D&D 4E What I miss about 4e (my preferences of course)

[Savage Wombat]

Uh, couple of things...

You're missing jodyjohnson's point. It's not that the character isn't unique, it's that it's a one-trick pony. "Here's my special combo attack that I will now use over and over in every fight of every game."

 

[Storminator]

You're missing jodyjohnson's point. It's not that the character isn't unique, it's that it's a one-trick pony. "Here's my special combo attack that I will now use over and over in every fight of every game."

In every round of every fight of every game.

PS

 

[Finalattack]

That's been my issue with Next also. I like the concept of melee characters wading in to the thick of battle and actually controlling what goes on around them and having effects other than just damage. The 4E Fighter/Swordmage/Paladin/Warden/Battlemind/Warlord were finally classes with the types of abilities I'd always wanted.

Its true, you get some interesting tactical options as opposed to "run up to the monster and roll dice till someone falls down" type of combat. THis method always felt like I was defeating giant fictional creatures with math.

This concept that if everyone is special no-one is. I guess if you do something special over and over it can become boring, yes, but just 'attacking with my sword' has always been boring for me even from the first few swings.

A lot of the time I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too though. I want things to be quick, but I want lots of options. Maybe I just want other players not to take so long because they are slow at making decisions.

 

[pemerton]

I dunno. Something about that book's layout just prevents me from reading the character classes. I should give it another look.

It's an interesting game, but I don't think it's 4thfinder.

 

[pemerton]

You know, after this thread I finally understand all the comparisons of 4E to superheroes. I always thought it referred to the power level, but it doesn't.

You aren't really making a character in the traditional sense, you're making a individualized superhero. Spiderman has webshooters and spidersense. Wolverine has claws and healing factor. Each superhero is (more or less) unique in his powers.

I'd rather say an individualised adventurer. It's no more specialised than a pyromancer, a quivering palm monk or a chain-wielding fighter. Themed characters aren't exactly something untraditional.

Themed characters aren't untraditional, but at least my group I think has found it much easier to find your unique theme in 4e than in some other systems. (Rolemaster can come close for casters, with its billions of spell lists, but not so much for non-casters.)

I'm quite happy with the superhero model for 4e: it fits with the gonzo-ness; it fits with the idea that physical conflict is a pre-eminent site of conflict; it fits with the team dynamics; it fits with the idea that your allegiances aren't just personal, but locate you within a particular social situation; and as GSHamster points out, it also fits with the approach to PC build.

Somewhat tangentially, the idea that super heroes have power levels that are at odds with traditional fantasy. I've just been reading The Conquering Sword of Conan (the 3rd volume in Patrice Louinet's critical edition of REH's Conan stories) and Conan is far more overpowered than most non-cosmic superheroes!

 

[pemerton]

A lot of the time I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too though. I want things to be quick, but I want lots of options. Maybe I just want other players not to take so long because they are slow at making decisions.

I thnk there is some resemblance here to the stickers that cyclists put on their bikes: "You aren't stuck in traffic, you are the traffic."

That said, it's true that some builds are quicker than others - strikers quickest, in my experience, leaders a bit slower because of the need to check who needs the benefit of minor action healing/buffing, and controllers (which includes at least some defender builds) the fiddliest and therefore the slowest.

 

[Manbearcat]

Themed characters aren't untraditional, but at least my group I think has found it much easier to find your unique theme in 4e than in some other systems. (Rolemaster can come close for casters, with its billions of spell lists, but not so much for non-casters.)

I'm quite happy with the superhero model for 4e: it fits with the gonzo-ness; it fits with the idea that physical conflict is a pre-eminent site of conflict; it fits with the team dynamics; it fits with the idea that your allegiances aren't just personal, but locate you within a particular social situation; and as GSHamster points out, it also fits with the approach to PC build.

Somewhat tangentially, the idea that super heroes have power levels that are at odds with traditional fantasy. I've just been reading The Conquering Sword of Conan (the 3rd volume in Patrice Louinet's critical edition of REH's Conan stories) and Conan is far more overpowered than most non-cosmic superheroes!

Great post and agreed. I would just add that its broad/open-descriptor(ish) Skill System, deployable (theatrical) Dailies, and complex, non-combat conflict resolution framework (the Skill Challenge), coupled with what genre elements are advocated for (specifically in DMG2) provides a wee bit of genre malleability/trope deployment for resolving noncombat scenes; from Indiana Jones high adventure exploration components (manic escapes from crumbling ruins/edifice/chases) to Spaghetti Western tavern showdowns (heated parlays), to Hamlet-esque investigations into the veracity of the ghost and the uncovering of machinations (investigations) all the way up to epic confrontations with major demons/devils/gods!

 

[Sage Genesis]

You're missing jodyjohnson's point. It's not that the character isn't unique, it's that it's a one-trick pony. "Here's my special combo attack that I will now use over and over in every fight of every game."

I already addressed this in my post. No, he isn't a one-trick pony. He has multiple at-wills, encounters, and dailies to use. He is a pony with all the tricks you'd expect a pony to have, plus an extra one. It's important to remember that his particular slide-trip combo is an entire layer that sits on top of a perfectly functional Ranger. If he's a one-trick pony, then (nearly) every other D&D character must be a no-trick pony because they lack such a layer on top of their normal class abilities.

And just because he described what his "usual turn" looks like, doesn't mean that every turn looks like that. That's an overly exaggerated conclusion that isn't supported by the facts (and given the nature of interrupt attacks as encounter or daily powers, also strictly speaking impossible). One might as well say that a Rogue who says his "usual turn" is sneaking around and trying to find a good place to snipe someone down, now is suddenly a one-trick pony who can only sneak around over and over in every fight of every game. It's just not true.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I agree with everything Sage Genesis has said in this thread.

Variety is good. Awesome is good. Character choice is good.

However, sometimes it feels like there is a little too much "awesome" per encounter and not enough at the same time.

When I have 4-5 players bringing the "awesome" to every single round of every encounter it can get old from the DM side of the table.

Because usually when the PCs are being "awesome" it involves the monsters becoming very much "not awesome".

When player's remark that an encounter was lame or no challenge, I stand agape because their character's are often built to ensure that result.

 

[Finalattack]

I agree with everything Sage Genesis has said in this thread.

Variety is good. Awesome is good. Character choice is good.

However, sometimes it feels like there is a little too much "awesome" per encounter and not enough at the same time.

When I have 4-5 players bringing the "awesome" to every single round of every encounter it can get old from the DM side of the table.

Because usually when the PCs are being "awesome" it involves the monsters becoming very much "not awesome".

When player's remark that an encounter was lame or no challenge, I stand agape because their character's are often built to ensure that result.

I did get that same feeling when i first started running 4e. However it also passed. PCs initially surprised me and I didn't realise until several games actually how durable they could be. However monsters definitely brought it to the table with interesting things. Minotaurs who could charge and knock them prone without rolling an attack, creatures that got to a free attack everytime they missed, there were definitely challenging monsters out there. I will miss running 4e monsters as they were the most fun to run.