What I absolutely love about 4th edition thus far

[gangrel767]

ExploderWizard - that may have been the best way I have seen this feeling said. The game isn't the same game anymore, but that doesn't make it bad, just different.

I cannot blame Wotc for changing it into something different and marketable for it's time. I mean the basic premise stays the same, but it is just approached from a much different side of the coin.

I think the main deciding factor for me will be how the core math really works. It seems like this game is built on very solid math that seems to work (in theory) from 1st to 30th level. Hopefully it will be this way and not become a broken mess right out of the box.

 

[katahn]

While I don't consider myself firmly anti-4E at all there are basic genre established theories of gameplay that it treads on with a heavy foot.

Characters in classic fantasy (as I like to think of them) are defined by who they are as people, and more importantly WHAT they do.

Characters in a superhero oriented environment are defined heavily by what they CAN do.

4E is moving in the direction of the superhero environment and thats ok. Its different than traditional fantasy and different does not mean wrong or bad.

I am looking forward to seeing how 4E plays out on its own merits instead of comparing it to earlier games that happen to share the same name. I can understand the excitement for the new direction yet still understand why some may not care for it.

If you are discussing in a narrative sense then I would agree with your assesment of fantasy vs. super-heroes. However if you are discussing in a gaming sense I am afraid I must respectfully disagree simply because at its core classes define what a character can or cannot do. The only thing one can say about previous versions of D&D is to greater or lesser extents they allowed players to select what they wanted their characters to do.

Even without classes as a basis for gaming, games have to define what characters are capable of. On an abstract level one can compare classes to archetype selections (ie. assortments of abilities and skills that are preselected) in classless or point-buy systems.

The only real change 4e has introduced in this area is to describe the classic D&D group of fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard in terms of generic roles and power sources and then used those roles and sources as a framework for class creation. Even then, all they did was make it explicit instead of implied and to ensure classes designed for a particular role were fairly well balanced against one another.

Balancing classes, defining what classes can do, and so forth... these are not concepts new to game design with 4e at all. In various ways and means these concepts have been involved in game and class design from the beginning.

 

[Drammattex]

I've come back to D&D because I could not modify 3.x in the ways I wanted to play the games I wanted. I had to buy Iron Heroes and Conan instead.

This is precisely what I did, and why 4e is so exciting to me.

HEAR HEAR.

 

[Scribble]

While I don't consider myself firmly anti-4E at all there are basic genre established theories of gameplay that it treads on with a heavy foot.

Characters in classic fantasy (as I like to think of them) are defined by who they are as people, and more importantly WHAT they do.

Characters in a superhero oriented environment are defined heavily by what they CAN do.

4E is moving in the direction of the superhero environment and thats ok. Its different than traditional fantasy and different does not mean wrong or bad.

I've said in other threads that I completely and utterly dissagree with this line of thinking. I personally feel that the game is FINALLY starting to allow you to play out those "classic fantasy elements."

It's all in how you visualize your game in my opinion. Take for example the warlord power:

Iron Dragon Charge Warlord Attack 9
Like a rampaging iron dragon, you hurl yourself at your adversary, landing a terrific blow that inspires your allies to charge as well.
Daily
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Special: You must charge as part of this attack.
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, as an immediate reaction, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of you can charge a target that you charge.

Sure... you could say that like a super hero yur warlord knows it has this ability... It knows the name, and maybe it cries out "Iron Dragon Charge!" every time...

Or, like me, you could say the Warlord has no idea he actually has the ability (other then knowing he has a good ability to inspire people... like a real life leader) he just does it...

Everyone likes to mention LOTR at some point.. so I will too...

Like Aaragorn... He yells out "For Gondor!!!!" people know him.. he's awesome, and kills orcs like nuttin... So they're inspired... "Hell yeah for Gondor!" They all charge out of the hall...

Out of the game, Aragorn's player roleplays his character "For Gondor!!!" then turns to his dm, and says "Iron Dragon Charge, (rolls a die) 16... does that hit?"

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you are discussing in a narrative sense then I would agree with your assesment of fantasy vs. super-heroes. However if you are discussing in a gaming sense I am afraid I must respectfully disagree simply because at its core classes define what a character can or cannot do. The only thing one can say about previous versions of D&D is to greater or lesser extents they allowed players to select what they wanted their characters to do.

Even without classes as a basis for gaming, games have to define what characters are capable of. On an abstract level one can compare classes to archetype selections (ie. assortments of abilities and skills that are preselected) in classless or point-buy systems.

The only real change 4e has introduced in this area is to describe the classic D&D group of fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard in terms of generic roles and power sources and then used those roles and sources as a framework for class creation. Even then, all they did was make it explicit instead of implied and to ensure classes designed for a particular role were fairly well balanced against one another.

Balancing classes, defining what classes can do, and so forth... these are not concepts new to game design with 4e at all. In various ways and means these concepts have been involved in game and class design from the beginning.

Classes have always defined the limits of what a character can do (in systems that use them). I was speaking in a narrative sense as well as a gaming one. The difference is in the fantasy laws of the universe. In classic fantasy, the heroes must live by the same rules as everyone else and still win the day because thats what heroes do. In a more supercharged setting the universe allows the heroes rules of thier own simply because they are heroes.

D&D characters have been larger than life compared to the normal man in every edition. Never before 4E has there been such a wide divide in how the laws of the universe affects them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I've said in other threads that I completely and utterly dissagree with this line of thinking. I personally feel that the game is FINALLY starting to allow you to play out those "classic fantasy elements."

It's all in how you visualize your game in my opinion.

You are absolutely correct. It just doesn't require superpowers to do so.

 

[TerraDave]

...I can dissociate parts of the game that I don't like.

Magic items? I can dump them.

Not keen on high magic? I can remove Clerics and Wizards from the game

Long promised and speculated on. And seems to be delivered.

As discussed in a previous thread, there is the need for the martial controller.

Mearls noted that it shouldn't be a problem...

 

[Scribble]

Classes have always defined the limits of what a character can do (in systems that use them). I was speaking in a narrative sense as well as a gaming one. The difference is in the fantasy laws of the universe. In classic fantasy, the heroes must live by the same rules as everyone else and still win the day because thats what heroes do. In a more supercharged setting the universe allows the heroes rules of thier own simply because they are heroes.

D&D characters have been larger than life compared to the normal man in every edition. Never before 4E has there been such a wide divide in how the laws of the universe affects them.

I would again dissagree. It's all in your power of description.

The heros in any genre pull off feats that others can't simply because they're the heros of the book.

The difference between heros in non super hero books and the heros in super hero books is all in the description.

Super Man is a super hero because he is ultra strong and can fly. This defies the laws of physics, and is described as such.

In fantasy a hero can still fly, and be super strong, but maybe he uses magic to do so. In the physics of that world magic is real, and therefor it's not a super power.

All the "powers" do in 4e is allow you to manage the same feats the heros in the fantasy books pull off without just being lucky in real life.

You are absolutely correct. It just doesn't require superpowers to do so.

Who said it does?

 

[Rhenny]

Challenge Rules So Far

From what I've seen so far, I love the challenge rules. This is a game within the game and because it is more open ended than merely rolling vs. a skill, it encourages ROLEPLAYING, not only by one of the player characters, but by all of them. Rogues can do rogueish things; Wizards can do wizardly things; Rangers can do rangerly things. Heck, player characters can even decide to do bizzarre things, as long as the DM rules that the character has some appropriate skill to back it up.

Love it.

 

[ZetaStriker]

I understand what you're saying, Exploder, but I still have to disagree. In a mechanical sense, yes, the powers let you do things you might otherwise be unable to do. Within the context of the game world, however, that just isn't the case. By claiming:

You are absolutely correct. It just doesn't require superpowers to do so.

...you come across as implying that, despite taking the same actions and having the same end result, in 4E it is somehow different because there is a mechanical descriptor for it. I just don't see how that's a problem, unless you want to roleplay everything without any rules whatsoever.