the examples we have so far, including:

this playtest example

Coming down the hallway is a troop of azer, some sort of burning serpent, and the flame priest I mentioned earlier. And it was a fight! And . . . we won. Without really breaking a sweat, either, truth be told.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I see virutally every PC in each example they gave so far doing multiple things per round.

That's bigger.

Not necessarily, if those things will be easier to pull of, like making a spell attack against one or more targets and then rolling one die of damage and automatically applying the extra effect. Compare that to 3es Spell-Res, Saving Throw, rolling a handfull of dice, and resolving/calculating the extra effect which such a situation would have involved in 3e.

The Ranger got 3 arrows off in what appears to be a first level module in a surprise round.

So? He gets his counterattack (whatever that is) and his two arrows he can usually shoot as a standard action. It's quite possible that with those actions/manoeuvres, that would be the same thing at level 30.

The Rogue rushed to the farmhouse and threw open the door in a surprise round.

I don't see a problem with that. In fact, that cries simplification. Compare "I rush there and open a door" to "I move there, and I also want to open the door. Is that a move action? Can I use it as part of my move action if my BAB is high enough? can I do that in a surprise round?" That really is something that should be a perfectly valid option on any level in a surprise round.

The Ranger got to shoot 2 arrows off as presumably an immediate action.

It sounded as if he got one arrow off as an immediate action/AoO/Counterstrike, and then another two with his standard action.

No doubt. But, they are playtesting. They are supposed to be stressing the system. Either the DM threw something wimpy at them (which is not what his job is for a playtest), or they are finding out that the synergies of these "multiple actions per round" are creating some devastating results that allow them to do fights "without breaking a sweat".

Wasn't one of them bleeding to death and the another badly wounded? If you call that not breaking a sweat I really don't want to see your definition of a real hard encounter.

I understand the desire for an attack and a boost in the same round by the same PC. It sounds cool.

It sounds that more people would want to play classes like this than wanted to play 3e's bard or 2e's bandaid cleric.

My players do not do that. The only things they write down are their current hit points and how many rounds their spells/special abilities have been in use.

It would seem that spell durations won't be a concern any more - I strongly suspect that x/round buffing will go the way of the flumph. So they have some breathing space for announcing one of their buffs, which I'd say is a lot easier than tracking spell durations.

Just like the player of the Bard PC having to remind everyone that they get the +1 to attacks and damage every round in 3E, now in 4E every player has to remind other players about the bonuses or advantages that they have given them. It is no longer just the players of Bard and the Cleric, it is every player.

I think it's just the leader classes, not every player. That's what leaders do - they lead, and therefore grant "leader effects" to their allies.

I guess they will be either active the whole fight, or for one round. That's easy to keep track of.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The complexity they are adding is: Every Fighter has as many powers and maneuvers now as spell casters. He chooses which to use.

Which isn't an increase in complexity per se - more of a balancing of complexity and probably power levels, too.

Every PC can boost the abilities of allies and still do an attack during the same round.

Again, this seems to be the leaders' schtick, nto every PCs.

PCs can do multiple attacks in a round, even at low level.

And D&D is not like that? Two-weapon fighting, flurry of blows, haste spells, rapid shot. Not even counting AoOs.

And the archery thing really is the only example we heard where multiple attacks are in, beyond some hint that fighting with swords will give you a rapid-strike like ability. Two-weapon fighting will supposedly be the same, but again, many of those things were already in 3e. And it might be that iterative attacks won't go beyond 2. Compare that to 3e's 4-8 attacks per round on higher levels.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I was talking about all of the examples we have so far, including:

this playtest example

That's their weird "let's see if we can houserule the flip out of the system before the concrete has dried" playtest session, which I don't think is 1st-level.