What I absolutely love about 4th edition thus far

[Family]

I have to say that what I like about 4e is that it's simplified, and fun. Try drinking and playing 3.5, for comparison.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

+ Healing surges/Second wind
+ Encounter powers
+ Feats
+ Destiny

Okay you are just not making any sense any more.

None of these qualify as "superpowers" except for "Destiny" which yeah, at 21st level you are superheroic.

 

[Henry]

I'm particularly puzzled in how 3.0 "made this distinction" in skills. The granularity may have decreased, but the large majority of the skills in 3e are in 4e.

In the 3.0e Player's Handbook, there was a brief paragraph on how a player could alter their skill names a bit to represent the flavor of their character. The player of the monk Ember might write "Rice Paper Walk" on her sheet instead of "Move Silently"; the player of Lidda the Rogue might write "Footpaddin' " when referring to that skill. That's the example he was mentioning.

 

[Henry]

+ Healing surges/Second wind
+ Encounter powers
+ Feats
+ Destiny

It's been argued that John MacClane from Die Hard (even the first movie!) had all of these. He certainly can't have had enough hit points to put up with all the abuse he suffered in that movie unless he was about 15th or 20th level, which suggests some kind of in-between scenes healing. He didn't use the same tactic over and over in a single fight, and when he did it was in a different fight.

And as unkillable as he was, an Epic Destiny had to be in his future -- "Sequelized Champion"

 

[DylanCB]

You know, people seem to be complaining about superheroes, when all the designers did was make everyone else as cool as the wizard. I mean, the wizard in 3rd edition could eat superheroes at higher levels. Heck, with the right magic items, a fighter would too.

In 4E, a fighter can do some cool moves in combat. I see this as saying, conditions are only right once in an encounter or once a day. Their At-wills are stuff that is basic to combat, like shield pushes, or skilled attacks that hurt even if they just clip the enemy. Nothing superhuman.

Now, the narrative that your already heroes is the biggest issue. But the pig farmer on a quest is a hero anyway. By definition, going adventuring makes you an adventurer. Its always been like that. You follow different rules than normal people? Heroes always did. Being a Fighter was actually supposed to be special in 3.5, thats why there were warrior NPCs. PCs started out stronger, just by having max Hp at first level. Now, 4E just comes out and says your heroes.

 

[Henry]

You know, people seem to be complaining about superheroes, when all the designers did was make everyone else as cool as the wizard.

Rather, they made everybody into a swordsage.

I can understand the "superhero" complaint, and in fact sympathize with it a bit. A wizard or cleric in AD&D was cool about 20% of the time, but sucked the other 80%; the other classes were the actual "baseline", and had no renewable resources, etc. to have to replenish. For some reason though, I don't remember the 15-minute adventuring day, while others apparently saw it frequently.

So, if the style of gaming you remember doesn't include wizards dominating the show with overt displays followed by long periods of suckiness, and instead your style of gaming you remember was wizards conserving their power sparingly instead of "going nova" and then dragging everyone down, then it's going to be a stark contrast. Otherwise, you'll love the idea that characters have resources to "keep going" long-term without having access to all their resources at once.

 

[FourthBear]

In the 3.0e Player's Handbook, there was a brief paragraph on how a player could alter their skill names a bit to represent the flavor of their character. The player of the monk Ember might write "Rice Paper Walk" on her sheet instead of "Move Silently"; the player of Lidda the Rogue might write "Footpaddin' " when referring to that skill. That's the example he was mentioning.

Oh yes, I think I remember the Footpaddin' example. Well, perhaps it will be in 4e. If it isn't, it sounds simple enough to do in any system that doesn't involve keywords in titles.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

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.

Quoth the PHB (via http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080425a)

A power’s flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard’s magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.

So yeah, it does mention that you can rename and reimage your powers to fit your PCs

 

[Scribble]

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.

Why does "For Gondor" need to be written on my sheet in order for me to roleplay my character yelling "For Gondor!!!"

I'm pretty sure I don't need permission...

Yes, the creator of the power named it Iron Dragon Charge... That's a game thing, a way of finding it in an index. Otherwise it would be really hard to look up which UNNAMED POWER you wanted...

Again, unless that's the style of game you want to play nothing says my character screams out IRON DRAGON CHARGE! as he's riding into battle, or even knows it's a "power."

It's just a way of emulating the fact that your character has inner strength. You character is a hero. He has Moxie. Just like all the heroes in all the books. They survive because they have Moxie.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

You do have a point. 4E does seem very much like a computer program.

Your admin here. If you're going to discuss, discuss. If you're going to try to hijack the thread by making snide comments, probably best not to bother. ~ Piratecat