What I absolutely love about 4th edition thus far

[PrecociousApprentice]

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.

In a thread earlier this year we had quite an argument about this idea. I subscribe to the camp that says that the rules of the game are not the physics of the fantasy universe. In fantasy literature, characters are always doing things that are amazing, even if not physics defying for that world. In past editions, you could possibly pull these moves off, but only if you got lucky. 4e seems to have instilled enough narrativist elements in the system to make sure that the things that are happening all the time in the fantasy literature can happen all the time in the role playing game.

The fact that there is a game construct that explicitly codifies this does not mean that it interacts in any meaninful way with the characters' or worlds perception. It is like a computer program that plays a video. The code that is processed by the CPU is like the game mechanics, and the video that plays is like the physics of the world. The characters in the video know nothing of the code, and just go about their business like they are the same as every other character. The protagonist always win though. I like that. My character will now actually be a protagonist. Game mechanics =/= physics of the world

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

...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.

Another approach was the 3.x was (and I think 3E was and is not the only game to do this).
Stuff like the Warlords power anyone can try.

3E: Trip provokes attack of opportunity and allows counter-trip. Special power allows follow up attack and negates AoO.
4E: Trips is an encounter power, deals regular (or even more) damage.

4E: Warlord Power allows charge for everyone if Warlord uses power, once per encounter.
3E: "Group Charge" maneuver allows group to charge with a -10 penalty to attack roll, and one character has to spend a fullround action to coordinate the group charge. Feat reduces the action to move action.

In 4E, since no one can even try it, and assuming "rules are the physics of the game world", no one can trip just like that. It requires special training and is nearly magical or superheroic.
In 3E, everyone can trip, it is just special move that is very dangerous and only safe to use with special training.

4E approach tries to make every attempt to use a special maneuver count, but you won't be able to rely only on this one maneuver (like a 3E Fighter might specialize in tripping and use one one of his attacks every round to trip a foe).

Off course, if you assume "storytelling" explanations for why only the Trip-Power user uses his power (and only once per encounter), or why only an experienced Warlord can pull off a group charge, they aren't superpowers. They are natural elements of the game world, but they are hard to do, and the situation must be right for this pull off...

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Huh? Isn't that just another way of saying that "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 their character sheet bio and the quests they complete."??

I don't get your complaint. Are you complaining that the classes don't specify who your PC is as a person?? Are you saying you only want to use PreGens with a provided character background? Or are you saying the opposite, and that you'd prefer that everyone play a 0th level normal human with no special powers at all (and who never levels up), and simply let the quests you complete and your character bio be the sole features of the PC?

Because if you want to do that, you can just play a bunch of "Level 1/2 Human Caravan Guards" from the Monster Manual.

As for me, I'd rather the Rules specified what my character CAN do, and leave the decisions regarding WHAT the PC believes and does up to me. And since that's exactly what 4E does (along with most other games I know of) I'm pretty cool with the present set-up.

 

[Khairn]

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 agree with your perception. Its exactly how I've come to understand the game-play that 4E seems best designed to support, and what I've seen in the playtest I participated in. Coming to that understanding also helped me to shift my internal "D&D" paradigm and imagine the type of 4E game I would like to play, which is different from the type of 3E games I enjoy.

I expect that once I get the chance to read the books and play some more that my perceptions of the game may very well change. But bottom line is that 4E nicely fills a place in the RPG "spectrum" of games that I usually play.

 

[Destil]

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?"

Not even that. I'd hope Aragorn's player has 'For Gondor' written on his sheet. 3.0 made this distinction in (of all places) skills... if 4E doesn't mention that you can & should rename and re image your powers to fit the PC then The Rouse will have some `splanin` to do.

 

[helium3]

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...

Yeah, i'm not so sure that the new edition is quite this easy to modify.

 

[Derren]

I don't get your complaint. Are you complaining that the classes don't specify who your PC is as a person??

The thing is that in fantasy heroes are most of the time normal persons who become heroes by doing heroic deeds while superheroes are by default special, more powerful than any of those normal people.

3E followed the first approach as PCs and NPCs were not different. The PCs had to do heroic things to become heroes. In 4E this is not necessary any more as the PCs start as heroes who can do things no NPC can do, you know like superheroes.

And imo that cheapens the game. The story isn't any more about normal persons who become famous with what they do, but about some mutants with superpowers.

 

[Family]

So Neo who spent the first movie coming to terms with his abilities would be a good fit for you.

Bruce Willis in Die-Hard would not...(Well there was that whole "Now I have a machine gun, ho ho ho" thing).

 

[Derren]

So Neo who spent the first movie coming to terms with his abilities would be a good fit for you.

I wouldn't say good. If it weren't for the fights where Neo etc. killed gazililions of normal people with their superpowers it would. But if you take out that part and only see the fight against agents it would fit. Everyone has superpowers and being heroic means to do something heroic and not simply throwing around ha-do-ken powers (excluding the end of the first movie).

Bruce Willis in Die-Hard would not...(Well there was that whole "Now I have a machine gun, ho ho ho" thing).

Depends on which part. In the first Die-Hard McCain was still down to earth, at least more as in the other movies (ok, maybe the 3rd one too). And while he has plot super powers (meaning he can't loose) the way he is displayed in the movies makes him different from teh normal superhero crap. He gets wounded, exhausted and he bleeds. That makes him much more normal than some X-Men.

 

[ebenmckay]

In 4E, since no one can even try it, and assuming "rules are the physics of the game world", no one can trip just like that. It requires special training and is nearly magical or superheroic.

Hi everyone. Long-time gamer, first time poster.

I don't know if I agree entirely with the above statement. I recall (from a long-ago 4e preview) an on-the-fly situation where the player had his character slide under a table during a tavern brawl and kick the table out from under a couple of drunks who were fighting atop it. I think the DM ruled it a Str based attack against their Reflex defenses. To me that sounds like an impromptu trip attack that doesn't require a "power" to do so. Sure it might not do any damage (falling maybe?), but it gets the job done. My apologies if this point was made in a previous thread.

In that vein, I can see all sorts of special moves pulled off without any per-encounter limitations or class power slots being used up.