What do you think so far?

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm pretty concerned with the "bigger, badder, better" syndrome.

I'll always gladly take "better", but suit yourself

I don't quite see "bigger", though. Things like "magic items will be cool, but not necessary" and "we want to decrease the mechanical workload for dungeon masters" is more of a" less is more" approach.

So far, we have what appears to be full round attacks during a surprise round (it actually looks like full round attacks can be done as standard actions in 4E).

I guess you're talking about the ranger peppering someone with arrows. It's possible that it's something archers get - rapid shot-like. Since the ranger is supposed to be a striker - the Mobile Menace - I guess they get to move and still do their rapid shot trick.

I have a hunch that iterative attacks in general will go away. So at level 30, the fighter won't be able to attack six times (+30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5), but depending on weapon choice (and manoeuvres/abilities chosen), he might have two attacks - the same he had on first level. Two-weapon fighting is another example for this.

And winning a fight without breaking a sweat.

So business as usual? I lost count of the fights the party just sauntered through.

One attacker both attacking and giving an ally a bonus to attack with the same maneuver.

What's so bad about that? Do you prefer them to have to choose between attacking and supporting - a choice that usually ends with "I'd rather do something myself, screw this bard"?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The rest of humanity seems to manage...

Well, if there's one thing people seem to be good at, it's rushing to judgement.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'll always gladly take "better", but suit yourself

One person's better is another person's worse.

I don't quite see "bigger", though. Things like "magic items will be cool, but not necessary" and "we want to decrease the mechanical workload for dungeon masters" is more of a" less is more" approach.

I see bigger.

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

That's bigger.

I see PCs attacking and knocking opponents backwards. That's extra rules. They might be simple rules (i.e. they always get knocked back 10 feet and no other distance, but that is unlikely).

I see additional saving throws after a spell has already affected the PCs.

That's more rules which means that less is more.

I guess you're talking about the ranger peppering someone with arrows. It's possible that it's something archers get - rapid shot-like. Since the ranger is supposed to be a striker - the Mobile Menace - I guess they get to move and still do their rapid shot trick.

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

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

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

I'm talking about multiple actions or attacks in what previously were single action time frames in 3E.

I have a hunch that iterative attacks in general will go away. So at level 30, the fighter won't be able to attack six times (+30/+25/+20/+15/+10/+5), but depending on weapon choice (and manoeuvres/abilities chosen), he might have two attacks - the same he had on first level. Two-weapon fighting is another example for this.

In Star Wars, characters can do multiple attacks (on a Full Round Action, not a Surprise round), but all attacks are at -5 (for two attacks, -10 for 3). If the same is true of 4E DND, then the Ranger should not have been hitting the Goblin quite so often. It seems like the DND maneuvers might not have the same penalties of multiple shots like Star Wars does. Course, we do not know for sure.

So business as usual? I lost count of the fights the party just sauntered through.

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".

If it's the latter, than it could be the bigger, badder, broken syndrome rearing it's ugly head.

What's so bad about that? Do you prefer them to have to choose between attacking and supporting - a choice that usually ends with "I'd rather do something myself, screw this bard"?

From your response, you might not have understood my concern.

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

But, I also understand the complexity of the concept. I've DMed for 30 years. I can keep track of 12 things at a time at a game because I have trained myself to do so. I write a lot of things down with shorthand (like the fact that this opponent is stunned for 2 rounds whereas this one is only dazed for one round whereas this PC is staggered for 3 rounds).

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. They are used to keeping track of only a few things at a time. Sure, the ones who have DMed before can keep track of more things, but two of my players barely remember the basic rules, let alone the complex ones.

From the very first Dragon example given, it is becoming clear that multiple actions per round per creature is the norm (upwards of 5 or 6 for some creatures). I have no worries about that for myself as DM, but I have worries about that for some of my players.

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.

It might get out of hand. In other words, bigger.

I'm not saying that it will get out of hand. I'm saying that there is a disturbing pattern in the information we have so far.

For myself, this is a great thing. For some of my players, it might be a problem. I'm not just looking at it from the cool point of view that utility PCs get to buff and still do something else useful. I'm trying to look at the meta-picture of what happens at the table and how this affects the players.

Some players might quit if the game becomes too complex for them. I personally know of two players who quit when 3E had game complexities that they did not like.

So, WotC is touting simplicity, but I am seeing the opposite in their examples.

 

[Merlion]

I genuinely wanted to like 4e. I even tried to like it.

I won't be buying it.

Hmmm doesnt that seem just a tiny bit gun-jumpish, since we have in actuality next to no information and any of it might change at any time?

 

[Merlion]

I'm pretty concerned with the "bigger, badder, better" syndrome.

So far, we have what appears to be full round attacks during a surprise round (it actually looks like full round attacks can be done as standard actions in 4E).

We have multiple non-movement actions by players every round.

We have an ability that grants +2 to saves and also grants an additional save when activated (unless the entangle itself did that, but unlikely).

And winning a fight without breaking a sweat.

One attacker both attacking and giving an ally a bonus to attack with the same maneuver.


All of this sounds a bit "bigger, badder, broken" to me. Not that it is broken, but it has the sound of making the DMs job real difficult.

The more options the PCs have every round, the more options the DM has to remember and account for. Plus, it is likely that the NPCs will have more options each round as well. That could be a lot of bookkeeping.

I'm not judging this yet, but I am observing that it's sounding a lot like Bo9S on steroids.

I used to have several players who forgot to add +1 to their AC for the Dodge feat and we even made up 3x5 cards to remind them. I currently have a player in my group who forgets to flank. All of the options available in a round of 4E combat might just swamp him, regardless of class. Just because playtesters at WotC who live and breathe this stuff every single day can easily handle 3 or more actions per PC and NPC per round and buffs to fellow allies every round does not mean that every player out there will be able to easily handle it.

The introduction of swift actions and immediate actions added a level of additional "worthwhile" actions per round into 3.5. However, they were somewhat few and far between for most classes. For 4E, it sounds like their equivalent will become commonplace every round for most likely, every class.

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.

The other things you mention I can't really relate much too. As someone else said, the Ranger being able to fire multiple arrows in a round seems pretty class apropriate. I think the restrictions on moving and still doing anything else have always been rather heavy in 3.x and I'd like to see that change.

As far as winning fights without breaking a sweat, again as has been said...what would be new about that? Personally, I think that has more to do with the CR system, which is supposed to be being changed more or less totally.


Simplicity is a very relative concept, in the end. One person's simple is another person's complicated. In my experience, players tend to forget some aspects of play...+1 bonuses, flanking etc, regardless. I don't see 4e changing that one way or the other.

 

[Wanderer20]

I'll welcome everything about 4E which is free, but nothing else

 

[KarinsDad]

Simplicity is a very relative concept, in the end. One person's simple is another person's complicated. In my experience, players tend to forget some aspects of play...+1 bonuses, flanking etc, regardless. I don't see 4e changing that one way or the other.

It will change it drastically if it goes from 3 options at low level to 12.

If it goes from 12 options at high level to 30.

Because of group synergies, it'll make it more complex for everyone, regardless of personal ability to manage options.

 

[Merlion]

It will change it drastically if it goes from 3 options at low level to 12.

If it goes from 12 options at high level to 30.

Because of group synergies, it'll make it more complex for everyone, regardless of personal ability to manage options.

But there are already more than 3...and more than 12...options at first level anyway.

Most people want more options for their characters, both as players and DMs. And thats what the designers are going to give. It might add more complexity...and at least will mean more choices. But I still think its unlikely to make any real difference. Players are still mostly going to use the options they like best and largely ignore the others, and there still some times going to forget to add a bonus or perform a certain combat trick or whatever. Nothing we've seen so far indicates, at least to me, that the levels of that are going to change meaningfully.

People said much the same things about 3.0 and 3.5, and yet generally ended up liking them anyway. As I said in another thread, I've seen far more players frustrated by a lack of options than I've seen unhappy due to having too many options.

 

[KarinsDad]

But there are already more than 3...and more than 12...options at first level anyway.

...

As I said in another thread, I've seen far more players frustrated by a lack of options than I've seen unhappy due to having too many options.

In the same post, first you claim there are a lot of options in 3E/3.5 and then you claim there are not enough. Which is it?

It's not a matter of being unhappy about too many options, it's a matter of being overwhelmed by too many options. That's the subject matter at hand.

It might add more complexity...and at least will mean more choices. But I still think its unlikely to make any real difference.

You'd be surprised.

The number one reason people leave DND for other RPGs is complexity.

They think that almost 1000 pages of material in the 3 core books alone is too much, let alone the tens of thousands of pages in all of the other books combined.

WotC is touting simplicity and showing complexity for 4E. That's not a good sign that they are accomplishing all of their stated goals.

 

[Merlion]

In the same post, first you claim there are a lot of options in 3E/3.5 and then you claim there are not enough. Which is it?

It's not a matter of being unhappy about too many options, it's a matter of being overwhelmed by too many options. That's the subject matter at hand.



You'd be surprised.

The number one reason people leave DND for other RPGs is complexity.

They think that almost 1000 pages of material in the 3 core books alone is too much, let alone the tens of thousands of pages in all of the other books combined.

WotC is touting simplicity and showing complexity for 4E. That's not a good sign that they are accomplishing all of their stated goals.

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.

However, I still dont think it will make much difference one way or the other.


And yes, there are a lot of options in 3.x. But a lot isnt necessarily enough. And its not just about how many options...its about which options. For my part, as an example, I feel like 3.x lacks certain options due to legacy issues and sacred cows. Something they seem to be willing to change in 4e.